All right, good morning, everyone.
Welcome, can everybody hear me?
Just Anthony is very good.
All right, terrific.
Well, good morning, everyone.
I'm so sorry I can't be there.
I just want to welcome everyone
to the June 11th, 2025 meeting
of the California Coastal Commission.
This morning, I'm going to be serving as acting chair
until after the second item on our agenda today,
the election of officers.
Ms. Miller, please call the roll.
commissioner o'mally person commissioner doom lau here commissioner hard
present commissioner harman here commissioner jackson here commissioner kelly here commissioner
lopez present commissioner lowenberg here commissioner not all present
commissioner williams here commissioner wilson here you have a quorum
Okay, thank you so much Vanessa. Well, I'd like to open the meeting today by extending a warm
welcome to our three new commissioners. I can't wait to meet you in person. I'm so sorry I couldn't
be there today. Joining us today is Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez for most of each
City Council member Ray Jackson and Chula Vista City Council member Jose Preciado. We are so happy
to have you on the commission and look forward to working with you
to protect our beautiful coast. This is a challenging time
for the Coastal Commission and we so welcome your participation.
So the next item on our agenda is item two election of officers.
We'll start by taking nominations for chair and I will kick this off.
It is my honor to nominate Commissioner Megan Harmon
As chair of the Coastal Commission for term beginning immediately and ending on December 31,
2026 and I recommend a yes vote. Is there a second? Second. All right. Ms. Miller,
please call the roll. Go ahead. Excuse me. Acting Chair Hart. Yes. Typically the term ends at the
December Coastal Commission meeting, not December 31st. So, would you mind if I suggested a revision
to your motion to have that term end in December 20 at the December 2026 Coastal Commission meeting?
Of course so I'll amend my motion on the recommendation of council
that the term will be through the December 2026 Coastal Commission meeting. Is the seconder okay
with that? Okay so we could call the roll I believe. Commissioner O'Malley? Yes. O'Malley yes.
Commissioner Hart. Enthusiastic yes. Hart yes. Commissioner Harmon. With gratitude yes. Harmon
yes. Commissioner Jackson. Yes. Jackson yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly yes. Commissioner
Lopez. Yes. Lopez yes. Commissioner Lowenberg. Yes. Lowenberg yes. Commissioner not all. Aye.
Not all yes. Commissioner Wilson. For sure.
Wilson, yes, the vote is unanimous.
Well, congratulations, Chair Hermann.
Thank you very much.
I very much appreciate the confidence.
Now I would like to move to the election of our vice chair.
And if I may take my chair's prerogative to nominate Commissioner
Hart as vice chair and her term to end simultaneously with mine.
Thank you, Miss Miller.
May we have a roll call vote?
Commissioner Hart.
yes hard yes commissioner harman yes harman yes commissioner jackson aye
jackson yes commissioner kelly yes kelly yes commissioner lopez
lopez yes commissioner lowenberg yes lowenberg
yes commissioner not off i not off yes commissioner wilson yes wilson
Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley. Yes. The vote is unanimous.
Wonderful. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Chair Hart. And I think we have to ask if there's
any public comment on this item. I do believe we have one public speaker. Okay, thank you.
Yes, we're bringing them in now. Former Chair, Justin Cummings. And when you're able to,
please go ahead. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Great. This is Justin Cummings, outgoing
commissioner. I just wanted to, in the spirit of us, our outgoing commissioners making some remarks,
one just wanted to welcome the new commissioners and congratulations to Commissioner Harmon and
Commissioner Hart on the chair and vice chair. But I just wanted to say how proud it's been and how
much of an honor it's been to serve on this commission. When I first joined the commission,
I really didn't know how much the commission played a role in our coast other than, you know,
I knew that it made it had a major role in coastal protection. But after being on the commission and
serving as a commissioner, I learned, you know, just about how important it's been and how the
California coast has been shaped by the commission and by those who came before us. And it's been
an honor to serve with you all to help us not only protect our coastal resources,
but also to ensure coastal access and to ensure that everybody has access to our coast.
I really value the time that I was able to spend on the commission with you all
and reflecting just want to thank not only the commissioners for the dedication
but also the staff for their hard work and due diligence and always trying to make sure
sure that the decisions that we're making are rooted in the spirit of the Coastal Act.
And so I also want to thank the community for showing up and for always making sure
that we are acting in the best interest of the people of the state of California.
And in closing, just want to wish the best of luck to the new commissioners.
This coming year is not going to be easy and probably won't be easy for the next few years,
I just want you all to know as well that you have a great commission that you've joined.
You have a great staff that's there to support you along the way.
And so just know that the support will be there for you.
And I will just say that having served now on city councils and
many other decision making bodies, this has been probably the most respectful and
diverse body that I've ever had the privilege to serve on.
Where we were able to leave our differences at the dais.
And just want to appreciate everybody who's on here again
for their commitment to not only protecting our coast,
but to really trying to do so in a way that's
in the spirit of camaraderie and the true spirit of trying
to protect our coast.
And so in parting, I'm going to be working
on a lot of different issues.
City of Santa Cruz just passed their tobacco waste ordinance.
So when one more city gets on, we'll
be the first region in the world probably
to ban filtered tobacco products.
and we're also relaunching the local government coordination
program, which was launched in the 70s
to help combat offshore oil.
And we're going to be leading those efforts as well.
So just know that I'll be out here still fighting
for our coast and look forward to working with you all.
So thank you again.
And we'll see you when you're back in Santa Cruz.
Thank you very much.
Now I'll open the floor for comments.
Commissioner Kelly.
Thank you, Chair Harmon, and congratulations
on becoming our new chair.
I just wanted to say to our outgoing chair comings
that it has been an honor to serve alongside you.
And I appreciate so deeply your advocacy,
not just for your constituents in Santa Cruz,
but also for public access up and down the coast
and learning from you over the course
of the last several months as I've been appointed
and getting up to speed has been a true honor.
your values are so clear and apparent to anyone
who has the opportunity to work alongside you.
And I think those values are represented by, you know,
the voice of so many people in our communities
who want public access, who want low cost accommodations
to be able to visit the coast,
whether they live on the coastline or not.
And your professional expertise and knowledge
is second to none.
And so truly I look forward to having the opportunity
to work alongside you in the future.
And I will continue to look for your name in bright lights
for all of the work that you continue to do
to lift up communities, especially vulnerable communities
in rural areas, up and down the coast,
as well as our coastal communities.
You are truly a remarkable person
and your leadership is second to none.
Thank you so much for your service to our state.
Chair Hart, or Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much, Commissioner Kelly, you just said it so perfectly, Commissioner Cummings,
it was an absolute privilege to serve with you and you are an incredible chair.
You are a person that has such deep values that were always reflected by your guidance
of the commission and your votes and who you are as a person.
I say I enjoyed the time that we were in session, but I also enjoyed so much.
the time we spent getting to know each other. I agree with Commissioner Kelly. Can't wait
to see where you will go. And I very much look forward to helping and working with you
in the future. But I just wanted to share my deepest gratitude to you for your service
on the commission and for everything you do for the state of California. Thank you so
much Justin. Commissioner Nada.
I echo those point those points of appreciation but also and I also want to reiterate welcome
to our new members and I think you know it's the nature of the Coastal Commission and the
appointing system that the Coastal Act sets forth is that there is a changing cast of
characters on the commission but you know we have we are guided by the statute of the
law that the Coastal Act and how it was enacted by an initiative in the 70s and then put
into law by the legislature later.
So we have a very clear mandate and a very clear and steady, steady hand of our staff.
And I think that the combination of the law, our staff and the knowledge that the individual
commissioners bring to this which everybody brings their own perspective
but we can all come together when we look at the Coastal Act and the
constituency the people that come before us I think there's so I in that
spirit I think that that is the nature of the commission that we do have
changing commissioners but we have stability and continuity with the law and
the staff so welcome to everyone. Commissioner Wilson. Good morning and I do want to first extend
congratulations and knocking dolenses but you know to the new commissioners in terms of just
it's a life change there's a lot of work ahead these meetings are are are long and they take
a big part of time and I want to recognize the we have three new commissioners that are
from local government. And local government plays a strong role in helping provide perspective
in all of these issues. But then also, it's important for us all to remember we're representing
everybody in the state of California, whether they're from Modoc County or from Fresno or
wherever they may be from. And that's actually the fun of this job. And I'm just so excited
that we have a multitude of perspectives on this commission
that just really make it work well.
It takes a lot of different perspectives
to fundamentally make the coastal act work for everybody.
And to Justin, man, I'm going to miss you, buddy.
It's been an adventure having you on the commission,
for sure, both on the commission and the times outside the commission has also been amazing.
I want to say it's important that commissioners, in my mind at least, we get along on the dais,
but it's also important that as human beings we get, we can relate and work together.
And so for me, getting those experiences has been important.
And I want to say, Justin has been someone who's brought just an amazing, great perspective
as a scientist, it's been wonderful having a biologist on the dais that's been amazing.
Someone who comes from a community that's being heavily impacted from housing issues
and that perspective has been great to have.
And then just having someone who's just quite frankly open, authentic, and just a good person
to be around.
And so, thanks Justin, I really appreciate that.
I will make efforts to, extra efforts to get through Santa Cruz as much as possible and
look forward to seeing you in all the other functions and ways that we will connect.
So thank you, Justin and thank you, Paloma too.
I know she was, we kind of did that at the last meeting, but I want to be mindful that
we had some big changes and thank you, Roberta as well.
Thanks, guys.
Thank you.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Cummings, I haven't met you, but I've watched enough of you on YouTube
tube to feel like I do know you.
Certainly impressive.
First thing I said is, man, that's one smart dude.
Wow.
And my kids loved your hair.
So thank you for your service.
You led with character and integrity.
And that was visible to the new guy.
So thank you.
And I will certainly be looking you up
when I visit Santa Cruz, or actually before.
So I look forward to meeting you and getting to know you.
I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the Senate Rules Committee and Senate President
Pro Tem Mike McGuire for this appointment.
I am truly humbled by their consideration and confidence.
I'd also like to thank Senator Ben Allen and L.A. County Supervisor Holly Mitchell for
their support.
It is truly an honor for a guy like me to represent Hermosa Beach, the South Bay, and
the broader South Coast region in the vital mission of supporting the California Coastal
Commission. I was mentioning this to my fellow new guy. I've been blown away and
just so impressed by the dedicated professionals at the Commission who show
up for work every day, not for the money, but for the love of the mission. And the
true chance to make a difference. As I've said before, the passion is palpable and
it has gotten me even more excited to work with you all. And to my new
colleagues, wow, I started googling you this morning.
I was like, man, this is an impressive group.
So I am humbled to be sitting with you all.
Look forward to getting to know you.
Look forward to getting to tap into your font of knowledge
as we do the people's work, so thank you.
Thank you very much.
Well, gosh, there's not much more
that I can say about Justin that has not already been said.
But I will just note that it is pretty incredible
to have a person whose intellect is matched in kindness
in the way that Justin's is.
And I think that was particularly
apparent over the last year in the way
that he chaired these meetings and something
that I will strive to emulate.
When I came on the Coastal Commission,
I knew that I would learn a lot about the Coastal Act.
I didn't know that I would learn so much
about true authentic leadership.
And Justin was the perfect example of that.
So I wanted to express my gratitude.
Also to, as my fellow commissioners have done,
just extend the warmest of welcomes
to our new commissioners, Jackson, Lopez, and Braciato.
It is a wild ride, but a lot of fun, a lot to learn.
And we are very excited to have you here.
Finally, thank you to my fellow commissioners
for your support.
You have my whole hearted focus on this commission
and I'm very excited to dig in
and specifically thank you to Vice Chair Hart.
Would not be able to do this without her.
So with that, we will move on
to the next housekeeping item for the day,
which is item three, remote participation.
Pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Act,
I'm asking for consideration and action
to allow Vice Chair Hart to participate remotely
in this June 2025 Commission meeting
due to a need related to physical disability.
Are there any public comments on this item?
Seeing no public comments,
I'm asking for a motion and a second.
Second.
I will first.
First.
First.
A motion by Commissioner Lowenberg
and a second by Lopez.
Perfect.
have a roll call vote as well.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes, and if I could just make a brief statement
that I did have a knee replacement.
I don't think that has to be a secret.
And I just want to warn you all that when
I see you all next month with my new knee in full form, watch out.
And thank you so much for the consideration
for allowing full participation in the meeting
in the next three days.
Thank you.
Any yes on the motion?
Heart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Lowenberg, yes.
Commissioner Notoff.
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is unanimous. Thank you. Barely skated by
their vice chair. Okay so next we'll move to the virtual meeting procedures.
Good morning. This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and
through zoom. This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at
cal-span.org. If you have access to the Internet and wish to watch or listen to
the meeting only and not speak on an item we recommend use the CalSPAN website.
Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person through the
Zoom platform or by phone. The speaker request forms may be found on the
Commission's webpage. Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless
submittal are available on the Commission staff table just outside the
meeting room. For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on
Commission's agenda webpage, which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public general public comments may be given up
to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. Requests to speak during the general
public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation,
you may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comment
are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a particular item up until the chair opens the hearing on that item.
If you have access to the Internet, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have Internet access or prefer to testify by phone,
please call the Commission staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number
and instructions for how to participate and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the Commission the organizer will invite you to turn on your video and microphone
Or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone
Madam chair that concludes the virtual hearing procedures
Thank you very much. Um, may I ask if there are any agenda changes for today?
Do you miss we're on the same wavelength mister. Thank you. I was looking at those changes
Good morning
Commissioners and first I would like to offer my congratulations chair Harmon and vice chair Hart and good morning to all commissioners
I will now go over those agenda changes first item 13a as the county of Santa Barbara
LCP amendment for the housing element update and rezoning and that is a time extension only that item is moved to consent
item 14a
The Ventura County Channel Islands Harbor Public Works Plan notice of impending development
It's titled the Kitty Beach guardrail that item is also moved to consent
Item 15a that's the CDP application by the California Department of State Parks
That item is moved to consent
item 16a
The CDP amendment application by VIA Escondido Holdings LLC and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority
That item is postponed
item 19a
That is the application by the City of Los Angeles
that item is postponed and
Likewise item 19b and 20a which are related items to item 19a all
applications by the City of Los Angeles those items are also postponed so that's items 19 a b and 20 a all postponed
That concludes the changes to today's agenda that does bring us back to item 6 general public comment
And with that I'll turn the mic back over to you Madam Chair
Thank You mr. Hudson speak in public comment, please
Madam Chair we have a total of
30 speakers we have
attending in person and we have a total of 15 on Zoom. All right for members of
the public I will be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and
invite you to speak when it's your turn. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes
during general public comments in order to allow for live video testimony on
Zoom. We will be giving you, we'll bring you up, bring you in as panelists as we
bring you in. Your zoom will reload. This may take a moment to speed up this
process. We will bring several people in at a time but please remain muted and
keep your video off until we ask you to speak. After your time is up you will be
moved back to attendee mode. For members of the public present in the room I
will call your name in order that they appear or sign up list. When you hear your
name please line up behind the podium and announce yourself with your name when
you approach to speak.
Several helpful tips.
There is a raise hand function that will help us find you
in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio,
you can raise your hand by dialing star nine.
If you are participating by Zoom,
you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item
and are able to do so, please raise your hand now.
When it is your time to speak,
we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on the phone by dialing star six.
Please remember to state your name for the records.
Mitch Silverstone, Jim Jeffy, Udu-Won.
Please come up to the podium.
We have a presentation, her visual aid, excuse me.
Yeah, Sir Prider Visual Aid.
Chair Harmon now, right?
We're just calling up your presentation today.
I don't want that timer to start.
There we go.
Thank you.
OK.
Ready to rock.
Go ahead.
And we can go to the next slide already.
Chair Harmon, honorable commissioners, my name is Mitch Silverstein, senior San Diego policy
coordinator for ServFighter Foundation.
From myself and behalf of our local chapters, 4,000 local members, I'd like to welcome you
all to San Diego and offer a warm welcome to our newly appointed Commissioners Lopez,
Jackson and Presiado. Thank you all so much for your service to the California coast.
Our chapter represents boots on the ground towards the realization of our mission, which
is protection and enjoyment of the world's ocean waves and beaches for all people. Several
surf rider activists will be speaking after me on San Diego issues we're following. Next
slide. Our mission includes not only protection but enjoyment of our coast which aligns with
Coastal Act's explicit mandate for maximum public access. Beach access is core to our mission.
Without access there's no enjoyment and without enjoyment there's no protection because as human
beings we protect what we know and love. Next slide. On that note I want to highlight a local
public access violation that exemplifies where our work aligns. Mr. Levy's Carlsbad property is
beach and Laguna Jason and thanks to the Coastal Act he accepted open space and public access
easements in order to build a home here. But as the photos show Mr. Levy is
consistently and illegally block barred public access to the easement which
leads to a path to the beach along the Buena Vista Lagoon. Next slide. The image
on the left is from Carl's the City of Carlsbad's trail map website. I added
X's to show where Mr. Levy has blocked public access. Sadly when you click the
city's link to the north beach trail a photo of his locked gate comes up which
is the photo on the bottom there. Meanwhile the gate to the trail along the lagoon is
locked and completely overgrown. I'd like to thank enforcement staff for their attention
to this public trust violation. Please know that our chapter is working diligently to
put pressure on the City of Carlsbad to act as well as raising public awareness of this
matter. Long live the public trust doctrine and long live the coastal act.
Next slide please. Good morning my name is Jim Jaffe and I am the co-lead of the beach
Preservation Committee of the San Diego County Chapter of the Surfrider
Foundation. Next slide please. This morning I want to bring to your
attention a serious issue we are having in our
lagoons in the vicinity of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sand Project
that completed in 2024. The San Elia Lagoon has been blocked
periodically and presently since September 2024.
The San Diego Lagoon, San Diego Lagoon is nearly blocked now.
The blockage may be caused by the placement of sand
under federal consistency determination CD 0203-13.
And when the lagoon is closed, it causes fish kills
and other negative impacts.
Can you go to the next slide, please?
Specifically, the consistency determination requires
that, quote, lagoon entrance monitoring will focus
on the condition of three lagoon entrances
in the ocean side littoral cell, unquote.
And these include San Alio and San Yigito and others.
Next slide.
In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers' own EIR and EIS
for this project states that dredging, quote,
dredging for additional lagoon sedimentation will be conducted
should the project result in closure or restriction
to lagoon entrances, unquote, the day is here.
We have closed lagoons, we have fish kills.
When the lagoons open, contaminated water comes out,
people can't surf at these lagoon mounts
which are very surfed in this area.
So, what we're asking you to do is to take direction to make sure
that the conditions of the federal consistency determination
and the EIR are met and these lagoons are kept open.
and this is a 50-year project, so it's going to be a while.
Thank you.
Next slide, please.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Dr. Udo Juan.
I have been a Surf Rider member for over three decades
and currently serve as the Vice Chair
of this chapter in San Diego.
I have lived in the impact zone
of sand egg bluff stabilization, namely in Del Mar.
I lived there for 42 years and frequent the beach
and bluffs almost daily. There are over a million visitors to Del Mar beaches each year.
Zandak committed to relocating the train off the Del Mar bluffs during a 2022 federal consistency
hearing and had worked diligently towards that call until recently. Their updated notice
of preparation no longer includes the stated goal of their first NOP, which included relocating
the existing railroad tracks. Instead, they updated their NOP, include studying an option
to keep the train in place by trenching deep into the eroding bluffs and stabilizing a
full two-mile stretch with seawalls and other armoring.
This would be illegal and unacceptable.
Trenching and double-tracking on the tracks on the bluff would violate the Coastal Act
Section 3025-3B, which requires that new development not contribute significantly to erosion, nor
require shoreline protective devices that substantially alter natural landforms along
bluffs.
This development wouldn't just alter the bluffs, it would destroy them completely.
The seawalls would lead to the permanent loss of two mile stretch of pristine beach and
coastline.
This option is against the Coastal Act and it goes against everything SANDEC had previously
committed to both in front of the Commission and in various public reports and meetings
over several years.
Please don't let our beaches get sacrificed. The Surf Crater Foundation would like to express
our sincere gratitude for your supporting consistency for Phase 5 and enforcing the
Coastal Act. This despite great damage to the bluff and the beaches. Thank you. Next
we have Analicia Tripp, Nate Gerard, Maya Crow, Shushia Rhea. Please come out to the
podium please. Next slide please. Good morning commissioners. My name is
Annalicia Tripp. I would like to start with thanking the enforcement division
of the Commission for requiring plastic reduction programs for hotels and
campgrounds that violate the Coastal Act. I'm a co-lead for the Ocean Friendly
Restaurants Program through Surf Rider. We recognize restaurants committed to
cutting out wasteful single use plastic and offer a straightforward framework to
help them make sustainable choices for our ocean. The program works to support
outreach to empower restaurants towards more sustainable practices. I also lead
as a site captain for our local ocean beach cleanup held once a month. When
collecting items from our beach cleanups, I've observed that single
use plastic waste tops the list of items volunteers collect monthly. This pollution
impacts our marine ecosystems and wildlife including seabirds, dolphins, fish, turtles
and whales. It's not just ocean life at stake. Plastic contains toxic chemicals that can
transfer from containers, cups, cutlery and straws directly into the food we eat. In my
daily job, I'm a restaurant manager at Mitch's Seafood. Learning about this
program and joining as an ocean-friendly restaurant has shaped our business to
become more sustainable with reducing our daily waste and eco footprint with
guidance and following the criterion of eliminating single waste plastics. The
larger our network of ocean-friendly
leaders grows the more mainstream the concept of plastic free becomes.
At this point San Diego has 95 ocean friendly restaurants and three ocean friendly hotels
that are committed to creating a more sustainable environment.
Your plastic reduction programs go a long way to protect our coast from plastics and
we look forward to your support in exploring partnerships with our ocean family program.
Thank you.
Good morning, thanks.
So my name is Nat Giro, I live here in San Diego, just a couple miles over the hill.
My next, oh yeah, thank you.
Next slide.
Yeah, so my comment is about emergency permits for seawalls and armoring which are increasingly
being used here in San Diego to circumvent important coastal regulations in San Diego
coastal neighborhoods.
So just back as recently as March of this year, a property on Calumet Avenue in San
Diego's Bird Rock neighborhood applied for an emergency permit for a seawall and that
was the third one this year following on emergency seawall permits in 2010 and 2017.
This is increasingly being used and the engineering firm handling this work has said that this
probably won't be the only residence on Calumet to do this in the near future.
As these hot spots are increasing, these emergency permit hot spots are increasing, Calumet
Avenue is a great example, but Ocean Beach, North Sunset Cliffs, really up and down the
San Diego coast.
We're going to be seeing more of this.
Meanwhile, new seawall, every new seawall actually speeds erosion and increases erosion
on either side of it, increasing the risk to its neighbors.
Ironically, as these oceanfront properties expand and apply for permits, this actually
increases the value, the dollar value of these properties at risk.
So we can't continue to pretend that these emergencies are unexpected.
We see this coming, right?
is on the wall. We're living on a coast that's eroding. Increased storms and
increased erosion are in the forecast, but these property
improvements and expansions continue to be approved. So this is the time now to
start planning for the inevitable. We should begin discussions now to stop
these property improvements and expansions and begin talking about
downsizing or moving properties back off of the bluff for the protection of the
properties and also to protect our coasts and beaches.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Maya, and I'm a volunteer
for the San Diego chapter of Surf Rider
for the Climate Action Cohort.
Next slide, please.
I'm concerned about the Tijuana River pollution crisis
because this is the most significant ongoing health crisis
in our state and continues to get worse every day.
Impacted communities are suffering daily
from chronic exposure to toxic air and water contamination.
This issue not only impacts surfers and swimmers,
but also the aerosolized pollution
reaches families and businesses by the shore and main river
channel.
Water quality samples from the area
are not only finding E. coli, but also lead
and other hazardous contaminants from the US-based factories
located across the Mexican border.
South San Diego is experiencing widespread decreases
tourism, business closures, and decreases in property values due to the ongoing health crisis.
If we do not address this issue with the importance it deserves, it will only be harder to contain in
the future. I'd like to thank the commission and especially Imperial Beach Mayor Aguirre for your
leadership, ongoing attention to this issue, and the supportive letters they wrote to the
Biden administration and the governor's office asking for emergency declaration.
Commissioner Aguirre brought much needed focus on this issue and we're sad to see her go.
However, we're excited to welcome Commissioner Preciado and we're thankful to see that the South
Bay is still represented on the commission. We're hopeful that you will be a strong voice
for environmental justice along our troubled South San Diego coastlines.
Please continue to stay invested in this issue and use your voice and influence towards achieving
immediate relief, substantial investment, and a permanent solution to this ongoing
environmental disaster. I'm next is Trisha Rieha, Kristin Northrow,
Diane Wolf. I come from La Jolla Shores and I've presented before to you all
about and and you all wrote with Alexander Uramdi and LCP for that area.
Do you want me to tell you which LCP it is or do you have it? If I wrote it in my
notes to you all that I was going to speak about this LCP. Please go ahead.
It's lcp6-san-21-0091-3 and he wrote the opinion in 2022 that any
beach impact area is to replace the parking that they've taken out of the
street so we're missing 26 parking spots and nothing has been enforced there's no no new parking
it's the street avenue de la playa which is access but it's still closed and i have no updates from
the city and i'm wondering i'm just going to ask you can you enforce your own lcp with the city
that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Kristin Northrup, Diane Wokey, Carol Karich, Scott Andrews,
Steve Ray, and Yehudi Goffin. All right. Good morning commissioners. My name is Kristin Northrup
and I'm here as policy advocate on behalf of Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation,
also known as SERF. SeaWorld holds up to 150 firework shows each year, often nightly during the
summer launched directly over Mission Bay and Fiesta Island. These shows ranging from 6 to 20
minutes long use an estimated of 557,750 shells annually and leave behind chemically laced debris
like cardboard, plastic, foil, and wires. Wires have been found entangled in the seagrass beneath
the launch barge and other debris has washed ashore. According to the regional permit data,
SeaWorld collects only about 25% of the firework material by weight after large events like
July 4th. And that's only just from one show. This raises serious concerns about the effectiveness
of their cleanup efforts. Lee's Turns, a federally endangered seabird nests along the shores of
Mission Bay, including near Fiesta Island. They are extremely sensitive to loud noise
and disturbance during breeding season. Fireworks can cause adults to abandon nests or chicks,
leading to failed nesting and putting this vulnerable species at even greater risk.
SeaWorld presents itself as a conservation steward and with that role comes a responsibility to minimize impacts on the surrounding environment.
Frequent fire for our work shows near sensitive habitat areas raise serious concerns
and appear to contradict SeaWorld's own mission statement.
The SeaWorld master plan should prohibit excessive fireworks and ban any displays from Fiesta Island near the turns.
Protecting wildlife, preserving water quality, and safeguarding public health must remain top priorities.
thank you for your time. I have a point okay. Good morning I'm Diane Wolkie
board of directors for safe healthy playing fields Inc. We asked the
Commission to develop and publicly post on its website written policies
regarding synthetic turf and playground surfacing. School boards and cities are
contracting with consulting agencies who are advising them that they are in
condition in consultation with the Commission to allow synthetic turf in
the coastal permit zone. I received a call just the other day from such a
person saying that they were talking to the Commission about installation of
synthetic turf at a school and an elementary school grades two to four in
Hermosa Beach. We're asking for the third time with the Commission convene at
workshop on plastics. This received support for from commissioners in the
past slide. This is an image at Marina Beach Park in Ventura. The image, it's
showing one of several areas of colored used tire crumbs
surfacing and the new playground structure in the background. This is
toxic and carcinogenic material for humans, avian, wild and aquatic species.
Next, synthetic turf blades have been found to constitute 12 to 15 and more
of microplastics and waterways and oceans.
They leach and adsorb toxic chemicals and bacteria.
The top two photos are from a three month old field
in San Jose.
The photo on the right shows synthetic turf blades in a drain
from that same field multiple yards away
from the field itself.
This manufacturer is actively seeking contracts
for entire cities and boards
of education including the Hermosa Beach School.
The photo on the bottom left is from a one
and a half year old field.
The project next.
Synthetic turf is not recyclable.
The synthetic turf industry uses proprietary labs,
uses inappropriate methods for testing for PFAS,
reports PFAS in parts per billion
instead of parts per trillion.
Thank you.
Please develop policies.
I'm not sure I'm next.
Yes, Carol Carridge, Scott Andrews, Steve Ray.
Good morning, commissioners.
I'm Carol Carridge from Del Mar.
I understand that SANDEG's NOP
for the low sand realignment project
includes a review of tunnel safety
across all proposed routes.
However, I'm deeply concerned
that the cumulative geological and environmental risk
to the Del Mar hillside
may not be fully appreciated in this process.
Local geologists have told us that our coastal hillsides
consists mostly of sedimentary or softer rock with denser harder rock found much deeper
below. These sedimentary layers are already vulnerable and becoming more so due to increased
erosion runoff and changes in rainfall patterns. In recent years, several mudslides have occurred
in these areas and residents have also reported sinkholes and flooding on their properties
during and after heavy storms.
These are not isolated incidents.
They are growing signs of instability.
Given this fragile geology, how will our hillsides safely
support the proposed volume and weight of train traffic?
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, each
freight train engine weighs between 200 and 240 tons.
Empty freight cars weigh another 25 to 30 tons each.
If the Department of Defense moves military equipment,
as mentioned in their project discussions,
each tank supported could weigh
approximately 60 to 74 tons.
With multiple cars,
the total load becomes an extraordinary stressor
on ground that was never designed
to support this level of vibration, weight, and frequency,
up to 111 trips per 24-hour period.
11 of these trips are freight.
Our community safety and integrity of our environment
must be protected.
Thank you.
Thank you, Nexus Scott Andrews,
Steve Ray, Yohundee Gaffin.
Please come to the podium.
Good morning, Scott Andrews,
and save our access condolences as applicable.
Maybe it's better be sworn in than sworn at.
I don't know, you'll find out.
I'm here about the Port of San Diego.
They are basically a rogue port.
They're redeveloping the whole bay.
Multi-billion dollars worth of redevelopment.
I'm gonna now focus on the city of San Diego where we are.
As you know, both islands are filled with hotels and marinas.
Both Embarcadero's downtown are being walled off by hotels,
by high-rise, this is what they're up to.
What they owe us in their LCP, their Port Master Plan,
is a major park and three public piers.
We're getting one public pier according to them.
So that's kind of what's up.
This issue will be coming to you hopefully
in the near future, maybe in a year or two,
but they're basically bulldozing.
Now there are three beneficiaries, and I'll finish up.
The three beneficiaries are, of course, the hoteliers.
They're also certain port commissioners
who work for bay developers.
In fact, some of the major planning,
The whole Chula Vista Bayfront, which is 500 acres, that contract to plan that went to
a bay developer.
So this is kind of what's up as far as how they're conceding the resource, if you will.
The last beneficiary I'll mention is China.
The four largest contracts have been left to China.
they're probably going to end up, they have two hotels up now across the street from the Navy
headquarters. They have an option on a third which is a Navy property. So that's what's up.
Thanks for your time. Good luck. Thank you. Next is Steve Ray, your honey gaffin. Those are the last
two for in person and then after that we'll go to zoom. So Ellen Boakin, Andrew Johnson and John
Davis. Please raise your hand in the Zoom. Well good morning Madam Chair,
commissioners, to your great staff. There are other staff over here that's equally
as important and to the members of the public out there. First of all I want to
congratulate the new chair and the new vice chair. I have you know that I won
the betting pool. So that's good. Thank you very much for that. And I want to
Thank you for the work you've done, but I also want to thank former chair and the former
vice chair because the very dynamic Justin Cummings, the passionate Paloma Giri, and
the beloved Roberto Oringa that the three new commissioners are all replacing.
We want to welcome you to the commission, Commissioner Preciado, Commissioner Lopez,
Commissioner Jackson or should I call you Colonel Jackson sir. We look forward
to working with you get to know you there's a great deal of public interest
and a great number of public members that come here and that can are willing
to help you and your great staff as you muddle through all of these things that
you're going to be dealing with. So we stand ready to help and assist and look
forward to meeting with you and working with all of you and finally to Vice
Chair Hart out there. I know you're dealing with mobility issues. If you would
like a little advice on how to deal with it, I have 54 years of experience. I can
give you a few tips. Just call me. Thank you very much and good luck commissioners.
Thank you. Next is Yehudi Gaffin. Members of the Commission staff, good morning. My name is
Yehudi Gaffin. People call me Gaff. I am the CEO of One Highway One, which is the
developer of the proposed Seaport San Diego project, which is a
redevelopment of the existing Seaport Village. Seaport San Diego is a
transformative project with hotels and aquarium and event center and over 17
acres of public open space, including parks and urban beach and a living shoreline.
The project is currently undergoing environmental review by the port, who are the lead agency
for CEQA.
We also anticipate certification as an environmental leadership development project, ELDP, which
signifies a project that must meet very stringent environmental standards, including lead gold,
equivalent and a commitment to a net zero new GHD emissions.
Our team had the pleasure of meeting with your staff
yesterday to share more about our project,
including a walking tour and to hear feedback from staff.
This early feedback is extremely important to us
as we move forward through the CEQA process.
Ultimately, the SEAPORT project will come before
the Coastal Commission in the form of
a Port Master Plan amendment, Coastal Development Permits
for the project will be issued by the Port of San Diego
but are appealable to this Commission.
The timelines and process associated
with the Coastal Commission are uncertain at this time.
Today, you may be hearing more about SB 675
authored by Senator Steve Padilla.
It addresses this issue by providing time certainty
around our project as we go through the process.
The project will not get any substantive shortcuts.
The full EIR is still being prepared for the project
and will be circulated for public comment.
Coastal Commission will still have the opportunity
to review and approve.
Our team looks forward to continuing to engage
in a positive and productive manner with your staff
and appreciate their time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Eileen Bochen.
I've allowed you to talk.
Go ahead and unmute yourself, please.
Eileen Bochen, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods,
speaking on my new behalf.
At yesterday's meeting of the State Ocean Protection Council,
during general public comment, the issue of new Department
of Interior leases for oil and gas drilling
on the continental shelf came up.
What is unusual is that these new leases
could include protected areas,
such as national marine sanctuaries.
Secretary Croft stated that the Ocean Protection Council
would submit an opposition letter based on a position
that the council had taken in 2018.
For these new oil and gas leases,
the deadline for written comment is this Monday, June 16th.
If the Coastal Commission has not already done so,
I would strongly urge the Coastal Commission
to follow the lead of the Ocean Protection Council
and take a position to oppose these new leases
submit a letter of opposition to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in the Department of the
Interior by Monday, June 16th. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Andrew Johnson.
If you can unmute yourself. There we go. Good morning Chair Harmon and Commissioners. My name
is Andrew Johnson. I represent Defenders of Wildlife and our 2.1 million members and supporters
nationwide more than 300,000 of whom reside in California. Defenders urges the commission to
remain strong against future pipeline repair work by Sable Offshore in clear violation of the Coastal
Act now proceeding in court as Sable Offshore Corp and Pacific Pipeline Company v. California
Coastal Commission. Also as you know and as the prior speaker mentioned the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management has requested public comments on its plans to develop the 11th National Outer Continental
shelf oil and gas leasing program by Monday, June 16.
As articulated by the Trump administration, this program would seek energy dominance rather
than energy sustainability.
This conception represents an affront to the people of California who wish to protect and
restore our damaged coastline and marine environment.
I've seen firsthand the horrifying impacts of petroleum spills on sea otters, seals and
sea lions, whales and dolphins, sea birds, other wildlife, and fragile coastal ecosystems.
We face a federal administration that prizes short-term economic gain over long-term ecological
resilience and climate stability.
Politicians willing to sell their souls to exploit natural resources at all costs should
not dictate to California and the overwhelming majority of Californians who oppose offshore
drilling.
Defenders of Wildlife encourages the Commission to submit comments to the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management stating its strongest opposition to federal actions that would encourage drilling
along California's outer continental shelf, and use the full might of the coastal act
to resist future development of oil and gas infrastructure through state waters and along
the coastline. Thank you.
Thank you. Up next is John Davis, followed by Mandy Sackett, followed by Rita Weiss,
followed by Johnny Fisher Sears. John Davis, if you can unmute yourself. John, can you
unmute yourself?
This is John Davis. I'm here to speak on public comments. I'll be as brief as
possible. I welcome the new Honorable Chair, Vice Chair, and Distinguished
Commissioners. The Commission staff has reported and continues to report to this
Commission that a project proposed by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife named the Biono Wetlands Restoration Project is
still active. The fact is the project was defeated in a court of law and this
commission and staff should acknowledge and respect that fact. Chapter 3 calls for the
rule of law. The question is why this commission continually accepts this blatant lie when
it knows the truth. Staff's repetition of the lie does not equal truth. It diminishes
the credibility of this commission to blindly accept it. The commission approved a three-part
interdependent flood control project for a Pleida entity named Pleia Vista or Plei Capital
LLC. The first and second parts of the project were built. The second was used amistically
called the Freshwater Marsh Project. The fact is it drains state-owned groundwater through
an underground pipe to the sea with no benefit to the public. The third part, a massive flood
control basin was never completed yet required that what remained of the wetlands to be destroyed
and replaced with a gargantuan hole to support the commercial projects needs on public land.
That's an unconstitutional gift of public funds. This is what your staff wants. This is why they
continue to lie to the commission. The question remains why does this commission continue to
support this lie is true. I would request that the honorable chair ask staff what the current
legal status of the Bioda Wetlands Restoration Project is, and I would welcome any of your
questions. Thank you. Thank you, I'm next is Mandy Sackett, if you can unmute yourself please.
Followed by Rita Wise, Jody Fisher, Suzanne Simon. Hello, I have a PowerPoint presentation.
Okay, give us one second, I'll be uploading soon. Okay, we're good. Okay. Hi everyone,
I'm Mandy Sackett with the Surfrider Foundation at our headquarters office.
Welcome Commissioners Presiado, Lopez and Jackson. We are really thrilled to be working with you on
protecting the California coast. Today I want to talk about why seawalls are such a serious issue
to the California coast and why your leadership matters now more than ever. Next slide. So this
This image shows the problem really clearly.
Seawalls don't save beaches, they actually kill them.
By locking the back of the beach in place, seawalls accelerate erosion and literally
squeeze the beach out of existence as sea levels rise over time, and that's kind of
shown on the right.
Next slide.
So, we've seen it happen up and down the coast, Solana Beach, Ocean Beach, Capistrano, even
parts of Surfers Point in Ventura County before restoration. And these aren't just places. They're
public resources and they're disappearing on our watch. Next slide. This photo shows Monterey Bay
where a seawall was causing beach erosion. It's since been removed, but without intervention,
rising seas will push the shoreline landlord, but seawalls prevent that natural migration. So over
time the beach will vanish. And as you can see here, the armored beaches on either side of the
sea wall remain. Next slide. But there is good news. Managed retreat, dune restoration. We have
tools that work at Surfers Point in Ventura. The community relocated infrastructure, restored dunes,
and saving both the beach and the beloved surf break. And these are kinds of projects that we
would like to replicate statewide. This is already in coastal commission policy. principle 12 of your
sea level rise guidance directs agencies to avoid expanding shoreline armoring and instead maximizing
natural shoreline processes. Next slide. Too often we see that emergencies are used to justify permanent
sea walls. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Rita Wise. Rita, if you can unmute yourself.
Rita Wise, my statement today involves CD000124 on Hollywood Beach. Hollywood
Beach has remained free and open, allowing it to retain its natural and unspoiled beauty.
The installation of permanent post ropes and signage has threatened to alter the open natural
character of Hollywood Beach and detracts from the aesthetics that make it so special.
For generations, this beach has been a space for relaxation, recreation, and connection
to nature, all of which are threatened by the introduction of permanent visible barriers.
Permanent ropes and posts will disrupt the open, accessible feel of the beach, creating
obstructions and dividing the land in unnatural ways.
Furthermore, the signage will create institutionalized atmosphere reminding visitors of restrictions
instead of providing truly unimpeded and free beach experience.
The Oxnard visitor's guide states, if you're searching for a California classic golden
beach dunes and pristine weather, look no further than Hollywood Beach.
It's a must-visit destination, Oxnard.
In the letter dated December 2nd, 2022 regarding ND 4222, it states, and I quote, USAC proposed
to develop and implement a plan to restore up to 13.47 acres of coastal fordoon habitat
within 10 miles of the project area.
USAC staff have committed to work closely with Coastal Commission and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services staff on the development and the restoration plan and identification
of appropriate restoration sites.
The Protect Hollywood Beach HOA represents the reached out to Coastal Commission Ventura
Count officials and the Army Corps of POC for this project.
No one in any of these agencies could provide any sites that were considered for this project
except Hollywood Beach.
One of the property owners or local businesses in the immediate vicinity received any prior
public or written or verbal notice about this project when it was before the Coastal Commission
in 2024.
McGrath State Beach and Ormond Beach are two examples of alternate sites which would be
a better fit for this project.
The residency committees deserve to keep their historical significant classic Golden Beach
in the same state as been.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commission, for your time today.
Thank you.
We have about nine speakers left.
Up next is Jodie Fisher-Sier, followed by Susan Simon, followed by Patricia McPherson,
followed by Lydia Ponce.
Please put your hands up in Zoom so we can move you to panelists.
Jodie, if you can unmute yourself.
I just did.
I'm ready when you are.
Perfect.
Ready for you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Chair Commissioners, thank you.
My name is Jodie Fisher-Sierl, and I'm here to speak about CD001-24.
I am not an activist but a homeowner that has been fortunate enough to call Hollywood
Beach home for 20 years.
The Protect Hollywood Beach Homeowners Association owns the parcel and sand in front of our homes
from the 3,000 blocks to the 3,300 block of Ocean Drive in front of the dredging site.
The Harvard Department reached out to me on behalf of the Army Corps in July 2023 to discuss
a Dune project with our HOA.
I accepted their request and followed up twice to set up the meeting.
The Army Corps never responded and the meeting did not take place.
The CD package that was submitted to you incorrectly claimed that our property was owned by the
County of Ventura.
The Army Corps acknowledges they omitted our ownership when they submitted the paperwork
to the Coastal Commission.
None of the property owners in the immediate vicinity received any public notice regarding
the fencing or chemical spraying when this was brought before you in May of 2024.
RHOA was unaware of the project details until April 2025.
Both the Army Corps and Coastal Commission have confirmed this project can be moved within
10 miles of the dredging site.
There are several uninhabited stretches of beach within the ten-mile zone that would
be a better fit for all concerned.
If we had been allowed to participate in the initial hearing when the decision to approve
this project had been made, we believe the decision by your committee would have generated
a different outcome.
I wanted to bring this to your attention and ask that you work with us to help resolve
the matter.
I have been working with Congresswoman Brownlee's office and other local officials to help us
with this issue.
Since May 6, 2025, I have personally met with the Army Corps on two occasions as the representative
of the HOA. The Army Corps has promised to schedule a community meeting but we respectfully
submit this meeting cannot be productive without the joint participation from the Coastal Commission.
We are asking that this project be reconsidered and allow the 1,354 community members that
have signed our petition to be allowed to participate in this process. We are asking
for your support in helping to maintain the community's access to our special beach. I
thank you for your time.
you. Next is Susan Simon followed by Patricia McPherson followed by Lydia Ponce followed by Kathy
Knight. Susan Simon, can you please unmute yourself? I have, thank you. Thank you. Good morning
commissioners, my name is Susan Simon, co-chair of the San Diego's Embarcadero Coalition. I'm
taking this opportunity to speak to you today regarding State Senate Bill 675. This bill was
somewhat misleading as it mentions streamlining, as in streamlining the CEQA process. However,
However, it makes no changes to the CEQA process, and it should not make any changes to the
Coastal Act.
The only thing it should do is provide for judicial streamlining during review to ensure
projects don't languish in the courts when challenged, just as was done with CEQA several
years ago.
It should not hamstring or limit a thorough review of a proposed project's conformance
to the Coastal Act.
That would very much be to Californian's detriment.
The Embarcadero Coalition is working on making that distinction and have been proactively
engaging state senators and assembly members. We are against SB 675 as written. We would like
the Coastal Commission to take a stand on this proposal legislation. Meanwhile, we appreciate
all the hard work the Commission staff has done to make changes thus far. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Nexus. Patricia McPherson, if you can unmute yourself.
Hi, Patricia McPherson, can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Yes. Hi, good morning commissioners.
Patricia McPherson grassroots coalition. I would like to bring your attention to the fact that
Bionna Wetlands is acknowledged as a groundwater dependent ecosystem by the Department of Water
Resources under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. So we request your support
in preventing harm to the fresh waters of Bionna and to manage the fresh waters of Bionna in a
beneficial way. Grassroots supports the comments just made by John Davis. We do
have concerns about the CDP from the Coastal Commission for the freshwater
marsh system. There are issues with it. We have outgassing of oil field gases in
the freshwater marsh from Playa Vista's poorly abandoned oil well that have
staff has been provided a great deal of information as have commissioners that
been around for the past eight years at least and I would also like to draw your attention to the
concerns of saltwater and toxic water intrusion from the Biona channel into Biona wetlands via
the main drain that I've provided just this morning. Another email from Somis the consultants
for Playa Vista that are aware of this condition occurring on a regular basis and I've also
provided it again to staff. So we are very concerned about the oil field gas issues here.
We know from the city's former expert exploration technologies that there is gas that is dissolved
within the water column of the waters that are flowing from the freshwater marsh into the main
drain, which at any time you can speak with these experts and it needs to be addressed.
Thank you very much. Thank you I'm next is Lydia Ponce followed by Kathy Knight followed
by Gary Pearl followed by Linda Croat. Linda Ponce if you can unmute yourself.
Good morning Lydia Ponce here at the SAGNA known in the form of Venice Beach. I want to speak about
our humanity as it's being redefined with each meeting that we have we must be recognizing this
This morning and the next days that follow to our next meeting that every successful
coastal business and coastal home is due to employing undocumented relatives.
It is our shared responsibility, the rapid response ready to ICE when they show up at
our doors.
We must defend, protect, and honor everyone, black and brown, hired help, American or undocumented.
Our relationships nurtured always, but the language that I'm hearing this morning and
referencing the Tijuana River when it's speaking of pollution,
it's a Mexican bull and in defense it's American.
Maybe correct you.
It's Mexican-American border.
ICE is showing up at
graduations at college and high school,
and what we see is people who are
willing to put their lives on the line in between.
We must unify our efforts for our humanity.
Until we see each other as equals,
our humanity will be lost and broken.
We must take it ourselves to deem everyone
worthy of a home, of food, and water.
We're fast approaching the desolate, hard times
of leaning in mutual aid.
Do you know where your mutual aid people are?
They're the ones who are on the front lines
in defense of capitalism where people are losing their jobs
and cannot feed themselves, let alone have items
that they need.
Please roll up your sleeves, get involved,
and we're easily found, especially here
in Venice, West Side.
I thank you for your time.
I don't mean to sound harsh.
I'm pleased for your heart.
Let my words permeate through your ears,
to your heart and uplift you during these hard times.
Not all undocumented people are criminals.
And I'll know that.
So we need to take a stand.
Rapid response, responsibility.
Thank you.
Up next is Kathy Knight, followed by Gary Pearl,
followed by Linda Croke and followed by Richard Charter.
Cathy Knight, if you can unmute yourself, please?
Yes, can you hear me now?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
Yes, Cathy Knight with the Bioni Ecosystem Education Project
and working with the Bioni Wetlands Ecological Reserve
in Los Angeles County.
We need the Coastal Commission to focus very strongly
on protecting the voluminous natural surface
and ground freshwaters of the Bioni Wetlands.
The Bioni Wetlands has been acknowledged
by the Department of Water Resources
as a groundwater-dependent ecosystem
in the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin.
Bione is located in the southern portion
of the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin,
which has numerous underlying freshwater aquifers
classified by the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board
as drinking water and potential drinking water,
all of which needs to be protected
from saltwater intrusion and contamination,
and protected for beneficial uses
for the Bione Wetlands Ecological Reserve.
Numerous evaluations have been determined
by the Department of Water Resources
that need to be performed to evaluate
and protect the natural freshwater resources of Biona.
The continual drainage of Biona's freshwaters to the sea
via the Coastal Commission's approval of the main drain
and the freshwater marsh system needs to be reconsidered
in light of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act,
which the Coastal Commission is also required
to have adherence.
Thank you.
Thank you, up next is Gary Pearl, followed by Linda Crope, followed by Richard Charter,
followed by Molly Trope.
Hi, there we go, hi, my name is Gary Pearl, I am a Venice resident, Venice Beach resident.
I first want to congratulate the commissioners, the Chair, the Vice Chair, good luck, congratulations.
I'm also actually the incoming Vice President of the Venice Neighborhood Council, so I want
echo in what Lydia said. I do think regardless of what we do with our immigrants, I don't know that
this is the right thing, but that we do it with humanity. And I think that's being lost. It's
being lost in many ways. And I think the coast of prison plays a great big part. Speaking about
Venice Beach, where the second most visited tourist attraction was on the California next
division. We have the Olympics coming. We have a lot of infrastructure, a lot of personal,
as Lydia was speaking to issues that happen in Los Angeles. Obviously we have the Palisades issues.
I'd like to just say that I, as we look at, and I noticed on the schedule today,
there's so many things coming to the Venice. I would like to say that I'd like the commission
to consider what our council person has advised. I'd like the commission to look at the overall
picture which we're trying to do of the of the beach which is our central park
and and we're trying to look at it as a global aspect of what of what Venice Beach becomes in
the future. That includes a place that everyone can come not just or it's not just residents
but residents east of the 405. It really is the place that people come to who can't afford to go
on you know European vacations or a lot of things that many people take for granted but most people
and I'd really like you to consider the everyone and that for instance not give
away certain certain parts of properties look at the beach and how that's used as
our central park and and an ability to be used by everyone to further into the
future thank you very much for your time and again congratulations. Thank you up
next is Linda Crowe. Good morning and congratulations to the new chair of
vice chair and commissioners my name is Linda Cropp I'm chief counsel of the
environmental defense center and representing EDC get oil out Santa
Barbara County Action Network Sierra Club and Santa Barbara channel keeper
regarding the proposed restart of the Sable pipeline. First I'd like to thank
the Commission for its enforcement actions related to the unpermitted
repairs. Now we need the Commission to be equally diligent when it comes to
restart and operation of the pipeline. We have submitted a few letters regarding
this matter, most recently on May 22nd. We noted that the 1987 permit for the existing
pipeline relied on a cathodic protection system to prevent corrosion and reduce the risk of
an oil spill. That system failed, causing one of the worst spills in the state's history.
The owner at the time applied to construct a new pipeline. Now, however, SABLE proposes
to restart the defective pipeline, requiring a waiver of the requirement for an effective
the thought of protection system throughout the entire length of the pipeline. This is
a significant change to the project. As noted in the commission's March 28 staff report,
this change, quote, represents such a fundamental shift in the pipeline's design and operation
that resuming operations under this new system would not be consistent with the existing
permit and should necessitate an amendment to that permit. End quote.
The commission must require a new or modified permit prior to restart of the pipeline and time is of the essence according to sables own SEC filings they've completed their repairs and tests and they plan to fill the onshore storage tanks by mid June, so the commission needs to act now.
We appreciate again your diligence regarding this effort and to protect our California coast and urge you to take action in a timely manner. Thank you very much.
Thank you up next is Richard Charter, if you can meet yourself, please.
Thank you.
My name is Richard Charter with the Ocean Foundation.
As you have heard that the Department of Interior is currently soliciting formal input from
the state of California on their preparation of the 11th National OCS oil and gas leasing
program.
The Interior Department and calling for these comments has ignored the January 6, 2025 Presidential
OCS withdrawals, which protect the California coast for a time period without specific expiration,
in other words, permanently. Unlike prior five-year OCS program planning in recent decades which
avoided National Marine Sanctuaries, Interior claims that they now need to only respect National
Marine Sanctuaries designated as of July 14, 2008. They're citing a bold document called Areas Under
restriction that is linked to the Federal Register. As this Commission is aware, many
of California's iconic marine protected areas are embedded within our pre-existing
National Marine Sanctuaries. It is our hope that the Coastal Commission will, in cooperation
with OPC and a number of our coastal counties now on record, respond in the strongest possible
manner to the Interior Department's proposed five-year leasing plan, thereby establishing
the necessary record on which future challenges by our state and likely other states can be
built. This morning's news tells us that the Justice Department now says that two recent
terrestrial national monuments in California can be rescinded. So I think we can suspect
we'll need to fight for our coast as well. Thank you for your service and for your attention
to this timely manner and congratulations to our new commissioners.
Thank you. Next is Molly Trope followed by Laini Burns who we don't see right now on Zoom.
Laini Burns, if you are on, can you please raise your hand.
Molly Trope, go ahead and unmute yourself please. Thank you.
Good morning Chair Harmon and members of the Commission.
My name is Molly Trope and I'm the Science and Program Manager at Santa Barbara Channel Keeper.
Our organization is located in Santa Barbara and we work to protect and restore the Santa
Barbara channel and its watersheds from the Gaviota coast down to the Ventura River.
On behalf of channel keepers over 3,500 supporters, I would like to extend our gratitude to each
of you for all of your work to protect our coast and to uphold the critical provisions
of the Coastal Act.
Thank you for your decision in April to implement a third cease and desist order restoration
order and the $18 million administrative civil penalty to disable offshore corporation
for their egregious violations that they have been conducting since last fall and their efforts
to resume use of the corroded pipeline along the Gaviota coast. We're grateful that Judge
Anterley finally granted the Coastal Commission's demand for a temporary restraining order on May
28th, mandating that Sable ceases any additional pipeline work until the issue is adjudicated.
In addition to expressing our gratitude to the Commission, I'm also here today to
reiterate Linda Kropp's testimony and to ask also for the commission to determine that the
restart of the pipeline be subject to a coastal development permit so that the environmental
impacts of this project can be fully evaluated and so the public can fully participate in a public
process. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today. Thank you. We're not seeing any
additional hands raised for Lady Burns. Lady Burns showing not available. You're good to go.
Wonderful. Thank you and thank you very much to our team and to the public for speaking.
General public comment in particular is always such a great opportunity for us to hear from you.
With that I'd like to ask if any of my fellow commissioners have any comments or questions
they'd like to ask. Commissioner Nada. I wanted to follow up on a couple of the
enforcement questions that were there. I wondered if our enforcement staff wanted
to talk about it but first I did want to see where the Commission's comments on
the federal offshore drilling proposals stand. Thanks, Commissioner Nada. I hope we are weighing in against it.
So we have been working really closely with our other partner agencies in
California including OPC, State Lands Commission, Department of Conservation,
Department of Fish and Wildlife on a joint letter for Secretary Crowfoot's
signature. We actually did the first draft ourselves and pass it on to the
other agencies so we are heavily involved in that letter that is
recommending against or strongly urging the federal government not to do
additional leasing in California. We face it you know for all the reasons that we
have maintained that position both as a Commission but also as a state for the
last many years. So that letter is working its way through through CNRA and
will be ready and submitted by the deadline. So we are actively
participating in that. That's great to hear. I mean certainly it's the
Commission's authority to review federal proposals under the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act that enables California to have a voice in federal
proposed activities off our coast. So anything beyond the three-mile limit we
have that federal authority and Commission is really a leader in that in
the state. So thank you did you have additional questions for Lisa? Well I
think that there was a few that the surf rider folks brought up here in San
Diego County. The ones I had questions on were the San Diego Gido Lagoon and
and the Levi property.
I'm not sure about the San Diego Lagoon issue,
but the Levi property is an active and elevated case
that will be coming to you for your consideration,
one way or the other very soon.
We share the concerns, and it's been a long-standing concern
of the commission staff.
Okay, I think the other one was a consistency project
with the Army Corps at San Diego Lagoon.
that helps. Are you referring to the Hollywood Beach comments with the Army Corps? No, it's an Army Corps
consistency determinations and the GITO... I'm going to ask Cassidy Toyful to address that question.
Cassidy recognizes it. Hi Commissioner Knottopf. Yeah, Paulie's for speaking up here. It's a little tight over there.
Yeah, that's something we've been tracking very closely. We understand that monitoring by a variety of agencies is continuing on those lagoons.
We've been coordinating with the Army Corps of Engineers.
They did receive a consistency determination for extensive dredging
and beach nourishment activities along that stretch of coastline.
The monitoring is really oriented around determining if the sand that the Corps placed
out there a number of months ago is responsible for these closures and if
so then they would take active efforts to ensure that the lagoons remain open.
If not, there are other entities that are involved, including Southern California Edison,
to ensure that some of those lagoons remain open and flowing and some of those issues
with hypoxia and fish kills don't occur.
That said, it's a dynamic issue and so a number of other entities are closely tracking
and do have those concerns that were shared by the public today.
it's great that you're keeping a close eye on it.
Thank you.
And through the chair, I would just add
two of the other comments we aren't familiar with,
they were new issues and I chased them down
as you might've seen and we've got contact information,
we'll be following up with those people.
Thank you.
Next, Commissioner Preciado and then Commissioner O'Malley.
Sorry, good morning everyone.
I was listening to all the wonderful pleasantries
as the meeting started online, so I appreciate that.
And I did want to comment on and there were at least two testimonies that were offered related to the ongoing human and natural disaster that is occurring in Imperial Beach and along the South County area.
I am not as eloquent or as informed as Mayor Aguirre. I don't think anybody will ever replace that voice. But I grew up in that same community.
my community's called Nestor then, and so we've all experienced over the decades the
challenges and impacts of the contamination that flows north, one of the few rivers that does that.
There's another one in Peel Valley that doesn't concern this commission, and so I just want to
assure everyone and inform everyone that the first matter of business that I pursued joining
the commission was understanding where we stood as a commission with regard to this
challenge that we are all facing this environmental and it's deplorable. If any of you get a chance
I see that our meeting in December hopefully it'll be all be fixed by them but we'll all
be going to a meeting in December and hopefully we won't be impacted but on any given evening
the stench, the impact, is felt, and so this is a real tragedy that continues to unfold.
And it is a federal international issue.
We appreciate both sides when they are collaborating to fix it, but sometimes it seems like nobody
can work fast enough to deal with the challenges that are being faced by this community.
And it's not just Imperial Beach, but it's the San Ysidro community that abuts where
my parents still live in Edgar Highlands and Donak's, Edgar Highlands and the Nester community.
And so please, I don't live in Imperial Beach anymore, but I live in Chula Vista and this
affects all of us.
Air quality in particular, those winds don't stay in Imperial Beach.
They don't stay on the border.
come north and I appreciate the staff's efforts to bring me up to date with the federal consistency
processes and I look forward to in the near future having staff provide updates to what
is happening what developments are occurring as we all know the EPA executive director announced
that they had a hundred day action plan to get something off the ground and as many of you may
know a component of this tragedy is a treatment plant that's about four miles south of the border
that presumably is working now. And so as long as some of those things are happening,
the entire coastline of the Imperial Beach, Silver Strand, and Coronado may see some relief,
but it's not soon enough, it's not fast enough, and it's not comprehensive enough.
So I appreciate the opportunity to offer my remarks. I too congratulate the chair and
vice chair on their election and I look forward to collaborating with all of you. Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner O'Malley. Thank you chair. I just want to I had wanted to acknowledge the
few comments about SB 675. I assume we're going to discuss that in that led report so I should
hold any comment until then. Correct. Okay thank you. Okay not seeing any other comment. Oh yes
Commissioner Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. There were a couple of comments
about seawalls and emergency permits, maybe from my edification as well as for
others. Could you sort of talk about that process if you don't mind? Of course,
it's a it's a come. I'll do my best to give you a little bit of an overview
and and you will definitely see lots of discussion about seawalls and permits
for seawalls and the issues associated with those throughout your time here as
commissioner it's one of our biggest issues. So as you heard from public
comment and as you probably have experienced if you visit any coastal town
you know our shoreline is eroding we have a lot of development right on
bluff tops and one of the biggest challenges there's this as the that
coastline erodes that is how we create our beaches but as it erodes it can
threaten whatever development is on the top of a bluff or maybe not even on a
a bluff, maybe even lower down and that could be a residence or it could be
infrastructure, a road, a train line, it could be any number of things. So the
challenge that we have is what to do in those situations and so seawalls are one
option that many pursue to protect whatever development is at risk. Under
the Coastal Act that's complicated. There's some development is allowed
particular types of protection. We'll get into the details of all the law later
but and some maybe it's not and then what to do about that. So it is
the challenge I think this Commission faces on an almost daily basis. So
emergency permits are one option that some landowners pursue if they have a you
know the idea is that if it is an emergency in other words there's an
immediate threat to life or property then they can pursue an emergency permit.
The process under the Coastal Act for an emergency permit. It's a much faster process. It requires
So we do a very fast review again because we're in an emergency situation
We can do a very fast authorization for particular development
And then there's usually a requirement for a follow-on
Full CDP which then digs into all the issues and make sure there's proper mitigation is warranted
And in some cases could require whatever development was approved by an emergency to be taken out
just depending. Obviously that's very complicated. I think the concern that was
raised is the it's a faster review and are we really getting into the issues
well enough under an emergency setting and many of the emergencies that we have
are sort of those long-term emergencies where we see them coming and and we have
time we should be addressing them with time that's challenging for many for a
number of reasons but that's the better process instead of waiting until the end
and then, you know, coming in for an emergency permit and a potential faster
review. So that's just a quick summary of what I think the concern was raised. It
is a challenge and local governments have the same challenge that we do and
and it's something we need we need to address. We have been doing more
emergency permits for this type of thing and a lot of it has been based on the
storm seasons we've had the last several years, not as much this past year, but the
two years prior were really significant storm we had winter storms that caused
so much damage up and down the shoreline we had we saw an increase in emergency
permits then so it you know we need to try to work with local governments and
landowners to try to address these ahead of time and when we see it's coming
that's our goal and we try our best to achieve it. And if I could just add
briefly to that one of the challenges from my side of the shop is that
that emergency permits are by definition time limited.
They're only good for a certain period of time.
And we have, there are many, many cases
where people get emergency permits for seawalls
and don't follow up.
And so therefore, the seawall remains in place
or the intended to be temporary seawall remains in place
without the mitigation and the analysis
that Kate was just referencing.
So, and I think that's one of the main objections
and it's been a goal of ours
is to try to do a review of those seawalls.
just so many of them all up and down the coast. Some of them are we call them derelict sea
wells, but they are still there, but the development that was behind them is no longer there. So
they're just there protecting something that doesn't exist, which means that the beach is
being eroded without cause. And so we're trying to look at those as fast as we can, but they're
just a lot of them and very few of us. So, but that's a goal. And I guess I would just add one
one more point, which is to remind too,
and we heard a little bit of this
from some of the public commenters,
but the reason that these seawalls
present a challenge for us is that
the bluff erosion is one of the main sources
of beach sand that we have for our beaches.
And as sea levels rise, if that erosion
isn't allowed to occur, we slowly lose our beaches.
And we've also dammed rivers, another big source of sand.
So there's a lot of potential issues,
but this is a main one in our jurisdiction
we can work on that make sure that we do have either you know we're keeping that
erosion process active so that we do have sand for our beaches and or when
appropriate we have mitigation and other ways to make sure that public access is
is there in these areas where we're losing some of those beaches. Thank you.
Okay so that closes public comment. I think that we're a little tight on
quorum so I'm gonna suggest actually that we take a brief break now if that
works for everyone if we could be back at 10 55 10 minutes works and we'll move
to statewide thank you. We ready to roll? Okay wonderful thank you now we will be
moving to item 8 the executive directors report director Hucklebridge.
Thank You Madam Chair and good morning commissioners my published executive
director's report can be found on the commission's website but as usual I'll
spend a few minutes going over several of the items. I'd like to kick off my
June report first with a warm welcome for our new commissioners. We are so
happy to have you and really look forward to working with you over the
next years on coastal protection and sustainable development on our coastline.
So welcome welcome. I didn't get a chance to chime in this morning but wanted to
also congratulate our new chair and our new vice chair.
Thank you for your service.
And I'm very excited to work with you as well.
And I think, as I told Commissioner Cummings when
he was elected in December, strap in because it's
going to be a fun and bumpy ride over the next year and a half.
Yeah.
But appreciate, as always, the partnership,
and just the opportunity to work so closely with commissioners,
and especially the chair and vice chair.
Really looking forward to your leadership.
And also just to echo the thank you and gratitude
to our outgoing chair and vice chair.
We are so grateful for their service
and appreciate all the work that they put in
for this commission, for the mission of our agency
and doing the work and as always just again the integrity
and attitude towards all of us here
and the collaboration we all have together.
So just wanted to appreciate Commissioner Cummings
and Commissioner Gide one last time.
So next up I'd like to highlight a few exciting announcements
from our Environmental Justice Program.
The Environmental Justice Program in partnership
with Outdoor Outreach hosted a webinar on May 2nd, 2025
provide guidance on submitting public comments to the Commission. The recorded webinar covered the
importance of public participation in the creation of the Coastal Act, then walked the participants
through the comment sign-up process and gave tips how to make an impact with your testimony.
Over 200 participants from over California registered and through pre- and post-webinar
surveys, staff saw a sharp increase in confidence and interest in public comment after the webinar.
you can watch this public participation webinar recording, the link is on our website and I would
encourage anybody who didn't have a chance to participate and is interested in providing public
comments to check that out. And just wanted to note this is sort of part of our ongoing effort
to make our process more accessible to as many Californians and folks that want to participate
as possible and just making sure that we demystify our process to the extent that we can and make it
it easy for folks to understand how to talk to us about what their issues are.
Next, Javier Padilla, Manager of the Commissions of Environmental Justice Program, was invited
to speak at the Black Image Collective's Spring Residency Program on May 10th at Bruce's
Beach in Manhattan Beach.
Twelve Black artists were selected to participate in this year's project, entitled California's
Coast in Color, which involves multimedia engagement with images of the California coast
through the lens of the Black community.
Commission staff spoke to the artists about Prop 20,
the Coastal Act, and current issues affecting the coast.
Also, wanted to announce that the Coastal Commission
is looking for a summer undergraduate intern
who will work on projects
based on their interests and location.
The internship is a part-time paid opportunity
funded by a memorial fund
for the visionary former leader of the agency, Peter Douglas,
and in partnership
California Marine Sanctuaries Foundation. So if anyone who's listening is
interested or you have any potential folks that might be interested you can
apply by looking at our website. The job posting is on our jobs webpage and
includes submitting a statement of interest and a resume by June 13th, which
is Friday, so the deadlines coming up. Next, on May 15th, staff from the
Commissioned Statewide Planning Unit in North Coast District participated in a
the workshop hosted by the Grassroots Institute on LCP updates for the jurisdictions of Mendocino
County and the cities of Fort Bragg and Point Arena. The workshop, which was well attended
by members of the public, local government staff, and environmental planning professionals,
included presentations about the history and role of the Coastal Act, and discussions on
water, climate, and sea level impacts, sea level rise impacts, and transportation components
LCP updates in this region. Commission staff presented on the LCP update process and highlighted
opportunities for public engagement in Mendocino County. This workshop is part of a series hosted
by the Grassroots Institute to facilitate public engagement and initiatives impacting the coastal
zone in Mendocino County. So next, a few announcements from our public education program.
First, California State Parks and the California Coastal Commission's Boating Clean and Green
program and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Office of Spill Prevention and Response
will conduct a hybrid oil spill response communications workshop for boating facilities.
Boating facility operators will learn about California's oil spill response structure,
explore real life spill case studies, and receive spill response resources. Participants can attend
in person at Encinal Yacht Club in Alameda or register to attend virtually and details can
be found online on our website and also my published ED report. Next, the Boating Clean
and Green Program, the California State Parks Boating Safety and Education Unit released a new
Dockside podcast about a new freshwater invasive species in California, the golden mussel.
You can learn about when and where it got to California, where it is currently found,
its biology and potential environmental and economic impacts, also the state's efforts to
to prevent further spread and best management
practices for water users.
Again, see my published ED report
for a link to this and previous Dockside podcasts.
Lastly, the public education program
will be hosting a display at the San Diego
Fair in Del Mar throughout June with a coast for all theme.
You can find us at the eco hut at the end of the tunnel
between Fiesta Village and Family Funville.
So please watch our Instagram page at the California coast
for updates about when staff will be there
and for chats about coastal access, coastal stewardship
and our whale tail grants program.
And now for the last item
on this month's executive director report,
I'd like to turn it over to the deputy executive director,
Madeline Cavalleri for a brief update
on the governor's made budget revision, Madeline.
Good morning commissioners.
So yeah, we wanted to give you a brief status update
the commission's budget for fiscal year 25, which starts July 1st. We don't have the final budget
yet and things are extremely fluid right now, but we want to let you know where things sit at the
moment. We'll be providing a full update after the budget is signed. So the biggest change to
our ongoing budget comes from two cuts that were made to our current year 24 budget. The Governor's
proposed May revision to the 25 budget, which was released last month, provided additional details
regarding these cuts. A table with a breakdown from the governor's May
revision is on page four of the executive directors report but the
legislature arrived at some changes through their two-party agreement
yesterday so I'll talk through those. First section 4.05 of the 24 budget
authorized the Department of Finance to reduce state operations expenditures
from both general fund and special funds in each department up to 7.95% in
fiscal year 24 and those cuts are now being proposed as permanent in the
commission's baseline budget. In the two-party agreement that was published
yesterday, the legislature proposed to carry forward cuts to the general fund
and the environmental license plate fund, but eliminated the cuts to our other
special funds. So that would make our cut under section 4.05 at first table about
2.4 million dollars annually. We were able to absorb some of those cuts by
renegotiating rents and reducing space in several of our office leases, as well
eliminating several underutilized cars and switching from landlines to internet calling.
But the cut will further reduce our already extremely lean operating budget and will further
limit staff's ability to participate in travel and training opportunities.
So the second table section 4.12 of the fiscal year 24 budget authorized the Department of
Finance to reduce appropriations to achieve savings associated with positions that were
vacant at the time in 2024 and to propose elimination of vacant positions
to achieve the ongoing savings beginning in fiscal year 25. In the two-party
agreement the legislature proposed to hold off on the elimination of the
positions until fiscal year 2026 and took out some of the cuts to our special
funds but they maintain the majority of the funding cuts meaning that the
majority of the funding will still be cut for fiscal year 25 and positions
will have to remain vacant in the meantime. We'll have to wait for the
signed budget for the final outcome of this, but the commission's total
vacancy cut is now at least $1.4 million annually, and there are 10
positions that had been slated for elimination. You can see those also in
the E. D. Report. The seven general fund positions that may be eliminated were
authorized in 2024 to implement Senate Bill 272 related to sea level rise
planning. The commission received 18 positions in total to implement 272 including analysts,
attorneys and scientists to provide technical assistance and support to all 76 of our coastal
local governments in updating their local coastal programs to address sea level rise by 2034 as
required by the new law. The loss of these seven positions will significantly impact the commission's
ability to complete that work. The other three vacant positions support whale tail grants,
statewide planning and federal program activities. If the legislature's proposal
to spare some of our special funds from the cut carries forward then these
positions might not be impacted. I also wanted to point out that no existing
staff people are directly impacted by the vacancy cut but again because the
Commission is starting from such a lean position in terms of resources all
budget cuts impact our ability to carry out our program and they further over
burden the remaining staff. So the total amount of the commission's cuts including
the operations reductions and the vacancy sweep under the governor's May
revision was four point seven million annually and under the legislature's
current proposal it's three point eight five million dollars annually so we'll
have to wait for the final budget to be signed to find the final outcome. So
again things are still really fluid we're gonna provide a full budget update
soon. I'm available for questions now and would also welcome any questions or
suggestions for staff to address in our in our upcoming full update. Thank you.
Question, do we take public comment? If there's a public comment on the
executive directors report we definitely would. I, there usually is not, but there
might be, we should check in. Thank you. Is there any public comment? There is one vote, they're
not available, they're not here. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner
I'm dismayed by the cuts even though as you discussed them I don't understand the implications
of them, you know, if they don't impact but I am troubled.
One of the motivating factors for me seeking this opportunity is to ensure that you have
the capacity to be responsive to the public, to the applicants, to the permits and that
not be delayed and I assume given so much so much is at stake I realize the entire state
budget is in I work at San Diego State so I know about budget cuts but I have I'm wondering
if a positionality can be expressed over over the next few weeks where we can say that these
cuts are not going to slow down our work. And secondly, if there's a possibility of
reallocating your budget to prioritize supporting appeals, supporting development, supporting
those kinds of things that would motivate our continued obviously our core mission of
protecting the coast, but I don't want to see enforcement decline. I don't want to see
our responsiveness to applicants and a felons decline and I think that needs to be understood
given so much attention is given by the legislature to how we perform. I think it's critical
that we advise if we are going to be impacted with these cuts. I'm very interested in ensuring
that we can express to the legislature, whoever we report to, that we cannot slow down our
work. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Hart. I just want to align myself with those great
statements by our new commissioner. Thank you so much that it really means a lot to
those of us that have been on the commission and things do go up and down. I mean there
was a year that we actually did get more funding, for example, for enforcement and for local
but generally what you witness is just a lot of pressure on the Commission and its staff.
And you know, it makes it hard to keep staff because there are other opportunities for
them that don't put them under this kind of pressure.
But I particularly wanted to speak to what I see as the contradiction between legislative
efforts to limit the timeline for a response, whether it's to 60 days, whether it's to 90
or even shorter time periods there's currently one piece of legislation that
restricts the response time on CDPs so that to shorter time period then would
even allow that particular item to come to the Commission so the problem is that
approach just doesn't align itself with less and less staff and I think it's
really important that we continue to make the legislature and the
administration aware that it just doesn't work that way.
And if there is going to be a restriction in our response time, say to 90 days,
that it's accompanied by the funding to do that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Nada.
Thank you for the breaking news update, really.
I mean, yesterday's two-party agreement, and I did wanna thank
Senator Blake Speer and Assemblymember Connolly for their work in coming up,
leading the legislature to this two-party agreement,
which sounds like it could give the commission some relief in terms of staffing issues.
But I want to echo the call for if the commission is going to do its job,
we need to have the staff to do the job.
And when it comes, I'm particularly concerned
that the funds that we were allocated to implement SB 272
on sea level rise, which Senator Laird worked so hard
to get enacted, is now how are we going to implement that?
But I think the commission had a very well thought out program
for doing that, working in partnership
with local governments.
So, you know, the ocean and the climate are not waiting for
anyone's budget management.
So I'm concerned about that.
I would hope that any final agreement does allow expenditure
of the greenhouse gas reduction fund funds that the commission
is counting on, hopefully and prop four funds that the people
of California voted to support just recently.
So there are, when the voters of California have a chance,
the voters of California are supporting climate and environmental action.
And I hope that the budget team in Sacramento will be listening to that.
But it does sound like there's some progress here that we might have
some breathing room to work out something that will help us manage in
these tough budget times over the next fiscal year.
through the through the chair if I might just respond real quick first of all
thank you for the comments we definitely share all of your concerns and have been
on pins and needles for the entire year trying to figure out what our budget's
gonna look like you know first of all want to clarify we don't we don't know
yet until it's signed there could be more changes in either direction and so
just want to make that very clear this is the information we have now and we're
sharing that with you because we think it's important but it's not final till
It's final.
There's also the federal component of our budget
that is still up in the air.
We should have more information on that shortly,
and so hopefully when we do our budget update,
after the budget is signed, we'll also have that information
on the federal components as well.
But I just wanna agree with the comments
from commissioners about the concerns.
You know, we really wanna do the work
and the work is critical.
I mean, that we have required streamlining deadlines
that we always focus on,
and that's where we prioritize our staffing resources
to meet those deadlines.
And it keeps getting, you know,
the interest isn't moving faster.
And we do, I think we agree that that could be a good,
a good way to address several of the problems the state has.
It is, we can't do it with the existing staff we have.
We, you know, I don't think we need huge, huge increases,
either it's, but the reality is if you want people
move faster, we have to figure out a way to do that and make it happen. We've been
really clear with new legislation and trying to communicate that with the
legislature and have gotten a lot of traction and I think folks understand
that generally. But the reality is the state's in a hard budget situation. We're
certainly not the only agency that's experiencing cuts and so we need to
figure out how to tighten our belts, where to do that and as Madeline said
we've been working internally to try to find all the ways that we can without
affecting staff and we prioritize our staffing in our budget and and so that's
where we've we're really working to figure out how to continue to prioritize
the work. I am also concerned about the 272 work as many of you know that you
know doing that LCP planning for sea level rise and climate change is
critical path for this agency and for the local governments that we work with
if we are going to be resilient into the future with climate change and so that
remains a concern and needs to be a focus for us internally figure out how
to how to meet that need with the resources we have and hopefully with
increased resources in the future when the budget does get better but you know
this is an ongoing challenge for all of us so we appreciate you know we'll
continue to communicate with you as we learn more and invite more kind of
thoughts and comments about how to prioritize and things of that nature
are from you all so just want to again appreciate all the comments and the opportunity to let
you know where we are.
Thank you and I will just align myself with the comments of all the commissioners.
Our staff does an incredible job doing more with less but at a certain point we want to
prioritize efficiency and effectiveness will require increased resources.
There's only so many hours in the day.
So with that, thank you, Director Hucklebridge, Ms. Cavallari.
I don't think we have any commission correspondence, so we'll move on to the legislative report.
Correct.
And Sean Drake will provide the legislative report, and he's online today.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
This is the legislative report for June.
We're at about the halfway point in this year's legislative process.
Last Friday was the deadline for bills to pass out of their House of Origin.
Bills that did are currently being referred to policy committees in the second House.
that did not meet last Friday's deadline had become two-year bills meaning that
they're on pause for now but can move again next year. I'm pleased to say that
all three bills the Commission has taken a support position on this session met
the first house deadline and are moving in their second house. We've reorganized
the written legislative report this month. It now lists all two-year bills
together in one section beginning on page 13. A few of the Commission's
priority bills were amended in the past month. First, AB 462 by Assemblymember Lowenthal which
would exempt ADUs from the Coastal Act on a gradual county by county basis was amended by the author.
The amendments curtail the scope of the proposed exemption slightly by making it not apply
immediately next to bluff edges or within some public access easements. That bill remains in the
and the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
SB 484 by Senator John Laird was also amended last month.
That bill would direct the Commission to establish categorical exclusions for 100% affordable
housing projects in the infill areas of three or more uncertified jurisdictions, and you'll
recall that the Commission took a support position last month.
The author made a technical amendment on the Senate floor to clarify that the categorical
exclusions would not affect the applicability of other statutes, unrelated to the Coastal
Act.
This amendment resolved concern by the California League of Cities, which removed its opposition
to the bill.
The bill passed unanimously off the Senate floor, and has been referred to the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee.
SB 675, Senator Padilla's bill that would create a special Coastal Act process specifically
for the proposed Seaport San Diego project, which you heard several comments about this
this morning was recently amended coming out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Before
I go further, I want to make one correction on a misstatement I made during last month's
ledge report, and that is that the Seaport San Diego project site is located in Senator
Kilo Weber Pearson's Senate District, not in Catherine Blake's Pierce. At any rate,
the recent amendments to SB 675 removed the intent language that had previously been in
the bill and replaced it with new language that would impose requirements on how quickly
the Commission must review the Port Master Plan amendment for the Seaport San Diego project,
any technical documents sent to the Commission as a part of the CEQA process,
and any CDP appeals for the project. These amendments resolve the most significant policy
concerns that staff previously presented to the Commission as the bill would no longer weaken the
Coastal Act standard of review for the project. However, as staff noted last month, compressing
how long the Commission has to review the project will present a fiscal impact.
The amendments also don't remove the underlying precedential concern that this bill would
create a new separate Coastal Act process for a single project to develop public tightlands.
Following the direction that the Commission provided staff last month, staff are continuing
to engage with the author's office, legislative committees and stakeholders to work toward
a resolution, including emphasizing just what resources would be necessary for commission
staff to be able to implement the compressed timelines in the bill.
The bill is in the Assembly, waiting to be referred to policy committees.
One other amended bill to note is SB 681, the Senate Housing Omnibus Bill by Senator
Ayesha Wahab.
That bill was amended coming out of the Senate Appropriations Committee to make it so that
local CDPs for multi-unit housing projects could no longer be appealed to the Commission
on the basis that they are located in a sensitive coastal resource area or are not the principally
permitted use of the parcel if it is an unincorporated area.
The amendments would also require the Commission to submit an annual report to the legislature
with information about appeals of multi-unit housing projects.
Staff don't have concerns with most of the amendments that have been made to the bill,
we do believe that clarification is needed to avoid unintended consequences to sensitive
coastal resource areas.
Staff have had productive initial conversations with the author's office on this point and
we'll be continuing to communicate with them as the bill starts moving in the Assembly
and we'll provide further updates to the Commission.
In addition to policy bill updates, Deputy Director Cavalieri described that the legislature
is in the thick of refining the state budget for the coming fiscal year.
The deadline for the legislature to pass the budget bill is June 15th, which is Sunday,
and there have been plenty of budget committee hearings happening in the run-up to that deadline.
As a part of the budget process over the past month, the Governor's administration has proposed
a number of budget trailer bills intended to address various budget and policy priorities.
So far, two of these proposed trailer bills would impact the Coastal Commission.
The first would amend the Permit Streamlining Act to require the Commission to take final
action on CDPs for most housing projects within 90 days of either when the
Commission receives a complete application or the lead agency approves
the project. This 90-day deadline has been in statute since 2017, but when the
legislature enacted it, it excluded the Commission due to the fiscal impact that
would result from compressing the Commission's review process. This trailer
bill would remove that exclusion, cutting in half the amount of time the
Commission has to act on most housing projects, from the Permit Streamlining Act's default
deadline of 180 days down to 90 days.
Staff don't have policy concerns with processing CDPs for housing projects more quickly, but
as was the case in 2017 and as you've heard this morning, additional staffing resources
would be needed to meet this deadline.
In line with several of the comments that have already been made, staff are coordinating
administration to identify those staffing needs and to provide information to the legislature
to inform future discussions of this proposed budget trailer once it eventually goes into print.
The other proposed trailer bill relevant to the commission deals with the Los Angeles
2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The proposed trailer would add language to the Coastal Act
specifying that the Olympic and Paralympic Games shall be considered temporary events
and exempt from the Coastal Act. Staff are currently evaluating that language to analyze
how it squares with the commission's procedures and guidelines that already exempt certain
temporary events from the Coastal Act. We anticipate that this and the administration's
other trailer bills will be formally introduced later in the session and move through the
legislative process later on in the summer. There are a couple new bills listed in the
legislative report this month as well. One is AB 770 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez,
which you've heard some comments about in previous legislative reports. That bill would
extend the life of existing billboards that are exempt from local and state regulation
by codifying an expansive definition for what activities can be undertaken to maintain a
billboard, including billboards in areas that are naturally, culturally, or visually sensitive.
Earlier this month the bill passed out of the assembly and is now waiting to be referred
to policy committees in the Senate.
Given the number of billboards in sensitive areas of the coastal zone, staff do have concerns
about the potentially damaging unintended consequences of this bill in sensitive coastal
areas.
Our immediate focus remains on addressing the large number of measures that currently
would directly amend the Coastal Act, but I want to emphasize that staff are monitoring
this bill closely as it moves forward and communicating those concerns with
relevant parties. The other new bill in the legislative report this month is AB
1007 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio. This bill would amend the permit
streamlining act to shorten how long agencies have to act on permits for most
housing projects from 90 days to 45 days. There is an important interplay here
that I want to walk through between the housing trailer bill that I just
mentioned in this bill, AB 1007.
Both measures would amend the same deadline in the Permit
Streamlining Act for agency action on housing projects.
The trailer bill would remove the language that currently
excludes the commission from the 90-day deadline.
And then AB 1007 would shorten the 90-day deadline
for all agencies to 45 days.
The bottom line is that if both the trailer bill and this policy
bill were enacted this session, the amount of time the Commission would have to take
action on CDPs for most housing projects would be cut by 75 percent from 180 days to 45 days.
And while I stated that a 90-day deadline raises fiscal concerns but not policy concerns,
as Vice Chair Hart observed earlier, a 45-day deadline would run up against the very practical
limit of how quickly the Commission can review a complete application, prepare a
staff report, and agendize it for a hearing. Given that the housing trailer
bill just dropped at the very end of May, staff are still evaluating the procedures
of the PSA to gain a full understanding of the potential Coastal Act
ramifications of shortening this deadline under both measures. We'll provide
more updates to the Commission and future legislative reports as we have
additional information. As a final bit of legislative news, on Monday, Senate
Pro Tem Mike McGuire, who will reach the legislative turn limit next year,
announced that Senator Monique Lamone will be the next Senate Pro Tem with a
transition to be held in early 2026. Senator Lamone represents Senate
District 21, encompassing all of Santa Barbara County as well as portions of
Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties, and she's currently the chair of the
the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
Staff look forward to working with Senator LeMone's office
in her new capacity at the appropriate time next year.
With that, Chair Harmon, unless there are any questions,
that concludes the legislative report.
Thank you, Mr. Drake,
and I have to just echo the congratulations
to Senator LeMone.
We are extremely proud of her.
She's an incredible leader in our county
and has been for a long time.
So with that, are there any public comments
on the legislative report.
Yes, we have three speakers.
We'll start with Sylvia Van Rooyen,
followed by Robin Rudecil, and then Noel Gold.
Sylvia Van Rooyen, and we do have your presentation.
We're bringing it up.
Thank you, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Awesome, so my name is Sylvia.
I work for Humboldt Waterkeeper,
and I'm here to talk about AB 770,
a bill that proposes to weaken
existing regulations on billboards in California.
Humboldt Waterkeeper has been working
remove billboards from wetlands around Humboldt Bay for many years. Next slide please.
The Caltrans Office of Outdoor Advertising regulates billboards in California. Of the 7,000
billboards in the state, there are over 400 within wetlands and according to Caltrans,
over 700 are on or adjacent to cultural sites. Next slide please. By expanding the definition
of customary maintenance, AB 770 would exempt significant modifications to aging billboards,
lumping significant modifications in with customary maintenance. Next slide please.
This expanded definition of maintenance of AB 770 combined with Section 5412's protections
would result in regulatory immunity for billboard owners shielding them from a multitude of agency
reviews. Next slide. Here are some examples of the types of billboards that would be allowed to be
rebuilt without permits under AB 770. As you can see these are in wetlands or directly in a bay.
Next slide please. Many of these billboards are on public lands. For example, this is a billboard
on state park land along highway 101, not in a wetland but attached to a redwood tree.
Next slide. AB 770 would allow these old non-conforming structures to be converted to steel
structures such as these without permitting or other government reviews. Next slide. Such
conversions under AB 770 would allow heavy equipment to disturb sensitive areas. Next slide,
and we can skip that slide as well. So finally, we urge the commission to oppose AB 770 and to
require CEQA and Coastal Act compliance for all existing and future billboards to undertake a
comprehensive statewide survey to identify the locations of existing legal non-conforming
billboards and coordinate with Caltrans on the removal of billboards statewide from state tight
and public trust plan. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Robin Rudisill. Good morning commissioners and
excellent report Sean, also I support the last speaker. I'm here today to urge
thoughtful caution regarding Senate Bill 484 which proposes to direct the Coastal
Commission by July 2027 to establish categorical exclusionaries for a hundred
percent affordable housing projects in infill areas of the coastal zone where
there is no LCP. I do generally support the bill and I understand and strongly
support the goal of increasing affordable housing, but SB 484 as
written would bypass a core safeguard of the Coastal Act, the CDP process, across
areas that are highly sensitive. The bill would allow categorical exclusions or
cataxes in places that have not yet gone through the full LCP process, even though
those very areas depend on permit review to ensure development does not harm
public access or coastal resources. If this pilot program is going to proceed,
in order to succeed, we ask that key exceptions be made, especially in areas
is most vulnerable to loss of public access and environmental degradation.
Specifically, we request that categorical exclusions not apply within the dual permit
jurisdiction zone or within a half mile of the inland dual zone boundary and within a half mile
of parks. I also suggest that special coastal communities are an exception, particularly to
the extent that designation relies on that special coastal community being characterized
by a particular cultural, historical, or architectural heritage that is distinctive,
as is the case with Venice and San Pedro here in Los Angeles. These are areas where coastal
protections are especially needed and where state oversight is crucial. More affordable housing is
critical, but so is protecting the coast for all Californians. We urge you to work with the
legislators to refine SB 484 so that it reflects both values. Please support the recommended
exceptions to ensure that this bill does not unintentionally undermine public coastal access
and the protection of our precious coastal resources. Thank you. Thank you. Noah Gold.
You're still muted. There you go. Sorry about that. Good morning commissioners and welcome
to the new commissioners and chair and vice chair. Thank you so much. Also I'm speaking
speaking on SB 484 and completely agree with the last speaker I'd like to express my concern
and urge you to be thoughtful and especially cautious regarding SB 484 affordable housing
the coastal zone is important and of course I support it but not at the expense of our
vital coastal act protections as written 484 would bypass the CDP process in very sensitive
areas, and the bill would allow categorical exclusions in areas that haven't gone through
the full LCP process.
These areas depend on permit review to ensure development doesn't harm the public access
or coastal resources.
We can't fall into the habit of rubber stamping any bill that mentions the word housing without
thorough investigation as well.
If the pilot program is to move forward and have a chance of being successful, we're going
to ask that the key exceptions be made, especially in areas most vulnerable to loss of public
access and environmental degradation, specifically, as the last speaker said, we like exemptions
in the coastal zone and also half a mile, the dual zone, the dual zone of the coastal
and half a mile from there, and also a half a mile from parks to be sure to keep those
areas safe. And state oversight is crucial. And the other bill I have a deep concern about
is 1294, AB 1294, which masquerades as a housing development standardized application
form bill. It states the bill would also prohibit a local government from requiring any additional
information or process before entitling a housing project, including pre-application
submissions, approvals, reviews, meetings, public notices, or any other requirements.
This is a flagrant violation of the public's constitutional due process rights, and we
implore the commission to take a position against this bill unless that language is removed thank
you there are no more speakers for this item madam chair thank you do we have any comments
or questions from commissioners seeing none you know i'm here sorry sorry how could i forget
commissioner wilson thanks i just couldn't find the hand up button on my computer here hey um
Just a couple things. I do want to address the AB 770 because again it has, I think,
not necessarily an outsized impact on my community in terms of the structures that
are billboards and many many of them located in my community or in really northern California
are in sensitive habitats in culturally sensitive habitats or culturally sensitive areas but across
the state as well. And I just think that I'm emoting or messaging out to
folks who are concerned about their local communities and I really about
local control. So what this bill does is it removes local authorities or local
government's ability to regulate these structures, not just from a zoning
perspective and again this the Outdoor Advertising Act which is what this
amends was came out of the 1965 Highway Beautification Act so it is in essence
an environmental bill that was done back then to essentially move these
structures out of our scenic and sensitive habitats and into commercial
zones that's what its purpose was to do. That job obviously isn't done these
structures are all over sensitive areas and scenic routes across the state
of California. But what this bill would do is basically stop that process from
happening and remove the local jurisdictions from doing not just their
zoning laws and their signing ordinances, but it would even not allow them to use
their UBC uniform building code to effectuate safety in these structures.
And so these structures do blow into spaces, people run into them, they do fall down, does happen.
And so local jurisdictions would not have that. The state jurisdictions would also lose their
authority. So in terms of foundation work or Cal OSHA requirements for work on these structures,
all of those would be erased by this bill. To me, you were talking about deregulation
in terms of things like housing and in the legislature, and in terms of renewable energy,
I find it ironic or whatever, I don't know what the right word is, but maybe this isn't the place
where we should be, and I don't think it's popular amongst the state to deregulate this particular
structure and these particular impacts, especially to this degree. Your backyard
porch, every structure in the state of California that has a structural amend
to it would require a building permit. These would be the only structure really
in the state of California, especially commercial structure, that would be
exempt from basic building code and local zoning under this ordinance. So I'm
really hoping that out there those of you in your jurisdictions in your city
and and county jurisdictions that don't want to lose the ability to regulate
this and control this and the in please let your legislature know thanks thank
you commissioner Wilson well said Commissioner Kelly thank you chair
Harmon I want to align myself with those comments from Commissioner Wilson and
just share that I also have the same concerns about AB 770 and what it means
for the lack of local control for some of these billboards that have appeared
haphazardly or been built over the years in some of our communities especially in
rural areas. We recently in the North Coast area had a pretty active political
campaign regarding animal agriculture and a lot of billboards were
created during that campaign built out of kind of, you know, interesting structures
and things that appeared overnight and now they are still there and so our
concern specifically is that they will remain and will turn into outdoor
advertising and could be, as mentioned, basically created these permanent
structures and this is an exemption that would greatly interrupt our ability for
for local whether it's cities or counties to regulate those billboards.
And so we I do have concerns about it both in the rural context also for
within our city limits.
I had a follow up question about AB 1007, which is the Rubio bill.
And I'm wondering, does this apply to all lead agencies that are public agencies?
Or is this specific to the Coastal Commission?
Can you just speak a little bit more regarding who this impacts and
the likelihood that we are gonna see this move forward?
We're gonna respond through the chair.
So I mentioned two measures that are affecting the same deadline of
the Permit Streamlining Act.
There's the trailer bill and then there's AB 1007.
So under existing law, this provision of the Permit Streamlining Act imposes a 90
day final action deadline on responsible agencies to take action on what I kind of
similarly described as most housing projects. The Commission is currently
excluded from that 90-day deadline and so the Housing Trailer Bill proposal you
know again it hasn't gone into print but it's been proposed or to remove that
exclusion which would bring the commit bring that requirement to bear on the
Commission just like it currently applies to other responsible agencies. By
By contrast, AB 1007 would revise that number, that 90-day deadline, to 45 days for all responsible
agencies.
And so, if the proposed housing trailer language brought the commission into the fold of that
90-day deadline, and then the 90-day deadline were revised down to 45, that 45-day deadline
would apply to the commission and all other responsible agencies that currently are required
to meet that 90-day deadline and statute.
Thank you for clarifying and I'm through the chair I just want to comment that I
think you know while we all hold housing as you know an incredibly high priority
in our communities and across the state I also think that you know we are
required to uphold the Coastal Act and the kind of competing challenge that
we're facing here is that we are putting these these policy provisions really you
know this proposed legislation really is going to hamstring our staff in a way
that makes it impossible to work in concert with other local jurisdictions
or work with these these housing developers and I think what we've
demonstrated in other pieces of legislation that are moving forward
around prioritizing housing and especially affordable housing is that we
want to do it in a way that is sensitive to the priorities of the Coastal Act and
And so I think that this, I think staff and our legislative committee should feel
really confident in pushing back on some of these challenges because it makes it
impossible for us to uphold the will of the voters to advance this work.
We do prioritize housing and we will and we can, but
we also can't do it under these ridiculous constraints.
I think that that is without being rooted in the reality
that we're facing in terms of some of these projects
and how they're being proposed
and how we can evaluate them
from an environmental perspective.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thank you.
I have a question Sean.
So just focusing again on AB 1007,
since there really is no way that we could comply with that,
that I can see, I just can't see how it would be possible.
What would happen in that case, you know, if the commission is not able to consider
these housing project applications in the timeline that's why?
Through the chair, it's a great question.
It's exactly what we're looking into at the moment.
You know, I'll admit, I think as staff and as an agency, we're not in the habit of not
meeting the Permit Streamlining Act deadline that applies to the commission.
And so we're in a position of doing research right now on exactly what the procedures are
for when such a deadline is not met, not because the commission wouldn't have any intention
of making every effort to try to meet that deadline where it shortened, but just as a
matter of preparation.
And so I think the commission is currently reviewing the Permit Streamlining Act in greater
detail to understand what set of processes is triggered if that deadline is not met by
a responsible agency, just so we can fully understand kind of the universe of implications
as it relates to the Coastal Act and any potential impacts.
And now that thank you very much for that.
So that's going to be critically important and I think almost worthy of an informational
email to the commission so we can understand because this will be again between our meeting
times this is going to be moving forward and we don't need for another month.
So right now this is moved over to the Senate according to your memo before the local government
committee and when is it going to be heard then do you believe it's been scheduled yet
for a hearing it only recently received its referral.
going to go to housing in the Senate and natural resources? I believe it's been
double referred to the Senate Housing Committee and so it would go to well let
me retract that actually I just confirmed it's been singly referred to
the Assembly Local Government Committee. Assembly or Senate? I'm sorry Senate
thank you. So no other committees in the Senate are going to be hearing it? No
other policy committees would be hearing the bill. They would go to the
the Appropriations Committee.
It's all concerning.
It's a very concerning bill.
I mean, there's a lot to consider in your report,
but I think of everything what you're hearing from us,
or at least hearing from me, from Commissioner Kelly,
and I'm sure everyone shares this view, I assume,
is that this is something that really could undermine
and make it impossible for what the voters expressed
a strong support of protecting the coast of California,
and they continue to support very strongly
not to mention building houses in dangerous areas
that's subject to sea level rise,
subject to all sorts of other climate related
and just environmental threats just makes no sense.
Just so I think it's very important that we track this bill
and I remain very concerned about it.
I also just wanted to express my appreciation,
some monstrous amount of work for you all.
And thank you so much for everything
that you're doing up in Sacramento.
It's just a really, a big effort.
Also wanted to acknowledge the election of Senator Lemone.
I was in brief contact with her
and she said that she really looks forward
to working closely with Pro Tem Maguire.
They're really aligned as they move forward,
what she can learn from him.
And he's been such a, continues to be such a great leader.
So the fact that Senator Lemone
is following such an incredible public servant,
my county, former county supervisor and boss,
Senator McGuire, Leader Pro Tem,
I'm really excited about both of their leadership.
It's great.
And then I just want to finally continue
to express my concern about exemption bills,
bills that exempt the Coastal Act
undermine what the voters have expressed,
which is protection of public access,
protection of the coastal natural resources.
But when you move then to these very short timeframe bills
that we don't have the staff or the funding to address.
As I said earlier,
it creates an almost impossible situation
with the commission.
So thank you, Chair, for me reiterating my concerns.
And thank you again, Sean.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
All right, thanks.
Hey, there is the bill 462 that I have,
I guess, a kind of a question about it just,
it confuses me.
Essentially, it's to allow for or to exempt ADU construction
from LCPs, I guess, if there is a declared emergency.
And I'm just coming at it from a local governance perspective.
So as a county, we do our upland version of our ADU ordinance
and then our coastal version of our ADU ordinance.
And cities and counties do that that are all along the coast.
And so I guess I'm just kind of wondering like
when that emergency hits does it completely exempt
the LCP version or our coastal versions of our ordinances
and then still align or doesn't align
with our non coastal version of them.
We would go through a lot of trouble to do these ordinances
and getting through all the process and do this.
and then it's hard to know, it seems confusing a bit.
And so again, a shout out to local governments
to maybe take a look at this particular bill
in terms of just like, how does it actually get applied?
I have some folks saying, okay,
if there's an emergency or a declaration that's been done
and it's in, for us in our county,
that can be two hours driving away from the coast.
And then does that mean that it enacts this provision
two hours away or how does that work and is,
has that been sort of straightened out yet?
Thank you for the question commissioner Wilson.
To your first question about kind of the,
the ramification of the exemption being triggered.
So just the way the bill is structured,
if an emergency is declared by the governor
for a disaster anywhere in a coastal county,
under the provisions of the bill,
accessory dwelling units would be exempt
from the requirement to obtain a coastal development
permit throughout that county's coastal zone,
regardless of whether a site is where the disaster occurred
or whether it's, as you said, two hours away,
but still in the same county.
And so that's to say, the exemption is on a county
by county basis for when there is an emergency declaration
within that county.
And the exemption of ADUs would apply throughout that entire
county's coastal zone.
And so to, I think, your first point about how that would play
the language of the bill specifically exempts an ADU from the requirement to
obtain a coastal development permit and in a certified jurisdiction with the
local coastal program the coastal development permit process as you know
is where LCP policies are brought to bear on proposed development and so if
a proposed project such as an ADU under this bill is exempt from obtaining a
coastal development permit or similar authorization those LCP policies are not
be brought to bear on that development. And so it could proceed regardless of what policies are in
the jurisdiction certified LCP. I guess what I'm saying is that we have LCP policy in our ordinance
embedded in the ordinance that is in in addition to what we have in our in our upland ordinance
but we still have our upland ordinance policies because we have land use protections. I'm just
I'm just giving an example of we have a 40-acre parcel.
We have an ADU ordinance that says,
that ADU has to be within the curtilage
or the area where that the house is
so that we don't have de facto subdivision
and bifurcations of our resource lands.
Is that protection still there,
even though there was a declared emergency,
hours inland and I'm just, that's what I'm kind of getting at. I don't know if we have an answer
to that today, but it is a concern. I would say that cities might have, big counties might have
a concern because, you know, you're just more prone to have an emergent or declaration made
somewhere very far away from these locations and then have this sort of upending of your local
ordinances. If I may respond briefly through the chair, you know, I would point out the the
exemption from the requirement to obtain a coastal development permit. Looking at
the language of the bill seemingly would not impact other local requirements that
are on the books that are wholly separate from the local coastal program.
That said, you know, given the diversity of counties in California's coastal zone
and the way in which they've structured how their LCP interrelates with other
land use ordinances that they have on the books, the specifics of how this
exemption would apply will likely see county-to-county variability, and it will generate questions
like this and likely some confusion, and that's one of the points of concern that staff has
with the bill is that while the concept of an exemption I think is simple to understand,
when it comes to how that would play out locally, especially in terms of how the LCP connects
to other local ordinances, it's not quite so cut and dry, and I think that in an instance
of emergency won't have the same kind of light switch effect as maybe is currently intended
and so I think that's an opportunity for additional clarification that staff has identified and
provided some technical assistance in Sacramento with that objective in mind.
And last comment, the concern is also related to cities that are within the counties.
So we have these very cross jurisdictional, I don't know, it's just something that needs
to be hatched out, I think, and I appreciate you guys' work on that.
And I'm asking our staff at our county to go a closer look as well as the city's to
see how they interpret that.
And in the past, I've found there are different interpretations of that bill.
So okay.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you.
Any further questions?
any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much Mr. Drake for the
presentation and and all your all your good work. It's a good discussion. So now
we'll be moving to item 8d which is consideration of the work program and
budget associated with the songs mitigation. Mr. Tupel, is that you? I'm Rachel Pausch. I'm
presenting. I don't know. There we go. Thank you. Okay. Great. Good morning Chair
Harmon, Vice Chair Hart, and commissioners. I do have a slideshow so if we could. Yes wonderful,
thank you. The next item is 8D, the proposed work plan and budget for the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station Mitigation Monitoring Program for 2026 and 2027. For shorthand,
I'll refer to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in this presentation by its acronym
songs. We are bringing you this before you today to share the current status of the mitigation
program and because the commission's approval of the budget and work plan is required in order
for independent monitoring of the mitigation projects to continue. The songs mitigation program
is one of the commission's longest running compliance efforts. The commission's predecessor
the California coastal zone conservation commission approved a permit for the construction
in operation of units 2 and 3 at songs in 1974.
Comprehensive impact studies carried out at that time showed that the power plant's cooling
water system would have two primary types of adverse impacts on the marine environment.
First, the seawater brought into the plant through these intake pipes would contain immature
stages of fish and other marine life that would be lost.
This would result in substantial reductions of nearshore fish and marine productivity
in Southern California.
Second, the discharge from units two and three would create plumes of turbid or cloudy water
that would cause shading and a loss of nearby kelp beds and associated fish and invertebrates.
Next slide, please.
To mitigate for these impacts, the Commission required that Southern California Edison implement
and fund a mitigation program with two principal components.
One the creation of a tidal wetland to provide out-of-kind mitigation for losses of immature
fish and trained in the intakes and two, construction of a kelp reef to mitigate for losses of kelp
fish and other invertebrates at the San Onofre kelp forest. The mitigation projects are now known as
the San Diego wetlands located in Del Mar and the Wheeler North Reef complex located off the coast
of San Clemente. Next slide please. Monitoring of the created mitigation reef began in 2009 and in
2011 for the wetlands. Annual monitoring of the mitigation wetland and reef provides data
used to assess whether the project is meeting the performance standards included in the permit.
The monitoring team may use the data to determine the cause of any shortfalls and inform Southern
California Edison, who then proposes appropriate remediation to bring the project into compliance
with performance standards. A key component of the songs mitigation monitoring program is its
independence from the applicant and its partners, ensuring that the mitigation is evaluated by a
qualified independent entity with no vested interest in the results. That independent
entity is comprised of a team of scientists from UC Santa Barbara. A separate science advisory panel
provides scientific oversight and guidance to commission staff and the monitoring team.
Another key component of the program is the annual public workshop used to share monitoring
compliance results with the public. Next slide please. Shown here are the absolute
and relative performance standards used to evaluate the success of the Wheeler
North mitigation reef complex. This reef was constructed in three phases using
predominantly quarry rock and currently covers approximately 373 acres. These
success standards measure kelp, fish, invertebrates, invasive species, and more.
The absolute standards are measured at the Wheeler North reef complex and
compared to a fixed value, while the relative standards are evaluated against two reference
reef sites. Following 10 years of monitoring and an additional three years of successful performance,
following the completion of the third phase of construction in 2024, the Commission approved a
transition to a less intensive monitoring approach for the Wheeler North Reef. That reduced
monitoring will continue as long as the reef continues to meet annual success criteria.
Since the third phase of the Wheeler North construction in 2019, giant kelp area and
fish standing stock are measured using cumulative totals across years. Although the project must
ultimately compensate for impacts with a reef that annually supports 150 acres of kelp and 28 tons
of fish multiplied by 32 years, equal to the operating life of the nuclear generating station,
the project continues to accumulate credit towards these goals. Since 2019, the project
has earned six years of hard substrate, invasive species, and additional relative criteria credit.
The mitigation will not be considered fulfilled until all of these criteria are met for the
required time span. Next slide please. Shown here are the absolute and relative performance
standards used to evaluate the success of Southern California Edison's Sandigito Wetlands
Restoration Project. These standards are measured annually and include measurements of vegetation,
hydrology, birds, fish, invertebrates, and more. Similar to the reef, the relative
standards are compared to three other Southern California reference wetlands
each year. Next slide please. In order to receive mitigation credit for a given
year, the wetland restoration project must meet all of the absolute standards.
For relative standards, it must perform at least as well as the worst performing
reference wetland. So far the San Diego to wetlands have yet to meet the
absolute standard for habitat areas.
This was first due to the lack of vegetated salt marsh.
However, thanks to Southern California Edison's
Supplemental Planting Program and other factors,
the vegetation cover has increased at San Diego.
Currently, the system is meeting the standard
for vegetated salt marsh habitat area,
but is now falling short in the mud flat habitat area.
Mud flat habitat is important because it supports small
invertebrates and provides foraging area
a wide range of birds and other marsh species. The project team is currently evaluating potential
remediation options to address the lack of mudflat habitat at the site. The project has also failed
to meet the relative standard requirements due to the low densities and diversity of invertebrate
and fish species and the historically slow rate of vegetation development. Consequently, in
combination with the unmet habitat area standard, the Wetland project has not yet received mitigation
credit. However the vegetation density criteria is expected to be met soon and the project team
is investigating potential remediation measures for other unmet success criteria. Next slide please.
According to the work program or accordingly the work program before you today includes funding
for both 2026 and 2027. These funds support the 20 staff and the facilities needed to monitor
the mitigation and reference sites, the boats, vehicles, and other necessary equipment to
access and assess the sites, a comprehensive database management system used to store and
analyze over a decade's worth of data that is available to the public, and other administrative
costs associated with the program. The total budget for the two-year work program is slightly
over seven million dollars. This is broadly consistent with the last several budgets for
for the mitigation program, but also reflects increases due to inflation, material, equipment
costs and rising wages.
We are also recommending Commission approval of a contingency fund of roughly $1.5 million
to be used in consultation with SCE if needed.
This contingency fund would cover additional costs of a return to full reef monitoring
should the reef complex cease to meet success criteria.
The contingency fund could also be used to cover the costs of additional collaboration
with the scientific advisory panel
in identifying potential reasons for unmet success criteria.
Before the staff report was finalized,
staff had the opportunity to discuss the draft work plan
and budget with Southern California Edison.
They are in agreement with the task and budget
contained in the proposed work plan.
Next slide, please.
The motion and resolution for this item
can be found on page five of the staff report.
Staff would like to thank both Southern California Edison
and the contract scientists at UC Santa Barbara
for their continued collaboration in this program.
If you would like to request additional information
on the songs mitigation monitoring program,
I'd be happy to answer questions.
Representatives of both Southern California Edison
and the independent monitoring program at UC Santa Barbara
are also available.
I'd also note that the UCSB website listed on this slide
includes a wealth of information.
This concludes staff's presentation, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Are there any public comments on this item?
We don't have anyone sign up who wishes to speak.
We just have four available for questions,
including the three from UC Santa Barbara, Rachel Smith,
Mark Page, and Dan Reed.
I believe Rachel Smith is here in person.
And then Joseph Stambursky from Southern California Edison,
also available for questions.
Wonderful, thank you.
Bring it back to the Commission
for any comments, questions, or a motion.
just want for purposes of clarification that these are mitigation funds that are
provided by the app and this is the funding source for this. So Edison yeah
so the the budget for the monitoring comes from Edison, Southern California
Edison, to do this program as part of their requirements for mitigation. Right
I was just thinking this discussion coming right on the heels of how budget
shortfalls i wanted to clarify that these are not uh funds that are coming from the commission
i'm fine making a motion uh i hereby move that the commission approved the 2026 and 2027 two
years songs work program and budget and contingent fund and recommend as recommended by the staff
and i'm asking for a yes vote second either the maker or seconder like to speak to their motion
Thank you. And may we have a roll call please, Ms. Miller? Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson, yes. Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Kelly, yes. Commissioner Lopez? Aye.
Lopez, yes. Commissioner Lowenberg? Yes. Lowenberg, yes. Commissioner Nada? Aye. Nada, yes. Commissioner
Perciado. Aye. Perciado, yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson, yes. Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes. O'Malley, yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is unanimous. Thank you with
that. The 2026-2027 work program and budget is approved. So we'll move on to the next
item the LCP grants program. And for this item Shahar Amitay will be presenting the
staff recommendation. Shahar he's online. Hi there good afternoon
commissioners. I'm here to present an LCP grant application for your
consideration from the city of Los Angeles for the Venice coastal segment.
Staff is recommending approval. Next slide please. As a reminder the LCP
grant program has been running for over just just over 10 years and has awarded
$26.5 million to 47 jurisdictions for 93 different projects to support LCP development
or updates with a special emphasis on addressing impacts from climate change and sea level rise.
More recently, the Budget Act of 2021 appropriated $31 million through the Coastal Commission,
both to award to local governments as grants and to support Coastal Commission staff
administering the program and working with the local governments. If this grant is awarded today,
we will have about $4 million left to award it to me now in June of 2026. And with several
pending projects in the pipeline, we are on track to fully disperse the funds within the next few
months. Next slide please. The Commission has updated its adopted priorities and evaluation
criteria for the grant program over time to better reflect the current state of coastal
resiliency planning and to ensure efficient use of funds. Eligible grantees include local governments
responsible for developing into many LCPs and eligible projects are those that assess, plan for,
and adapt to the impacts of climate change and sale rise, which contain an LCP planning component.
The program prioritizes technical studies and outreach, environmental justice, adaptation
planning at various scales, and work on LCPs. The Commission has also made a series of adjustments
to the application process over time to streamline it and make it more accessible to local governments.
Currently, all grant applications can be submitted and awarded on a rolling basis.
The Executive Director can approve awards up to $500,000, while grants for more than $500,000
require approval from the Commission. To date, the Executive Director has approved 17 grants
totaling $5.3 million. These grants are described in Section E of the Staff Report.
The grant application in front of you today falls into the latter category of proposals
that are over $500,000 and which require commission approval.
City of Los Angeles is seeking $1.1 million to complete a full draft of the Venice LCP
as well as an update to the Venice Sea Level Rise vulnerability assessment to reflect the
state's 2024 Sea Level Rise guidance and to facilitate future adaptation planning.
Specifically, the project includes a comprehensive overhaul of the existing certified land use
plan that will go through staff level admin review, then public review, and local adoption
by the city's planning commission. For the implementation plan, or the IEP, the city
will complete a final draft of the staff level admin review, the city will complete a final
draft for staff level admin review, and then public review. The targeted update to the
2018 Venice vulnerability assessment will inform the preparation of the LEP and IP drafts.
The overarching goals and objectives of the project are to advance completion of the
Venice Segment LCP, build on previously completed COE planning work, provide more detailed
and comprehensive information on coastal hazards and COE vulnerability, and engage with the
wide range of stakeholders.
The proposed project will also develop a framework or roadmap of next steps and recommendations
and ensure that the city remains committed to comprehensive based adaptation planning
approach when addressing future COE impacts.
Next slide, please.
Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the LSP grant program priorities
and evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission.
First, it would lead to the development and eventual certification of a Venice Segment
LSTP for the very first time.
The City of Los Angeles Venice Coastal Segment currently has an existing LEP that was certified
in 2001.
However, the City of Los Angeles remains one of only 12 coastal jurisdictions statewide
does not have a fully certified LCP as it does not have a certified IEP currently.
Since the early 2010-2000 teens the city has been intending to complete a comprehensive overhaul
of the existing LEP and to pair it with an IEP such that the Venice area could be fully LCP
certified and to ensure that the new and remapped LCP would better address civil rights and other
critical Coastal Act issues. In 2015, the city was awarded two LCP grants to develop the Coastal
Hazardous Vulnerability Assessment, which was completed in 2018, for the Venice Coastal Segment
and to update its LUP. The previous grants culminated in numerous community workshops and
outreach events, the transportation and parking study, and in fall of 2022, administrative drafts
of the new LEP and IEP. Since 2022, the city's planning staff has been collaborating with
commission staff on the administrative LEP draft, with the aim of releasing the working draft to the
public for review. The city has also indicated interest in developing zoning standards and
regulations that are in a format consistent with the other areas of the city that are further inland,
called the zoning strings, which would be crucial for commission staffs and the public's review
of a draft IEP. Most recently, the city has encountered difficulties in preparing and
submitting an IEP draft with a full set of zoning standards and regulations since only a subset of
zoning strings has been developed to date and there has been a recent redirected focus towards
the LEP. In addition, due to present budgetary constraints, city planning staff are also
confronted with limited capacity and ability to work on the LCP. This grant would help immensely
and ensuring that staffing and resources for the city's LCP planning team continue into the future,
and that the LEP and IP would be fully carried through the public review process.
To demonstrate that the city is committed to completion of the LCP beyond the grant term,
the city is specifying tasks that would be completed beyond the grant term in 2028 and
thereafter that will take the LEP and IP drafts through the local adoption process and towards
submittal to the commission staff for certification. Additionally, the work would address climate
change and civil rights resiliency. By prioritizing full LCP certification, the city is ensuring that
the LEP and IP are harmonized in their treatment and acknowledgement of coastal hazards exacerbated
by civil rights and climate change. Staff recommends imposing a condition that requires
the grant agreement to explicitly include incorporation of baseline civil rights policies
and implementing provisions, and the City agrees to such a condition.
The City would also complete a targeted update to the 2018
then a sealerized vulnerability assessment to reflect best available science per the state's
2024 sealerized guidance. The vulnerability assessment update will be concurrent with the
development of the LEP and IP documents such that it informs their preparation.
As part of this effort, the City will also prepare a framework that identifies the planning work
and associated timelines necessary for ensuring consistency with SB 272.
Senate Bill 272 requires local governments to develop
CELVARIS adaptation plans as part of new or updated LCPs by January 1st of 2034.
As such, in addition to identifying potential future planning work necessary for consistency
with SB 272, such as the development of the CELVARIS adaptation plan and economic impact analysis,
The city's framework will discuss how that information would be incorporated
into the city's by then certified LCP through a future amendment.
This roadmap is thus crucial that it would result in identification of actionable approaches
that could be implemented in the coming years in accordance with SB 272 requirements.
Staff notes that this type of phased LCP update approach whereby an initial LCP certification
that includes basic seal of awareness policies would then be followed by more detailed adaptation
planning work the subsequent lcp amendment has been recommended by the coastal commission local
government working group as a way to improve efficiency and success for future lcp updates
finally the project addresses environmental justice in several key ways in addition to
reaching out to a broad range of stakeholders the outreach plan that the the city's proposing
will include efforts to ensure participation by low-income communities, indigenous communities,
communities of color, and other marginalized communities. Now that there's an addendum to
this item, addressing two letters received from members of the public that are in opposition to
the staff recommendation. The letters which are in the correspondence file generally contend that
members of the public have provided comments to the city regarding Venice community planning,
that the city has not adequately addressed them to date, and then looking forward that the public
will not have sufficient time or opportunity to provide input on the LCP deliverables during the
grant process. Staff reiterates that public engagement is a key part of the proposed grant
application, but to better respond to the commenter's concerns, staff recommends adding
the special condition, reflecting that the city will consider relevant public comments submitted
to date as part of the early LCP drafting process. Additional details can be found in the addendum.
Next slide please. In conclusion, commission staff recommends awarding an LCP local assistance
grant to the city of Los Angeles for the Venice LCP project in the amount of 1.1 million dollars.
The motion and resolution are on page 3 of the staff report and staff are recommending a yes vote.
Convention staff and City of LA staff are available for questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much Mr. Almitae. Are there any speakers signed up for this item?
Yes, we have four speakers who wish to speak. We have the City of LA on Zoom starting with
Shana Bondston. Hello, my name is Shana Bondston and I'm a Deputy Director overseeing long-range
planning with the City Planning Department, City of Los Angeles. I am here on behalf of
Planning Director Vince Bertone to express from the leadership of our department our sincere
commitment and purpose to productively creating the certified LCP for Venice. We are serious about
this work effort being successful and having an outcome that is valuable. This has been a long-term
effort and with an investment towards a shared goal. So to achieve this goal City Planning and
and the Coastal Commission staff have established
an LCP review process, which we are in the middle of,
and this leverages, of course,
the Coastal Commission's experience across the state.
It's a little bit different
from what our normal process would be.
As the agency collaboration
with Coastal Commission staff and review,
we look forward to the release
of this public land use plan draft in 2026,
and that will include new zoning,
as well as sea level rise policies aligned
the 2024 SLR policy guidance.
And this will really be the next significant opportunity
for public comment and feedback on the draft LCP.
Of course, following that,
we have our process of open houses,
workshop, public hearings.
The item will go to our planning commission.
The item will go to our council
as well as committees on the council.
So this is just to share that we are committed
to the outreach and transparency
in the context of the best practices
that Coastal Commission staff employ.
and respect their process and honorable commission.
We just really thank you for your consideration
and would be very appreciative of this grant approval.
Thanks.
Thank you.
And we also have two other people
from the city of LA available for questions.
We have three other speakers.
We'll start with Robin Rudecil followed by Noah Gold
and then Dr. Naomi Nightingale.
Robin Rudecil, go ahead.
Before you start the clock,
May I have three minutes?
I think we're giving everyone two minutes, thank you.
I'll do my best.
Citizens preserving Venice.
We cannot support the 1.1 million grant
to Los Angeles for the Venice segment
unless certain key issues are addressed.
The public will not see a draft LUP until August 2026
after multiple rounds of confidential edits
between city and commission staff.
This is not meaningful public engagement.
Making matters worse, the final draft will go through
a brief less than three month public review
run by a consultant?
How is that enough time to achieve the goal
for low-income residents, renters,
indigenous and coastal communities of color
to participate meaningfully,
let alone the rest of the public?
And when it finally reaches the City Planning Commission,
the hearing will be in front of a body
with no Coastal Act training or expertise
and a well-established reputation
for rubber stamping development.
This is not a fair or transparent public process.
The Venice Neighborhood Council submitted recommendation
to City Planning over 10 months ago.
The city has neither responded
or provide any transparency on whether that input is contributing to the LUP.
The addendum confirms this saying the city plans to consider and address some comments
later at an undefined time without any structure for accountability or enforcement.
A vague promise to consider, quote, relevant comments does not build trust.
This certainly does not meet the Coastal Act standards for public participation.
What defines relevant?
Who determines whether the city has a meaningfully addressed comments?
This condition does not guarantee city accountability.
Frankly, allowing the public to have access to the drafts and provide ongoing input and
allowing the public to at least observe the city and coastal staff meetings appears to
be the only way to allow for the needed transparency and I strongly recommend it.
Please ensure this process lives up to the public participation values of the Coastal
Act and please, Steve, we implore you to modify the work plan to address these issues before
grant approval.
Lastly, in the addendum, staff indicates that expanding the scope to include the other LA
zones is unrealistic due to funding limits, yet failing to require a city-wide approach
perpetuates Venice's disproportionate burden and requires LA's other coastal areas to wait
indefinitely.
But this risk, not just equity, a citywide LCP, especially when addressing sea level
rise and adaptation planning, is essential to ensure consistency, fairness, and coastal
protection.
And surely there is more grant money so that all of the LA coastal zones can be included.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And after no gold dr. Naomi nightingale, uh, it's I was able to start the video before
Please stop the clock
But now it's saying I can't start the video. I
just prompted a
Okay, great, all right, thank you again commissioners, it's great to be here and appreciate your service I agree with
What Robin said previously I almost could take off where she left off
On your map on the second slide
I was looking for San Pedro and of course, I saw the city of Los Angeles and so on your map you're
Acknowledging that the city of LA is one area that needs to be
Considered and come up with an LCP. Also the Coastal Commission has for years and
years been pushing the city of Los Angeles to actually come up with an LCP
because LA was mentioned as one of 12 that haven't done it and they're
dragging their feet but now they're actively moving forward and have been in
Venice but I think it's really essential that all of the areas in LA that need to
come up with the local coastal program do so at the same time I mean Venice had
their LUP approved in 2002 and San Pedro had their LUP certified in 1991, significantly
earlier, and yet we haven't had the opportunity to work with the city to put our LCP together
and get the protections of an LCP. Unless you take all of the areas in Los Angeles that
need to complete the LCP process and let them all work together at the same time, it's going
to be potentially decades more before Los Angeles is actually able to come up with the state required
LCP. And as you know, Los Angeles has been pressured by the Coastal Commission for years to
to get on the program and do this. So I would ask that the Coastal Commission not now sort of
slow that process down by making us do each part of LA that needs the LCP
one at a time. Please let us all work together at the same time.
Thank you. Dr. Naomi Nightingale, you should be able to unmute yourself.
Yes, good morning. Thank you. In a letter sent to the commissioners from Brian,
April and me, we were clear about our concerns and our conditions too,
for the support for the grant proposal for funding the Venice LCP.
Completing an LCP is of the highest priority and necessity for our community.
We want nothing less than that. The condition stated in our letter is that the hard earnest
work of the Venice residents and stakeholders that is represented in the Venice Community Plan
and approved by the Venice Neighborhood Council be acknowledged and included in any work going
forward to achieve the local coastal plan. To negate that work is a grave
injustice to the hundreds of individuals that spent hours participating in a
process of decision-making and recommendations for land use and for
the Venice community. As of June 2025 we have not received a response to the
report in the 10 months since it was submitted. I agree that a lot of work has
done by city planning but it does not give us any confidence that of the work
that we've already done and how they will move forward. We documented
preferences of hundreds of individuals and sent notices to six thousand
contacts of the neighborhood council receiving a total of 594 valid surveys
from that effort a 9% return rate. The public outreach tasks listed in Mr.
Bertone's letter is the same process implemented in developing the Venice
community plan. Outreach plans doesn't begin until 2026. Why not acknowledge and
incorporate completed applicable tasks submitted in the Venice community plan
rather than starting from ground zero? Since this is a plan specifically for the
Venice community, why not include the work that Venice community has already
done. Not doing so is tantamount to the nullifying the work and the voices of
Venice residents and stakeholders. We look forward to continuing to work with
City Planning on completing our mutual land use planning goal. Thank you. Thank
you. We have no more speakers for this item, Madam Chair. Thank you. That closes
public comment and I will ask our staff if they would like to respond to the
public comment? We would. I'd like to first start and turn it over to Shahar to start off.
Yes, thank you. So quickly, just regarding the notion that public review, that public review
in general should be concurred with or proceed at staff level interactions with local governments
on these drafts as part of the grant. In past grants and in general, local governments
do as a sort of first phase of their work program, they do work with us on these drafts
because there are certain non-starters or there are just a certain level of vetting
for coastal consistency that commission staff usually goes through. We do believe that is
standard practice and make sense here. We will say that the city can speak to this some more,
but the city has started embarking on this journey since 2016 and it's been almost 10 years
now and there have been fits and starts because of you know a lot of public interest and input here.
But you know the city has been working through the LEP draft for the last three years and you
have been taking into account all these different public homes that have come in
through the myriad of public engagement efforts that they've conducted. And so cities, in sort
of in lieu of trying to play catch up and not having a draft ready, they do want to make sure
that they do, that they meet the grant deadlines December 27, to really try and do as much as
possible and not depend on the follow-up process after the grant term, and so they do want to
streamline as much of it as possible, but there will be more than ample opportunity at various
stages of the grant process to make sure that the public is involved. And I can quickly walk
you through, again, the various stages from now until the application for certification,
but there will be more than ample public input. I think that again addresses some of those
concerns too about public comments that have been submitted to date and so we do believe that that
additional condition that staff recommends will address that and that it will provide the city
an opportunity and commission staff an opportunity to really understand what the public comments have
been thus far but to really you know take inventory of those and incorporate
them into the admin level drafts. Those then will be released again to the
public. We anticipate seeing quite a few changes as part of the public input
process and so we do believe that is an equitable and fair process and sort of
standard. As to the idea that the city of LA should be proceeding with one large
LCP grant for all coastal segments. We did discuss that with the city. We
formally conferred with them on that. They really just don't have staff
capacity to intake and administer a large more expanded LCP grant at this
time. We also don't have probably enough money in our funds left in order to do
that we have five LCP segments or five coastal jurisdictions or
neighborhoods within the city of LA and so that would take a lot of coordination
you know city has just lack of budget and resources and staffing to actually
deal with that but that is there in time things definitely made it clear to
commission staff that they are interested in getting an LCP for all
segments and so the city can speak some more to that but we were just you know
realistically speaking we wanted to move forward with what we have and what we
can and make sure that we do this also in a phased approach and getting to
things while we can so I think that sums it up for my comments. I'm not sure if other
staff have anything else. Thank you. Dr. Huckelbeck. Thanks, Shahar. I think he did a
great job of addressing the comments, but also know there's a response to
comments in the addendum. So just wanted to point that out as well and just make
it very clear that getting this LCP done is a huge priority for this
commission and for the city. We've been working on this for a while, we need to
get it done, we think this is the best way to get it done. It's very clear if we
don't provide this funding that efforts will slow if not stop given the city's
own budget constraints and and cuts to their staff. So which you know it's just
again this hard hard times right now so we really strongly recommend that the
Commission improve this grant we do hear all of the comments that have been
submitted and we've had discussions with some of the folks you heard on public
comment today their input is really important and and we with the city are
going to be paying very close attention to ensuring that that public the
opportunity for engagement with the public continues as it has in the past
but it continues forward and that the input is is considered throughout that
process but we have a lot of staff to staff needed gritty work to do first
um before we get to the point of public drafts and things of that nature. So
again we strongly recommend that commission approve the grant um and turn
it back to you chair. Thank you commissioner Loewenberg. I just
have a question. Dr. Hucklebridge can you address the idea of how much is in the
whole budget going forward and for the new commissioners and even for us
you know when they talk about 1.1 what what will that take us down to how does
to get replenished for our LCP grant program?
And so I'm actually going to turn it over to Kelsey Ducklow, who's online.
She runs that grant program for the commission and has probably the numbers right at her
fingertips.
Kelsey.
Yes, thank you.
If this grant is awarded today, it would take us down to about 4 million remaining in the
current sort of funding pool.
We do have numerous applications that are sort of in the door being worked out, so it
is likely that the funds would be awarded in the next few months, and that would be
the end of this current funding pool.
We do not have another source.
I do want to note, just while I have the floor here, that OPC's SB1 grants will provide a
lot of the same type of funding support for LCP planning, for SB272 planning, for LCP
updates.
Is other money available, but it will likely not be coming from us into the future?
So is, is that it?
That's the end of any money for LCP?
That's correct.
Yeah.
That we got about $30 million several years ago and we have, we are almost at the point
of having given all out.
And I think, I mean, this has been critical in getting, again, towards the goal of having
all LCPs updated to deal, to sea level rise and climate change impacts.
grants have been critical to getting us further down the line.
And as Kelsey noted, there is other funding available from the state through the OPC and
their SB1 grants, and they've committed to working with us, including some of our provisions
for example, that we're moving towards LCP updates and hearings in front of the commission.
So I'm hopeful that there is still funding available, and we're going to work with the
OPC to kind of make those as fruitful as possible for our LCP update
process. And in the world of acronym OCP? OPC, excuse me, that's the Ocean
Protection Council, Jen Eckerly who's one of our commissioners, it heads up that
council. So she's fully engaged in the work that we do here as the Commission.
She's just not here today. Right. And yeah. Any idea what those funds sources
So SB1 funds are that were they were provided you know associated with
Senate Bill 1 from I can't remember the year that that was implemented but
there's a big chunk of funds for it's a little bit broader is my understanding
than specifically LCP updates but we've again worked with OPC to try to provide
some funding for the type of work that we're doing under LCP grants so the
idea is that it would be to local governments and other similar to how our
grant program works. I don't know Kelsey if you have more if I got that right or
if you have other additional details about the SB 1 grant program that you
think would be useful. No I think that's basically right yes the same SB 1 funds
absolutely can cover the same kind of work I believe OPC also has climate bond
funds that will support this as well but I would want to speak to OPC for some of
those specifics on that but general message being that there will be
be continued funding for this type of work from OPC and others through the
chair Kelsey what what do you have any idea what if we spend you know we do
this 1.1 which I'm in favor of and then we have about 4 million left do we know
what the incremental differences going for I mean do we have any sense of how
many how much funds are available through we have 4 million left do we are
we looking at an additional ten and you know for free so it very much depends we
have grants of different sizes this is one of the larger ones but so it depends
on what's in the door it could it could be anywhere from probably five to ten
depending on again the size of those grants so I'm not I don't think we know
yet but it's a high magnitude it we still have a fair number of grants to go
through that's right I but the you know I want to point out that what's been so
successful about this grant program is is our staff engagement with local
governments on both the grant process in terms of right-sizing it for the money
that you know and the resources available by from local government and
then really working on a work plan that gets us to an LCP update like we want to
bring these in front of you that's the goal to get these LCPs updated and so
we're really hopeful with OPC and SB1 funds that we can have that same
engagement but that's a concern and of course if there are opportunities in
the future as budgets improve generally that we might you know have another
ability to get funding in the future for this to you know continue this type
of work we'll see thank you yeah I've got a question so understanding we
started with 31 million in 2021 through the budget act and now we're down to 4
million my question is as part of that legislation was there a report back
who's monitoring how we're spending it in terms of letting them know that we've
spend it spend it well and found successes was just reported. Is there an
opportunity to share that in a meaningful way especially now as we're
looking back at our budget and talk about future opportunity at the same
time retain a list of as we work with our jurisdictions what else could you do
if we had additional so that when we go back we can present a list of if we had
another 30 million here's another 140 projects we could complete. It's a great
comment and question. Kelsey I'm not sure if you have the details on what if
there was a report back required.
But I think I wanna think about that
and figure out how we can do that.
I know we've communicated the success of this program
in a couple of different ways to the legislature,
but maybe not formally.
And so maybe I'll be thinking about opportunities to do that.
But thanks for the comment.
Thank you all.
Please go ahead.
I was just gonna mention that part section E,
I believe of the staff report,
does give a sort of summary of all the grants
that have been awarded using this funding.
So that is one place to start.
Many of those grants are still,
the term to use that money isn't until the end of 2027.
So all of those grants are still in process.
So all of them are still working.
But yes, to the overall point,
we can think about ways to, you know,
discuss how successful that work has been.
Commissioner Presiato.
I'm just wondering in acknowledging the testimony
from the community of Venice,
they seem to have an urgency of being heard.
And I'm just wondering, as was described by staff,
there is a process for that kind of development,
but it seems that the Venice Beach community
has a plan they want acknowledged somehow,
and I'm wondering if in the grant process
those kinds of artifacts can be absorbed, acknowledged,
and then we don't have the public having a sense of,
while even opposing a grant when they don't believe they're going to be taken
into account. So I wonder if you can comment that and I support the award.
Thank you, Commissioner Presiado. I think that was exactly the thought behind the
additional, the changes we made to the condition in the grant to ensure that
the city was addressing any input that has come in that to this point in their
next draft to us. So I think that was exactly what we were trying to get at
with the changes that we did make,
because we absolutely agree.
I think that where there's,
we want to let the community know
that it still is going to take a minute
for the public draft to come out
and for there to be public hearings on that.
And that is the best process from our perspective
to get to an LCP that we can support.
But we also wanted to make sure
that that input had been addressed
in some way, shape, or form.
And so we're going to be expecting
and talking to the city about how to do that
and in the drafts that come to us first.
Thank you staff, thank you Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner Kelly.
I move that the commission award
the LCP local assistance grant funding of $1.1 million
to the city of Los Angeles
and authorize the executive director
or their designee to enter into a grant agreement
with the grantee for allocation of these funds
and to make any amendments there too,
subject to the requirements and conditions set forth
in the staff recommendation and recommend a yes vote.
Second.
I missed you seconded that, O'Malley.
Thank you.
Well, before I call for a vote,
I just want to say briefly that I align myself
with the comments of my fellow commissioners
and particularly as a local government representative
to just speak to the importance of these grants.
We've been talking a lot today about budgetary challenges.
Those challenges are true to the same extent
in a lot of local jurisdictions that we're working with.
And these grants over the last few years
and this one that I will be strongly supporting today,
not only have tangible impacts
in terms of the LCPs coming forward,
but also on a more philosophical level.
It's illustrative of our commitment to partnering
with local jurisdictions to move forward the Coastal Act.
And I think that's very important
and a really critical element to be recognized,
that this is a tangible way that we can show our partnership
local jurisdictions uh to move these these items forward so uh with that unless the maker of the
motion and seconder would like to speak to their motion we'll have a roll call vote please Ms. Miller.
Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson, yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly, yes. Commissioner Lopez.
Aye. Lopez, yes. Commissioner Lowenberg. Yes. Lowenberg, yes. Commissioner Notoff. Aye. Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Addo. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes, O'Malley. Yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes, Hart. Yes, Chair Harmon. Yes, Harmon. Yes, the boat is unanimous.
Thank you, the grant is so awarded.
And I'll take a quick look at staff.
I think now seems maybe a good time to break for lunch,
if that works, so it's 12.45, and we'll be back at 1.45.
Thank you, Chair.
Those online, 1.45.
Lunch, when you go up the stairs,
straight ahead is the sunset room,
and that's where things start.
Okay, I hope everyone had a good lunch.
Excuse me, we'll get started again.
I think we are on item 9A, 8F, excuse me, sorry, I already heard that, 8F please.
So this item is 8F is to just revise the meeting schedule.
We noted that we had originally scheduled the November meeting during the same week.
That Veterans Day is the Tuesday that week, so we're just switching the date of the November
meeting to the week before thank you in November so do you know the dates off the top of the year
ahead no I think it's November 5th correct 5th through 7th instead of the 12th through 14th thank
you and so we're recommending that change and just need a motion and a second well moved is
Is there a motion to make this change?
I'll make it.
So moved.
I move that we change the date in November.
Thank you.
I think we could just hang on one second.
We're not seeing the screens here.
So let's take a quick pause.
Thank you.
Oh, did I hit?
Chair Harmon, I'm scheduled to not be here that week,
but that may change.
Thank you.
I currently have a conflict as well.
just curious do we know what the location that may help it's in North
Central I don't believe we have enough a specific location booked yet okay thank
you all right we'll work out the details with the commission members schedule so
I think Commissioner Wilson moved the date change yep works for me and I
seconded I seconded sure thank you so we have a motion by Commissioner Wilson and
second by Vice Chair Hart. May we have a roll call please? That's right I do
believe we have a public comment. It went so well the first half. This is amazing. This is a little
bit of a funky item. I think we'll give you a little grace on this one. If we
could please have public comment. Thank you. Let's go ahead Steve. Your mic's off.
Mike's off. Okay, I can no longer not even speak. I can't even hear.
Madam Chair, Commissioner, staff.
Yeah, thank you for letting me speak on this one. I know it's not like a
hugest thing in the world, but I did want to comment.
And I want to thank Vanessa
for catching
the thing about Veterans Day.
have a particular interest in Veterans Day since it's about one of the only bits of recognition
most of us veterans ever get these days.
So it's kind of an important holiday for us veterans.
So we look forward to having
the opportunity to
celebrate ourselves even if nobody else does, but what we're trying to do is
to make that day important and for all of us who have served and have borne the battle,
it is important and so I appreciate that you would be willing to change your
schedules and everything else to honor veterans and believe me if you announce
that's why you're doing it veterans will be grateful it's one of those little
things it doesn't seem like a big thing but it is it's very important to us and
And I'm sure the colonel will be able to correct me if I'm wrong on that one.
And then there's one other important thing about the change too, is that I've been coming
to Coast Commission hearings for 43 years, and the November schedule is always on my
birthday.
And my wife back here can tell you I come here on my birthday and I don't spend the
day at home.
So it's also very important to me and my family that I get to be home on my birthday.
So keep that in mind and make my family happy too.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have no more speakers for this item.
Thank you for your service.
We'll be celebrating you whether or not it's your birthday week.
We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Unless there are any comments, we'll go to a roll call vote,
please.
Commissioner Kelly.
Aye.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Aye.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes.
Lowenberg, yes.
Commissioner Nottle.
Aye.
Nottle, yes.
Commissioner Prisiato.
Aye.
Prisiato, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Bre Morrow Ray, yes.
Wilson, yes. Commissioner O'Mellie. Yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson.
Aye. Thank you for your service, sir. Jackson, yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is unanimous.
Thank you. The meeting dates are so revised. Now we will move on to the consent calendar and I'll turn it over to Mr. Hudson.
Thank you. And the next item is item nine, the consent calendar for all the
districts on the agenda today. There are two items on consent and staff was not
aware of any opposition to these items at the time the staff reports were
prepared and the applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations.
However, I would note that we did receive some emails from members of the public in
opposition to one of those items on the consent calendar today, item 9A, and that's
the application by the city of Los Angeles for the demolition and reconstruction of a
children's playground. I would note that this project did originally raise water quality
and public safety concerns due to the city's proposal to use recycled rubber playground
material which the commission has previously found inappropriate due to the fact that that
can break down, result in toxic microplastic debris. However, commission staff worked with
the city staff to revise this project to use the non-toxic and more natural
alternatives for the playground surface. And this change is reflected by a
special condition for revised plans to ensure that that change is adequately
carried out. Now I would note that some of those comment letters and emails that
were received were in support including from local City Councilwoman Tracy Park
and other members of the public as well. However some of those were in opposition
including from a group called Safe Healthy Playing Fields and some other folks.
Now those comment letters, including the letter from the group called Safe Healthy Play Fields,
assert that the materials being used, including polyvinyl chloride or PVC,
which is used in these new surface materials that would be the walking surface,
would still be toxic, aren't recyclable, and would not allow for infiltration of storm water.
And to address those issues, first I'd just like to note that Commission staff
on this application and previous applications has spent a significant amount of time studying
these materials that are used in these sorts of playgrounds because we have many projects.
And the materials that are being used here are very similar to the projects
the Commission has recently seen in the past.
They involve some of the newest and best technologies that avoid the use of toxic materials
and that we've asked other local governments to utilize.
So we think that this project is using the best available science.
We would also note though that the writer of the letter appears
to confuse the materials being used PVC with vinyl chloride.
Now PVC is not the same as vinyl chloride.
That's the gas used to manufacture PVC.
Now that gas is a toxic chemical and carcinogen,
but not the PVC which is a stable product.
Dr. Metz, the commission's senior staff called scientists in our water quality unit notes
that those playground maps are able to be recycled at the end of their lives
and they do allow for infiltration of storm water because those tiles have air gaps
between the different tiles.
Now some of those other letters also asserted that even with the use
of nontoxic materials they still wish
that the playground would use completely natural materials,
wood, metal, concrete, et cetera.
The problem with that is that those simply don't comply
with many of today's safety standards
that local governments must meet.
And there were also concerns
that this playground should be provide universal access
for all disabled children.
And we would note that this playground is designed
as an ADA compliant playground.
So it has ADA surfaces.
some of the amenities are ADA compliant,
but it's designed for a range of users
and for different activities.
So we do believe that this project is appropriate,
has been well-designed and a good example
of where a local government has worked with our staff
to address the issues that could be raised by,
I think we would all agree, are these beneficial projects.
And thus we continue to recommend this be approved today
as part of the consent calendar.
I would just note, I am available for questions.
And in closing,
staff is recommending the commission vote
and approve the consent calendar today.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
Are there any ex partes to report?
Seeing none, we'll open public comment.
Any public comment on either of these items?
I guess we have five people sign up to speak on item 9A.
Thank you.
We'll start with Diane Wolkie in the room.
And unfortunately, Ms. Wolkie,
I see that we were supposed to receive a presentation
from you, but we weren't able to download it.
notification of receipt.
I don't believe we have it.
Are you able to present without the presentation?
Well, I think it's significant that the photos
that were included be seen,
especially since I don't have a lot of confidence
that the commissioners had time to review the letter
that was sent since it was just posted
yesterday afternoon with the others.
Why don't we go ahead with the other speakers, and we'll try to get this sorted out if that
works.
Okay.
We'll move on to our Zoom speakers.
We'll start with Chris Atencio, followed by Robin Rudecil and then Gary Pearl.
We have a few people named Chris in the Zoom.
Chris Atencio, can you please raise your hand?
You're being moved in right now.
And when you're able to, please unmute and begin.
Chris, we seem to be having trouble promoting you as panelists.
I have allowed you to unmute as an attendee.
You should be able to unmute now and begin.
Sorry, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you, go ahead.
Yeah, I think there was just a mistake.
I have no comment on the playground.
I'm just here to receive any questions
regarding any of the materials
as I am working with the Department of Recreation and Parks.
Thank you.
Next is Robin Rudecil, followed by Gary Pearl.
So good afternoon, citizens preserving Venice,
And thank you for staff's good work
on the revisions already made.
It was our understanding that there may be an issue
with toxic materials such as fiberglass and plastics
being used instead of natural materials.
But hearing Steve's remarks just now,
I will respect your experts,
the commission's experts conclusions.
That said, I'm not clear why alternatives
using natural materials can't be prioritized,
especially for a high profile beach location.
I think Steve alluded to some issues with those,
but I wasn't clear about that.
So we really do urge you to require the use
of the natural materials, the concrete, et cetera,
in lieu of fiberglass and plastic.
We're very concerned that materials
that definitely will not harm the environment
or the health of our children and grandchildren,
in my case, be used.
And it's concerning that other groups
appear to be, who appear to be experts,
think there are issues there.
Regarding ADA, the playground fails to meet
the city's own standards for accessible play.
It only meets the bare minimum ADA requirements.
One swing, one bench, one point of wheelchair access,
falling far short of the inclusive design scene
in other nearby locations,
such as the universally accessible playground in Santa Monica.
And I just wonder, why can't we do better like them?
The current design features generic beach motives
like catamarans and an octopus
And those sort of lack any connection to Venice
and our unique historic and ecological identity.
Community suggestions such as a Venetian gondola
or marine life reflective of our own area were ignored.
In addition, the Venice Neighborhood Council and residents
were not meaningfully consulted during the design phase.
Venice Beach is Los Angeles's most iconic
and visited public park and it deserves a state of the art,
universally accessible, creatively designed playground.
So we urge the commission should require that this project be modified to meet best practices.
Accessibility for all children and culturally relevant design before approval.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Uh, Gary Pearl.
Hi, um, thank you for hearing this.
I want to get my video.
I'm sorry.
Oh, there we go.
Hi.
Um, thank you for hearing this and thank you for the staff report.
Um, I want to point out I'm, I'm actually, I've been working on this for a year with
Craig Raines, who's the city planner for the parks.
this has gone through, to give you some history,
it's gone through a bunch of different versions of it.
And everyone, we're in Venice.
We always have problems.
I'm going to be the vice president
of different council in a month,
though I throw myself into what you guys throw yourself
into a little bit.
But I think that the cultural division
is always a great partner with us.
They understand what Venice is,
to improve the world, the city.
This playground, I have a seven year old.
It got ripped up with our last council person.
Our current council person is behind it.
The person who helped design it, Craig Raines,
is a Venice resident, is a Venice native.
Sorry, he was born over here.
But meant a lot to him to how he put this together.
And I promised him I would just push
through his designs as he saw it.
We do have a lot, there's surfboards in there.
It is ADA compliant.
There's always minimums and there's always
probably a little bit of the buildings
to change it all the way.
The important thing here is this is the very last one,
very last items on the west coast of North America on the beach that you
thankfully help protect. It is a place for everyone to go. It's a very large
space built in a pavilion that the Venice Recreation Center was meant to
go from zero to death basically. Children all the way up to it to anyone can can
use this and zero to twelve has been ripped out for the last several years by
the last council person without a permit. Our current councilperson Tracy
parts is behind this. I found that it would be very helpful. All the idea that you did
have one statement about what's not toxic, but there's nothing toxic here. This is one
of the biggest builders of playgrounds in the world and they're based in the south-west
where it's very hot. Thank you for your time. Okay, thank you.
Thank you. And now Diane Wilke, we have your presentation. Thanks for your patience.
Thank you.
Diane Wolkie, Safe Healthy Plain Fields, we are an affiliate of Beyond Plastics.
We are not in support of the recommendations for the Ventura playground.
It is clear that the commission was popular...
Where is the...
It's not the letter you need up, it's the powerpoint.
Can you pause the clock please?
That's the only other presentation that we received.
We have another one that was sent for the general public comment,
but that one was a blank file.
Let's put up the letter then, and we'll
have to scroll through photos.
I just showed your co-staffer here that it was received.
OK, so the commission must properly inform itself
on ADA requirements and then stop exposing humans
in the environment to unnecessary plastics.
There was a picture that showed ADA.
Well, apparently the letter because you're saying you don't can't find the power point working through this together
You'll have to scroll through it for pictures while I concentrate here. I've only been up since 3 a.m
Okay, so
ADA requirements address egress and ingress it does not address surfacing
Mobility mats are made of plastic
This is this is actually PVC tiles which are toxic. They are polyvinyl chloride and
Vinyl chloride is a category one carcinogen
Mobility mats take a lot of abuse from real chairs and loaded wagons plastics break down more quickly and hot humid and salty environments
They overheat release micro plastics and toxic chemicals. You can scroll for the next picture
They adsorb other chemicals and toxic bacteria exposing the threat or posing the threat to humans in the environment
they're not a suitable choice to meet ADA requirements.
Additionally, they off-gas toxic chemicals are not recyclable.
Less than 6% of plastics in this country are recycled.
Something that is this contaminated is not ever going to be recyclable.
They need to be landfilled.
Of those so-called recycled plastics, at most they contain 2 to 3% of old material
with the balance of the materials being virgin plastic plus additional toxic chemicals added
in.
Matts and PVC tiles get exceedingly hot, pose risks for thermal burns, acceleration of toxic
runoff.
PVC is the most toxic chemical on the planet, see the letter for source citations, I'm bringing
you the science.
They should not be used anywhere, California DTC is reviewing many of these chemicals used
children's products and is bringing synthetic turf under regulation. When
the prevalence of microplastics is so ubiquitous in the
environment that is found in high volumes in the air exhaled by dolphins
and found in birds on remote islands that you can hear the plastic crackling
in their bellies when they're rubbed, it's clear we have a lethal addiction to
plastic. Please stay true to your mission, follow the science and condition this
recommendation to exclude toxic unsustainable plastic products. Thank you.
Thank you. We have one other speaker we weren't able to find, Jamie Carlton.
Jamie if you're in the meeting please raise your hand. And then we had two
other speakers, Elena, or two other speakers available for questions from
the city of LA. Wonderful, thank you. I'm seeing no hand raised. Okay, thank you very
much. I'll bring it back to staff to see if they've like to make any response.
All right, thank you. I'll just do a few responses to correct the record on a few
points. And one just to acknowledge some of the comments including Ms. Ruta's
cells and of course staff agrees with the concept, the idea that there should
be less plastics. That's the entire purpose of why we've moved in this
direction to try to move local governments away from using these toxic
materials that have broken down easily and produce microplastics. So this playground
isn't plastic free. There is fiberglass and other materials used. Some of this includes
steel frames such as the canoe or kayak has steel framing with fiberglass body. But those
are low reactive materials that aren't expected to produce high amounts of microplastics or
break down easily. And some of those materials such as the boulders that are artificial will
be made of concrete but it would have some fiberglass components as part of
that concrete. Now the comments that we just heard from the speaker who asserted
that PVC is toxic again our our staff scientists have evaluated that and
looked at it and that we disagree that's not what the science shows. It's
confusing vinyl chloride gas which is a gas which is toxic and cancerous with
the plastic polyvinyl chloride PVC which is used in piping including drinking
water pipes. That has been studied not just by our agency but many others in
the scientific community. PVC is not toxic and it's not a carcinogen. It's
commonly used in our drinking water pipes. Testing is performed by the USPA
to ensure the PVC is safe for drinking water and it's studied by NSF
international including in their report which found in 2015 report found no known
chemicals are released in the water system no known toxicity effects occur
so we do believe that this is an appropriate material so again we can't
given the safety concerns with today's development standards for children's
playgrounds we haven't found a way to avoid the use completely of plastics but
we do believe that this project is utilizing all the current best science
to minimize the micro plastic contaminants and avoid the use of any
toxic materials. So I'll just note that we are that if executive director
Hucklebridge may have some additional comments and that were available for
questions after that. Just to say I think you said you started out by saying this
that you know we're we as staff and and and as directed by the Commission is
really moving in the direction of trying to avoid use of plastic. It's not
possible at this point given the standards as Steve mentioned that are
present for children's playgrounds to fully move away or at least we haven't
yet found the materials to substitute all plastic materials but we would like
to and we'll continue to kind of work and do the research and and try to see
what new products come on the market and in that direction so while you know we
do recommend the Commission approve this particular item want to note that you
know it is we are constantly looking for other materials that could be
substituted and we'll work with local governments along those lines as we see
as you know as as new products come on the line come online that do avoid more
and more plastic use so just wanted to make that overarching comment. Thank you
very much well I'll ask if there are questions from my colleagues or whether
three or more commissioners would like to remove either item. Commissioner Kelly
do you have a question? I just have a question so there's two surfaces that
have been discussed. One is the pour and play rubber focused material and then the
other were the mats that seemingly had a more porous kind of tile look to them.
Can you clarify are we talking about both materials being used in this
playground or the pour and play mostly rubber surface? This would avoid the use
of any poured in place rubber surface so that pursuant to our condition is prohibited.
This project would utilize the mat.
So in the exhibit that we have the visuals of the very colorful looking kind of swirly
ground that is not, I know I'm being redundant here but that is not what is going to be used
in this project?
Yes, the pictures in the staff report show the project
is originally proposed, so those did have poured in place.
Those swirly designs may reflect that.
Our special condition requires revised plans
prohibiting the use of that and that they
use these other mats.
Whether or not it's possible to achieve
the swirliness of the designs, it may or may not be possible.
So there may be some differences in the final appearance,
but it will not utilize the poured and placed method.
Okay, thank you.
The swirliness is not the core of my concern.
I did just want to state, and I'm glad to hear,
that our requirements don't allow
for the pour and play surface.
I will say that in instances of other playgrounds
that are in close proximity to sand,
that that is a huge factor in degrading
the pour and play material to a point
where it becomes, the useful life of the project
is greatly diminished and you start to see so many more of those smaller components of
that surface start to disintegrate and shift outside of the project area.
So seeing how close this is to sand and that people will be directly entering from sand
it's really an inappropriate use for pour and play even though, you know, we don't allow
it.
So I'm glad to hear and see that.
Thank you.
Okay.
Unless, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a non-swirly question.
One of the special conditions was that construction take place outside of the
Memorial Day through Labor Day weekends. How long is this proposed
project going to take? I may have missed that in the report. Okay, I don't have the
time period available, so I don't know offhand how long this is given that it's
It's a simple playground.
These in the past have typically just taken a month or two.
So I know there were some comments about can we start this sooner so that the kids can
enjoy it somewhat during the summer months.
Is the construction that disruptive if it were to take place between Memorial Day and
Labor Day that access would be impeded?
That reflects our typical condition and that has more to do with the staging areas.
So typically it requires that the nearby public parking lot would need to have areas available
for staging material and portions of that lot would be closed off.
So it would have some impacts.
That standardized special condition we typically use to avoid construction during the busiest
summer months.
the nuance here is that there is an unpermitted component to this is that
the demolition has already occurred and so you're right that the children don't
have a park until this occurs so there is a trade-off there is we don't achieve a
new children's park until after the summer the trade-off being that there's
not an disruption or closure to the public beach parking lot and the other
areas of the beach that other members of the public would be using.
okay not seeing that three or more members want to pull any items from
consent I'll entertain a motion and a second the items on the consent calendar
move to approve items on the consent calendar do either wish to speak to your
motion and I will ask for a roll call vote please
Yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Aye.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Aye.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes.
Lowenberg, yes.
Commissioner Nottle.
Aye.
Nottle, yes.
Commissioner Presiado.
Aye.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner King.
Yes.
Yes.
Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson, aye. Jackson, yes. Chair, yes. Harmon, yes. The
vote is unanimous. Thank you. The consent calendar is adopted. Now we'll move to
those items that have been removed from the regular calendar. Do we not have any
of those? Sorry, give us one second. Okay, thank you. And so that is item 10 for the
applications being moved from regular to consent for all the districts. As
mentioned during our agenda changes this morning there are three items being
recommended be moved 13a the County of Santa Barbara LCP amendment for the
housing element update rezone time extension 14 a Ventura County Channel
Islands Public Works plan notice of impending development for safety guard
rail and 15 A the California Department of State Parks application. In closing
we're not aware of any opposition to these items being moved to consent and
we're recommending the Commission vote and approve this item. Staff is available
for questions. Thank you Mr. Hudson. Are there any
ex partes to report on any of these items? Seeing none is there any public comment? There are no
speakers signed up for any items moved to consent today. Okay thank you. Public
comment closed do any commissioners wish to remove either of these items Lopez
remove approval okay we have a motion and a second may we have a roll call
but Commissioner Lopez moved in the second one commissioner Lopez Lopez yes
Commissioner Loenberg Loenberg yes commissioner not all aye not all yes
Commissioner cresciato yes cresciato yes Commissioner Wilson yes
yes Commissioner O'Mellie yes o'Mellie yes Commissioner Hart yes Hart yes
Commissioner Jackson Jackson yes Commissioner Kelly yes Kelly yes chair
Harmon yes Harmon yes the vote she knows thank you and the items moved from the
regular calendar are so adopted. Now we'll move on to item 11 the
enforcement report. Just take you whenever you're ready. Yeah give us one
second to shuffle our seats. Can you verify if Rob is on the zoom? Okay
perfect oh yay thank you. Good afternoon chair and commissioners. We're going to
present two items in the enforcement report this morning this afternoon and
I'm happy to say both of these report on progress on significant enforcement
cases. First of all we're going to report on the progress implementing an order
that you issued in August 2018 regarding a case in Laguna Beach and then we're
going to report on voluntary resolutions of a major set of access
access issues here in San Diego involving several hotels and the issue of
compliance with their permit conditions. Today's presentation will be given by
Rob Modelog, an attorney in our headquarters enforcement staff, who is
on Zoom and Marsha Venegas to my right are a San Diego enforcement officer
who's here. Alex Helper and Deputy Chief Counsel and I are also available for any
questions. First we're going to turn to the order case. This case involves a
situation in which an owner of a beachfront property obtained the benefits
of a coastal development permit but failed to accept the burdens. As you know
all permits come with burdens and benefits. Here they got the permit they
got a permit for a seawall that was intended to protect a new house that was
built before the Coastal Act in 1952. This permit had specific conditions to
limit the authorization period of the seawall and to prohibit new future
development at the site if it would rely on the seawall. Before we begin the
presentation I wanted to start by saying that this report dovetails nicely with
the discussion we had earlier today regarding seawalls and beaches and the
public comments we heard. This sort of seawall case gives us an example of the
future of the California coast and of public access cases.
The Commission has required removal of seawalls and revetments and permits before, but we
are seeing more of these issues come up as sea levels continue to rise.
As you know, these sea walls are a significant and growing public access problem because
while sea walls do provide protection for private development built too close to the
ocean, they do so at the expense of public beaches as these beaches get pinched between
crashing waves and fix solid structures.
Obviously this issue requires striking a tough balance and so when the Commission approved
the original permit at issue here, as you will see, the Commission struggled with approving
a wall to protect a home built prior to the Coastal Act and really tried to do some long-term
planning to make sure this house was moved landward if and when it was redeveloped and
required that the seawall would then be removed.
And fortunately, however, as you will hear, the original owners instead completely rebuilt
the house in the same location without any coastal development permit and then declined
to comply with the permit conditions of the CDP regarding the seawall and declined to
consider any alternatives to the seawall or to seek a coastal development permit for the
new house.
Ultimately, the commission issued an order requiring them to comply with their original
permit and they sued over the order and the penalty assessed and the commission prevailed
in whole. The property was eventually sold and we're happy to report that the
new owners have worked collaboratively with us to comply with the order and the
original permit and that outcome is what we're reporting on TTA. Rob, take it away.
Thanks Lisa. Good afternoon Chair Harmon and members of the Commission. On the
left you can see a 2018 image of a seawall in a house behind it and on the
right you can see a photo taken last month. This shows the slope where that
sea wall from the front part of the lower story of the house once stood. The new property
owner is currently working on restoring the newly exposed bluff on the right with native
plants. As you will hear, reaching this point is taking a lot of time and effort. The commission
staff is very pleased to provide this update on the progress of the successful implementation
of the commission's order. Next slide please. To give you a better sense of things before
we recount the history, on this slide you can see the unpermitted wall at the center
this case. It was 11 feet tall and 80 feet long. For scale, you can see the trash cans
look small next to it and the meter stick propped up against it is less than halfway
up the wall. Next slide please. The house at issue here is located on a coastal bluff
overlooking Victoria Beach, a popular destination of Laguna Beach in Orange County. On this
map you can see that Laguna is halfway between LA and San Diego. Next slide please. This
image shows the popularity of Victoria Beach and how it's often full of people, especially
in the summer. In this 1979 photo, the house at issue is circled and an arrow is pointing
to the coastal bluff on which the house sits. You can see that the bluff used to extend
out in front of the house, so the house was originally in a much safer place where the
bluff provided a natural barrier from wave action. Although the photo is grainy, you
You can see that the bluff is large and the bluff face is covered by vegetation.
Next slide please.
While Victoria Beach may look idyllic in photos, while it's one of the wider beaches in living
land, seawalls are a growing threat to public beach access and recreation.
Beaches move inland seasonally and over time.
With sea levels rising and stronger storm events occurring, beaches are moving inland
faster than before.
As you can see on the left-hand side of this diagram, if there are no hard structures inland
the ocean, the sandy beach will just get pushed by the waves inland and adjust naturally,
and many people visiting a natural beach may not even notice. However, as you can see on the right
hand side of this diagram, when waves hit a seawall it blocks the waves from reaching inland areas,
but it also stops the beach from reaching inland areas as well. In addition, waves hit the wall
and refract backward, pushing the remaining sand into the ocean and shrinking the beach.
You can also see that the seawall is stopping inland sand and sediment from eroding onto the
beach and nourishing it and making it wider. While seawalls are built on beaches that are
moving inland, eventually there will no longer be any dry sand left. The property owner would
still enjoy their private ocean views but there would only be waves crashing against the wall
with no sand left for the public or for the property owner for that matter to enjoy.
Next slide please. This photo shows the south end of Victoria Beach and you can see the importance
of siting development well inland in order to preserve beaches. The residential complex on the
right was built prior to the coastal act and as such was not required to be sited safely inland.
Thus the development and necessary sea wall in front of that complex has caused the beach to
disappear. On the left you can see that the house is sited further inland still have sandy beach in
front of them. As you can imagine, seawalls protect a small amount of private property
at the direct expense of the public, including at the expense of iconic sandy beaches
used for low-cost reparational purposes by all Californians from all economic backgrounds,
including those who come from disadvantaged communities. The burdens of seawalls are
disproportionately borne by persons who cannot afford to rent or own oceanfront houses.
As sea levels rise, these impacts will only grow, and while economic benefits may accrue to the
actual owners of the walls, the loss of beaches also negatively impacts the tourism economy,
as the coast is a huge draw, and with walls there are less beaches for visitors to enjoy.
On this slide, you can see the original seawall in the original house. This house was built in 1952,
long before the coastal act of 1976. Prior owners built the wall that you see here with an emergency
coastal development permit and then obtained a local CDP for a new wall in 2014. In 2015 the
Commission appealed the local CDP. In order to ensure that the wall and its negative impacts
would only endure for a limited time and in an effort to balance the rights of the owner of the
old pre-coastal act house and the rights of the public to access the beach, the Commission
approved a new seawall with special conditions that only authorized the seawall to protect the
old pre-coastal house, basically grandfathering in the original house. If and when that house was
rebuilt in the future, that owner would have to assess how best to protect the house without
using a seawall, including by moving the house only down the lot. This permit was thus a classic
example of an old structure being grandfathered in to a modern regulatory regime, for as long
long as the old structure continued to exist.
Next slide please.
Therefore, Special Condition 6 of the CDP clearly stated
in part, what future development shall not rely
on the permitted seawall and that any future new development
on the site shall be sited and designed to be safe
without reliance on shoreline protective devices.
Next slide please.
In addition, the commission also imposed Special Condition 2
which provided authorization for the wall
only until the pre-coastal home was redeveloped in a manner that constituted new development.
Next like this.
Here you can see photos of the house as it looked when it was built in 1952.
Although the third story is partially obscured by trees in the foreground, note how wide
the beach was back then, it extends way out towards the tide pools at the center of the
image.
This photo is taken around 1972.
Next like this.
Here you can see another photo of the old house as it looked after redwood siding was
installed.
second and third storeys are visible.
As you will soon see, all of this would be effectively demolished and replaced as part
of the unpermitted reconstruction of the house.
Next slide, please.
Here you can see the old house from the side.
Note that this undeveloped bluff on the foreground, set back from the beach below, is all part
of the 11-logodita parcel, and so the inland part of it provided a potential safer location
to build if and when the house was rebuilt.
Next slide, please.
In the 2018 enforcement hearing,
the commission found that the project undertaken
at 11 Lagunita far exceeded any common sense
understanding of ordinary repair and maintenance
and that the house is basically a new one inside and out.
I'm now going to recount some of the analysis.
So also have to show the amount of investigative work
that we undertake in order to ensure
that the coastal lack is upheld
and the coastal resources are protected.
In this image, the removal of the redwood siding
is well underway and the exterior wall shaping
underneath is exposed.
Next slide, please.
In this view of the third story,
you can now see through the building
to the beach and the ocean on the other side.
Next slide, please.
In this slide, you can see a carpenter
in the process of adding of cis-stream new joists
to the old joists.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows a new structural steel
or red iron beam being lifted into place by crane.
The addition of steel beams to the house
is an indication that the structure
is being significantly modified.
Next slide please.
In this slide it appears that the structural work
on the upper roof is complete
and new plywood sheeting has been added to the exterior.
Next slide please.
In this photograph of the interior,
we can see new wall framing, new wiring
and new plumbing.
Next slide please.
In this image, you can see a new vaulted ceiling
and new ductwork being installed.
Next slide please.
Here we're looking at a contemporary system of framing,
structural sheeting and anchoring.
significantly alters the structure of the original house and effectively makes this a new house.
Next slide please. In this slide, new flashings, windows, and doors have been installed. Next slide
please. For a sense of scale, you can barely see the trash cans at the far right sitting next to
the new seawall. This view also shows new stone veneer and new plaster. Next slide please.
The next few slides are a side-by-side comparison of parts of the house at 11 Lagunita
pre and post construction. To give you an idea of just how much change in the course of this
project, I'll go through these quickly. This slide is an exterior view from Seaward. Next slide please.
And here are the interior stairs. Next slide please.
As you can see, the kitchen has been completely replaced. Next slide please.
As has this bathroom, as you can see here. Next slide please. And finally a view of the upper
living area. It's worth noting that all the reconstruction you've just seen has served
a greatly extended useful life for the original house. Next slide please. Meanwhile, this
seawall was already causing impacts as the wall prevented the bluff from eroding naturally.
In the foreground of this picture, you can see that the sand is wet, and behind that
only a narrow strip of dry sand exists between the wall and the waves. Using the calculations
from the 2014 CDE because the bluff no longer eroded naturally, we estimated that the wall
prevented 222 cubic yards of sand and beaked material from nourishing the beach during
the two years of the violation. That equals approximately 18 large dump trucks full of
sand and beaked material that otherwise would have been on the beach. It's worth noting
that as we will discuss, the wall actually continued existing and caused further negative
impacts for quite a while longer during the litigation. Next step please. Here's a very
brief summary of the enforcement steps that were taken in this case. The Commission set a Notice of
Violation letter in 2017, but the owners, the cats is, refused to stop work on the house and refused
to discuss any settlement of the violations. Instead, they sued the Commission in January
of 2018 in an effort to preempt our enforcement process. So, left with no other options, at the
At the Commission's August 2018 hearing, the Commission issued a cease and desist order
and administrative penalty to resolve these violations.
The order required the owners to apply for a CBP to remove the seawall and any portion
of the house that relied on the seawall to modify the house to exist without a seawall
as the permit requires and to explore alternatives to the wall.
In addition, the order as issued by the Commission required the CATSes to pay administrative
of civil penalties for the public access violation
in the amount of $1 million.
Next slide, please.
After the enforcement hearing,
the CATS issued the commission for the second time.
At the end of August, 2021,
the Court of Appeal issued final judgment here
in favor of the commission and upheld both the order
and the penalty assessed by the commission.
It's worth noting that this was the first court
to uphold the commission's ability
to issue administrative penalties
for violations of the Coastal Act.
Next slide, please.
The commission now has a published decision
upholding the ability of the commission
to compel removal of an unpermitted seawall.
The appellate court included many photos
from our presentation in their opinion,
a portion of which is excerpted on this slide.
The court also noted that all of the members of the public
who spoke in public comment
did so in support of our action.
It even quoted one person in public comment
who stated that this case was important
because if the commission does not enforce this permit,
other property owners will follow the example of this violation, potentially rendering similar
permit requirements useless in the future. Next slide please. On this slide you can see a historic
photo of the site before it was built. Prior to the conclusion of the litigation, the cats
had sold the property to a new owner, Jerry Stanley. Following the commission's victory in court in 2021,
the new owner promptly paid the required penalty to the state coastal conservancy's violation
remediation account. He also began working cooperatively with commission staff for his
compliance with the order. The order required not only that the seawall be removed, but that any
parts of the house that would require a wall to be removed as well. Mr. Stanley's team worked with
the commission's geologist and engineer to determine what parts of the house would be
immediately unsafe once the seawall was removed. The new owner stated that he was already preparing
to apply for a CDP as required by the order to put the unpermitted house on piles so that it would
be elevated and would not need a seawall in the future. Next slide please. On this map you can see
a projected timeline of work authorized by the approved removal plan that extends for about a
year. However, while commission staff approved the plan on October 3rd of 2022, the new owner still
had to obtain local approvals for the construction work. He finally received these approvals in the
the summer of 2024 and removal of the wall subsequently began after Labor Day of last
year.
Next slide please.
And here's a photo from California Coastal Records Project that shows the removal work
shortly after it began last fall.
You can see that they had already started removing the front part of the lower story.
Next slide please.
And here you can see construction wrapping up in May.
The new owner worked with us to minimize the amount of fencing that would be needed on
beach in order to limit disruption of public access during construction. Next slide please.
This slide shows the property after the seawall in the front part of the lower story was removed
and the construction fencing also removed. I want to note that the new owner's team managed to stay
on schedule and that all the work on the beach was finally finished by Memorial Day, just in time
for this summer so that the public could fully enjoy all of the sandy beach. Next slide please.
In this photo you can see a view of the area looking south. The beach is wide in this image
and as a result of this work this beach will be much better preserved going forward and the house
is situated now in a location that is safer at least for the time being. Next slide please.
And here's some of the same comparison shots that you saw on the title slide.
On the right you can see red lines that gave you a rough sense of where the sea wall used to be
and the yellow lines roughly show where the lower story of the house
used to protrude seaward trying to give you a sense of
what's been removed here. Next slide please.
On this slide you can see the planting plan for the bluff. The new owner has
already begun planting the area with native plants
and expects the work to be completed by fall. Next slide please.
In this image taken just yesterday you can see a close-up of the ongoing
restoration of the bluff. Behind the sign are some native cactus
plantings. Next slide please. On this slide you can see another image taken yesterday. It gives
another view of the ongoing restoration of the bluff. Next slide please. And here's one last image
taken early yesterday morning showing the ongoing bluff restoration on the right and a wide beach
ready for summer visitors on the left. We hope that this case helps demonstrate that it is possible
to remove sea waves while also allowing for private development even in areas close to the beach and
the ocean. We may also hope that it sends a message to potential violators that the
Commission takes unpermitted seawalls and preservation of our beaches seriously.
Recently, in the Casa Mira decision, courts affirm that the Coastal Act does not entitle
property owners to seawalls for development constructed after the Coastal Act of 1976.
Combined with the published decision obtained in the 11-luggety new case,
it's our hope that the Commission will now be better equipped to tackle the growing threat
that sea walls pose to California's beaches, that sea levels continue to rise. And finally,
we want to thank the new property owner, Jerry Stanley, and his council, David Goldberg,
for their work on this matter. Mr. Stanley did not undertake the violations, but he and his team
have still put in a lot of effort towards getting this result, and we're grateful for their work.
That concludes my own presentation, and we're available after March is in a second if you have
questions. Thank you so much. Thank you Rob. That case took a lot of work and he
skipped over years of litigation and we have our AG colleagues to thank for
helping us as well as Alex Elperin. It was a big victory and it was an
exciting development. Next we're going to turn to a set of hotel cases here in
San Diego and these cases involve two hotels located near each other and
which were resolved concurrently.
These cases are an example of the difficulty involved in ensuring permit conditions are
complied with, not unlike the one we just looked at.
And the fact it requires careful and consistent oversight to ensure the benefits specifically
included in such permits are actually being realized by the public.
Very often either staff recommends or the commission imposes a lot of detailed conditions
on permits when they're issued.
And those are really great and they're well thought out and they're very useful but they're
very difficult to implement and comply with, to ensure compliance with.
So it's very important here in particular because these hotels lie on public trust lands
and so it's even more important that the public rights are protected.
Even more impressive is the fact that these cases were resolved amicably at the district
level.
We did not have to resort to a formal order and we greatly appreciate the cooperation
of the hotels involved.
Even so, it required many hours of monitoring, negotiating and working out appropriate terms
for our resolution here.
Presenting this matter today will be Marcia Vanegas, our intrepid San Diego enforcement
officer who is the lead negotiator on this matter.
Good afternoon commissioners.
It is my pleasure to share a resolution of public access violations at two waterfront
hotels in the San Diego district.
The case was resolved collaboratively with the Homewood Suites and the Courtyard by Marriott
at Liberty Station. I will be discussing the new public access plan as well as new amenities
at these hotels to address the Coastal Act violations in lieu of penalties. On this slide
are two hotels at Liberty Station that we will be discussing. Next slide, please. To
help familiarize you with the area on this slide, on the bottom left is our current location
at the best western.
The top right star is the San Diego International Airport.
The yellow star in the middle shows the location
of the Liberty Station hotels.
The site is close enough for you to stop by
and enjoy the new amenities during your stay this week.
The hotels are adjacent to Waterfront Promenade and Channel,
which are highly used destinations for tourists
and locals alike for strolling and paddle boarding.
Next slide please.
Here, you can see the Homewood Suites.
In 2005, the commission authorized construction
of a hotel complex with 150-foot wide pedestrian esplanade
adjacent to the boat channel.
It is important to note that the entire project is located
on public trust lands, and thus general public access
to the site must be preserved with the approved
commercial use.
In the foreground is one of the public view decks
that was previously closed, but is now
open available to the public as a result of the commission staff's effort.
Next slide, please.
This slide is a list of some of the most important public access amenities required by the commission
that were not provided by the applicants or the hotels.
In order to ensure compliance with these kinds of public access amenity requirements, constant
vigilance by commission staff is necessary.
It is the most effective way to ensure that these amenities remain available to the public.
The intent of these amenities is to draw more members of the public to this area who are
not staying at these hotels.
The public promenade and public places along the water, including those listed here, are
intended to activate public use of the area, encouraging public access to the maximum extent
possible.
Considering all socioeconomic levels, which is a fundamental principle in the Commission's
environmental justice endeavors. Per the Commission's permit the public should be
able to enjoy the public land by for instance barbecuing at the Garden Court
or grabbing a quick bite to eat and then enjoying views at one of the hotel
rooftops. Unfortunately staff discovered that many of the public access amenities
required under the permit had not been implemented. Now I'm going to walk you
through individual instances of non-compliance for both hotels and then
show the issues resolved. Next slide please. On this slide the two ovals show the location
of the two commission required rooftop terraces. Next slide. However, in this slide you see
the entrance to one of the rooftop terraces is closed and is locked as well. A member
of the public would naturally assume the gated area is private especially because the public
access signage is missing. In addition to the view terrace, the stairs that led up to
the view terrace were blocked by hotel furniture as seen in this photo. The stairs you see
in this photo is the access to the second terrace. Again, there would be no reason a
member of the public would know they had a legal right to access this area. These photos
show that the area was blocked with furniture storage before our enforcement action.
Next slide.
Now after our enforcement action, the gate is open and the newly placed signage reads
public welcome viewpoint terrace and restroom 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Next slide.
The open access to this rooftop terrace provides the public with fabulous views where you can
see the USS Recruit Monument. There is also a binocular stand to look out to see the San
Diego coastline with this unique perspective at this height. Next slide. This is the view
from the second rooftop terrace that looks towards the San Diego Bay and the pedestrian
overpass to the other park areas across the channel. Next slide. This is another view
from the second rooftop terrace overlooking the Fountain Terrace. This rooftop terrace
is a perfect spot to enjoy your lunch and watch the planes land from the nearby airport.
You can also take advantage of the binocular stands on this site as well.
Next slide.
With the newly installed signage, now any member of the public can take a moment and
learn about the USS Recruit Monument and its significance to the military presence in San
Diego.
The rooftop terrace provides a unique opportunity to learn about and enjoy San Diego's coastline.
slide please. Now for the second instance of non-compliance this slide shows the
sports court which is poorly signed for the public. Unpermitted signage had also
been installed identifying the courts as private. Next slide. And now here you can
see the new sign welcoming the public to the sports court which also advises
members of the public that they can borrow equipment in the lobby. Next slide.
I want to point out the new sign is visible from the public promenade, the sign you see
on this slide is visible from the public promenade to advise members of the public that the sports
court is available for their use.
Also at staff's discretion, the hotel added new tables and chairs to encourage use as
well as an added place to enjoy the waterfront.
Next slide.
This is the third instance of non-compliance.
This slide shows a sign placed on the barbecues that was required to be available to the public
in the garden court.
The unpermitted sign reads registered guests, giving the impression that these are not public.
Next slide, please.
Although the sign is not clearly visible on this slide, the sign on the fireplace gives
the impression that the terrace is only for registered guests, which was in noncompliance
with the CDP.
Next slide.
Now, after our enforcement case, the Garden Court Terrace is signed for public access.
The yellow circle on this slide indicates the newly compliant sign confirming that members
of the public have access to the barbecues, even if they're not staying at the hotels.
The signs restricting use to hotel guests have been removed and replaced with signage
indicating that these amenities are open and available for members of the public.
signage also includes information about borrowing barbecue tools for that are
free to use by anyone. Next slide please. A new sign helps ensure that even a
member of the public that is just passing by can learn that these
amenities are free for their use for any future visits. In time, if members of the
public become aware of the availability of these amenities, public
access to these areas may increase to more fully meet the intent of the
Commission's action for this development. Next slide please. The fireplace on the
garden terrace is now signed for public use. During winter or summer like the
fireplace can now be enjoyed by the public and guests. Next slide.
This slide shows the newly added double-sided public access sign that now
ensures every entry point to the public espionage from the public lot has
signage, making it clear that members of the public are welcome. Next slide. Next,
another item of non-compliance, the deli terrace shown on this slide is an
attractive public access amenity. It is supposed to be a public access amenity
because it provides access to food and drinks from the cafe and the bar
restaurant in the lobby to accommodate a relaxing ambiance open to the public
just off the public esplanade, which was intended to activate the area for
public use opportunities. However, as you can see on this slide, there are no
tables and chairs. Next slide. Now you can see the newly placed tables and chairs
to bring the deli terrace into compliance with the permit. During summer
holidays and weekends, the Courtyard by Marriott has added a coffee cart service
to help encourage more public use of this area.
Next slide please.
Next, another item of noncompliance.
As you can see in the photo there was no public access
signage at the entrance to the pool terrace.
An access is impeded by a lock gate
that required a guest key to open it.
Next slide.
If the gate was not closed, a member of the public
would be able to access these fireplaces and fire pit areas
with various areas to sit and relax.
Next slide.
Now, this slide shows the new public access signage
that has been added.
The gate is now unlocked and open for public use.
Next slide.
This photo shows the pool terrace
that is now open to the public.
Next slide.
The parking lot, landward of the two subject hotels
are required to be open on a first come, first serve basis
for members of the public, hotel guests and patrons
of the nearby commercial locations.
However, the hotel was impeding public access
by privatizing public parking for hotel guests.
This slide is a close-up of the restrictive parking sign
which has now been removed.
Next slide.
In addition to directing the hotel to come into compliance
with the CDP requirements which I described
on the previous slides,
enforcement staff also reached an enforceable agreement
with the hotels to create new amenities
beyond the permit requirement in lieu of penalties.
I'll describe some of these amenities
on the next few slides.
Some of the most impacting additions are listed here.
Some of these amenities include public bathrooms,
a bocce court and exercise equipment.
Finally, as you heard this morning,
getting these hotels to agree, as noted on the slide,
to a plastics reduction plan is a significant improvement
and worthy component of our resolution.
Next slide please.
Commission staff reached an agreement with the hotel
to make restrooms open available to the public.
These restrooms are especially valuable to the public
because they are easily accessible
from the waterfront promenade
and do not require the public to walk into the interior
of the hotels to access them.
These restrooms were previously private
and were converted to public restrooms
as an important aspect of our resolution
in lieu of penalties for these two hotels.
Next slide please.
As you undoubtedly know, clean, safe,
and readily available public restrooms
facilitate and encourage the use of public spaces
such as the waterfront promenade.
Moreover, these are more accessible to all
including those with handicaps and medical conditions
that require access to restrooms.
These restrooms were previously private for guests only
and have now been converted to public restrooms
as a result of our enforcement action.
Next slide.
This slide shows the newly improved courtyard leading
to the second rooftop terrace.
The hotels have added concrete games, gaming tables for checkers,
chess and backgammon I believe as well.
Any member of the public can now go to the lobby
to check out the game pieces.
You can also see that the gate leading
to the rooftop terrace now has a large sign and the gate is open.
Additionally, this photo shows the newly added Bocce Ball Court that is open and available
to all members of the public.
The Bocce Balls can be checked out at the lobby for use.
The signage shows the double-sided large and easily visible sign.
This slide shows the new exercise equipment, which is user-friendly and open and available
to the public.
You can see in this photo that the equipment is already being used.
Next slide.
Finally, this last slide shows another newly added amenity for members of the public included
as part of a resolution of our enforcement action.
A total of 20 Level 2 EV chargers were added and are available for a nominal fee for members
of the public.
Next slide.
I'll let you know when.
staff and an intern prepared this short video to help highlight the newly
effectuated condition compliance and highlight a few of the new amenities as
well for our social media outreach. We hope to be able to create more content
like this to highlight our successes and public access opportunities. Can you play
the video please? Did you know that there are free public spaces and amenities in
San Diego right on the water that are open for everyone to enjoy? In Liberty
station right off the Esplanade and in between the Homewood Suites and
Courtyard by Marriott Hotels, there's a hidden gem that you may not know about.
This beautiful space, now fully accessible to public, features free
amenities and plenty of room to relax and enjoy the outdoors. This area features
balconies with beautiful views of the water, a sports court, many picnic tables,
fireplaces, and barbecues, and also free restrooms. Even what looks like part of
the Courtyard Hotel is completely free and open to the public.
The California Coastal Commission has made sure that this area is open to all, giving
you the perfect spot to unwind or gather with friends and family.
This area was once close off to the public, but now it's yours to enjoy for free.
So whether you're looking to take in the views, cook up some great food, or just relax
by the water, just look for the public access signs and Liberty Station's open spaces are
ready and waiting for you.
Thank you.
That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much, Ms. Fanegas.
Anything else?
Should we go to public comment now, Ms. Fanegas?
Okay.
Is there any members of the public who'd like to speak on this?
Yes.
We have four people sign up to speak.
We'll start with Steve Ray, who's in person.
And then we have Pamela Heatherington, Mandy Sackett, and then Penny Alea on Zoom.
But we're not seeing Penny Alea.
Penny, if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand so we can find you.
go ahead Steve the mic the mic needs to be turned on I'm sorry it's a triple
header today of me Madam Chair commissioners staff and members of the
public I wanted to talk about what enforcement has been doing here my boys
known the work that they do but they don't do their horn enough and so I'm
here to toot their horn before them if they won't do it enough. This first
project that Lisa pointed out to you that Rob Modelbod presented to you
years ago, Penielia, who is a long-time highly regarded coastal advocate. She's
been doing it as long as I have, I think at least. I don't want to make her older
than me. She came to me years ago, showed me some pictures of this house that just
had some framing up, and she asked me my opinion of,
did that look like a new house or a remodel?
And I said, well, it looks like they've taken down the old house,
and I see some footers there, but it looks
like they're totally rebuilding the house.
And she said, I thought so.
So she's began the quest then to fix that.
She contacted other experts.
She brought in the press, Rosanna Sia,
who is another friend of mine.
And then, when she approached the Coastal Commission,
she wound up with, I hear from there, Rob Montemag.
Hey, Rob.
And Rob and I worked together for years
to save the Banning Ranch.
And then he came to work for the Coastal Commission
in that enforcement, and he worked on that,
and using his skills, his lawyerly skills,
in that devilish charm of his to get through things,
And then Lisa leading the way and using that smile,
that great smile that she has,
that she always uses no matter how bad things are.
And everybody together made this happen.
And I just want to point out that the old saying,
it takes a village, it took a village here and it worked.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next Pamela Hetherington.
Hello, I am here.
Good afternoon commissioners and a hearty welcome to the new commissioners.
I am Pam Heatherington from the Environmental Center of San Diego, and I want to take this
time to sincerely thank the Coastal Commission and your enforcement staff for their critical
work in protecting public access and upholding the Coastal Act.
The coast is one of California's most treasured public resources, and your continued vigilance
ensures that it remains open and accessible to all not just to those with wealth or political
influence. Your enforcement actions including the fines levied against entities like
camp land on the bay and paradise point are essential. These are not just technical violations
they represent real threats to the public's right to access and enjoy the post. When private
interests cut off access or degrade the environment for profit it's the public
stuffers especially underserved communities that rely most on these
shared natural spaces. The public trust doctrine is more than a legal concept
it's a guiding principle that says our coast must be protected for the benefit
of all Californians now and into the future. Your first enforcement work gives
life to that principle. It shows that the Coastal Act has teeth and that public resources are not
for sale. I know this work is not easy. It takes courage, persistence, and a commitment to justice.
So I want to express deep appreciation for your staff, especially those in enforcement who are
often working behind the scenes to investigate violations, negotiate remedies, and when necessary
pursue penalties. Thank you for everything you do to keep California's coast public,
protected, and thriving. Thank you. Thank you. Mandy Sackett. Good afternoon,
commissioners. Mandy Sackett, California policy manager for Surfrider Foundation.
In 2018, we came before you to support your staff on the 11 Lagunita seawall removal.
At that time, we noted that the enforcement orders would set a strong precedent for enforcing
one of the most significant threats to California's beaches and coastal habitat.
Illegal and unpermitted coastal armoring. We pointed out that if commissioners voted to
support the staff recommendation, it would be the first time property owners were required to remove
a seawall, sending the clear message that illegal and unpermitted coastal armoring will not be
tolerated. We were therefore extremely pleased to learn that at long last the illegal seawall at
at Victoria Beach in Laguna has come down
and the property owners have reconfigured
the existing structure out of harm's way.
Removal of illegal seawalls means that we have the hope
of saving Victoria Beach from the oncoming sea level rise
and coastal hazards related to climate change.
No amount of mitigation requirement or fine
can save California's beaches from the exponential loss
by armoring our coast.
This successful enforcement of the Coastal Act
will impact not only Victoria Beach
but other popular beaches facing similar threats.
We're grateful for the commissioners who voted for it
in 2018 to support the staff recommendation
to require removal.
And we also extend our thanks and appreciation
to your tireless enforcement staff
whose dedication to protecting the public's right
to beach access and his commitment
to the people of California never wavers.
This landmark case is a profound victory for the public
and an illustration of how much your decisions matter.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Penny Alea, we're still not seeing you in the Zoom meeting.
If you could please raise your hand.
We'll give it a second.
I would note that Penny Alea did submit a written letter which
was posted on the agenda.
And we are not seeing Penny Alea in the meeting, so.
And I believe she also said she wasn't
going to be able to make it.
There are no more commentaries.
OK, thank you very much.
and I share in the gratitude of our public speakers,
your team is truly on the front line of protecting our coast
and every time you come before us,
it's just so impressive what you're able to do,
particularly today.
With that, I will open it up
for questions or comments, Commissioner O'Malley.
Thanks, Chair.
I like commenting on the enforcement
because as a previous enforcer in the legal world,
I really appreciate the work that you all do.
I used to work, Ms. Banega, I used to work
in Liberty Station for like six years,
and seeing what you were able to accomplish there
is really mind blowing, so kudos to you really
for all of that.
And I also want to just do a shout out,
obviously, Mr. Matamag and the work, you know, on 11,
it's 11A.
I think it's also, I'm gonna kind of shout out
to AG's office too, as well as all of our staff,
to get these public, public legal decisions
is extremely important, right?
I mean, so all of the work that went into that now,
like I say, makes it a lot easier moving forward,
but it certainly facilitates additional actions like this.
So just two thumbs up to all of you
and I appreciate the work that you keep doing.
Thanks.
Commissioner Nada.
Yes, congratulations.
It's good to see this.
I just wanted to elevate the role of the public
in bringing these items and these violations
to our attention.
You know, as we've discussed, the staff level
at the commission is not, doesn't allow us to check
out every square inch of the California coast.
And I think as people can appreciate, our staff works
with applicants for months and years.
And then we have public hearings for days, hours and days to work
out these conditions for approval
to very complicated projects.
Just in the last year, we've had lots of visitor serving
projects come before us that have many components that lead
to approval.
And I think it reminds me of the projects we just heard
about here in San Diego.
And if all of that is for naught, because they're not
complied with, we rely on the public and also a lot of the
constituents who came and advocated on behalf of those conditions that were
ultimately applied to the approval so I really encourage staff I encourage the
public that takes the time to come to commission meetings comment on
conditions for approval to stick with the process through implementation so
that they can actually so that together we can make sure that those carefully
thought-out conditions turn into real benefits when the project goes forward.
So it looks like we have good public heads up on these, but I think going forward, especially
as we're working more and more on having low-income inclusions and other requirements like that,
we really are going to rely more and more on the public to make sure that these things
are carried out.
Commissioner Lowenberg just wondering on the first case and did we recoup any
expenses any of our out-of-pocket legal fees or your time mm-hmm just curious
is that no the penalties that we get under the under the Coastal Act go to
the violation remediation account which is administered by the Coastal
Conservancy and it goes towards the buying easements doing restoration of
properties and so forth, it doesn't come directly
to the commission, although we have had
a small staff augmentation in the last years.
But the vast majority of it goes directly back to the coast.
But in that specific case, did any?
I'm just curious.
So I think you have to make a distinction between the penalties
that we imposed and then attorney's fees
that we can collect when we prosecute an enforcement
action.
If the attorney general's office were
to prosecute an enforcement action there,
would have been able to argue that they should have recouped their fees but the
penalty that you imposed is separate from that that was we did recoup that
the new owner paid that million dollars right away upon taking ownership of the
property but the litigation that ensued with the prior owner was defensive
litigation on our part they had sued the Commission to challenge our enforcement
orders and we prevailed in a defensive capacity so in that capacity we don't
recoup are legal fees.
It is one of the reasons why we consider the options of filing
cross complaints.
And the million dollars was paid, as Alex said,
but it wasn't recouped.
It didn't come to us.
It went to the violation remediation account.
But they paid it immediately, and I can't really complain.
And in the second case, we did not
get direct monetary penalties, as Marcia said.
And one of the reasons for that was because
those two other cases that someone else was noting earlier that I think Pam
Heatherington mentioned it. We had just done two cases involving other hotels in
the area and I think that this these hotels saw that action and thought well
I have a choice between paying a big penalty and doing a lot of extra work or
maybe I'll just do it voluntarily and so I'm really pleased to see that that the
word got out and that it really what has helped us resolve the the last matter
I wanted to say one thing while I've got the mic, Rob Montemag who worked on those other
hotels as a matter of fact also, but who did this case, started it when he was an intern
in the Long Beach office, and finished law school, graduated, went to San Francisco and
is now an attorney with us, and finished it up here.
So I just want to say that's tenacity.
We really appreciate his efforts.
Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks.
I'm just wondering, the hotels, they're located on a public trust overlay, is that what I
heard you say?
These are public trust lands?
Yes.
Okay, so I just want to, I think that's a really great point, I think it's important
for the public and others to understand is that, you know, we have these lands that were
public trust lands that were basically, that was from the formation of the state and then
the public trust law that came from that, came from, you know, old English law before
that, the Romans.
I mean, this is basically an exchange.
So oftentimes there are a lot of coastal properties and people imagine that people have rights
that maybe that are overlaid by the public's use and public ownership of certain elements
of that, whether it's natural resources or other.
And so this is a great example of where when a private use is on these public trust overlays
that there is a need for demonstrated public benefit.
And sometimes that's just melded in there.
And I really appreciate you guys going, you know, really all the way to get everything
the public really deserves and should have in the exchange that we're making as a public
to grant the ability for these private entities to be there and also that those uses have
to match those public trust values that are there.
I just want to thank you for that and I think it's just really important that that's in
there.
It wouldn't be me if I wasn't to just say that this is one of the four hotels that are
within a 20 minute walking distance of the airport,
which is really unusual to have four really,
the Sheridan, all the way down, I've stayed at all of them.
I will say that the sidewalks from the airport
to these various hotels are terrible.
So just put it on the radar in terms of being able
to access these places.
It takes longer to get an Uber than it does to walk
from these airports or from these hotels to the airport.
but the way finding and in many places,
not even a sidewalk you have to walk in the street.
So to the San Diego staff in the future,
we can keep that on our radar for improvement,
but thank you guys so much for the effort
and all the work that you guys have done.
This is really great.
Appreciate it.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
Any further comments?
Commissioner Jeff.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for the presentation.
Great stuff.
as the new old guy, what are we doing to tell our story?
I mean, that is a great story of the Coastal Commission in action, right?
And this is what has been done for the community's benefit.
And I've learned about social media recently and I've gotten better at it.
But, I mean, unless you are, you know,
sitting here like Steve, and how do you, you don't know.
I mean, I, so I think part of the demystification is,
you know, what do we do to help tell our story?
And, you know, the never ending good idea fairy
that I tend to be.
You know, what can we do?
I mean, I'm learning social media
and become a big advocate of social media.
And you got young people out here who can probably
in two minutes, pump the story out to 5,000 retweets.
Those two women are interns, by the way.
That's perfect.
That is perfect.
So I think to the extent that we can push the information out
to the public, I just went to the Instagram page
and I couldn't find it.
There's one that's archived.
And I know you've got a zillion other things,
so it's easy for me to say is, hey, why don't we do this?
But because I'm already thinking about,
OK, what are we going to do?
We're going to take some pictures tonight, do some videos,
introduce yourselves, do some group photos
and start pushing this information out.
Because that's what I'm going to do.
So I could not agree more.
And we're trying to reach out as much as we can.
And that last video that you saw was
made with the intent of putting it on social media.
That was the whole reason.
That was sort of an experiment using our resources
to try to do something that's a little bit different to get
the story out.
We do have one of the things that
were required in the settlement that Marcia was presenting
on was that they put it on their website.
So we want to try to use as many of their resources as possible.
We also have talked to our social media folks,
and we've talked to our intrepid PIO, who
is going to work with some local papers on stories
about both of those items.
So we are trying to do what we can, but we love any ideas.
So anytime you have an idea or content,
our social media folks are always looking for content
so that if you're out walking around on the beach,
just send them a picture.
or if you see anything that would be useful.
I mean, I'll let Kate talk to the general.
But we've been working with them,
and they're dying for content.
So.
Fantastic.
And I mean, we can do this without poking the hotel.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Actually celebrating the hotel.
Exactly.
It's good news.
Celebrate the collaboration and a great success story.
It's all good news.
All right.
Through the chair, just to add a couple of comments,
I totally agree with everything Lisa said.
This is something that we are also working on internally
is getting our good stories out there.
We really appreciate the comments
and the previous comments,
because this has been something we're working on.
The video you saw, as Lisa mentioned,
that's the first time I've seen us do something like that.
And I think it, I personally saw it
and thought it was fantastic
and was whispering over here and getting it, you know.
So I think we're gonna try to do more of that
to showcase some of these positive stories
and just get it out into the world a little bit.
And also, just so that the public is aware
the amenities themselves, you know not just for us but for the public. The whole point of this
was to get these public amenities available in you know on these public trust lands and it's
really hard to get the word out and so that again that's that is more even more important than
getting positive stories for us out is just letting the public know what resources and amenities are
available to them so they go and use it. So I think you know we're we are working on this
We're taking steps, but we'll be taking more in the future and definitely appreciate ideas.
As we get stuff posted, if you want to extend it yourself and follow us.
I'm not very good at the social media stuff too, so forgive me.
Yes.
We do have a little bit of a social media team that we've started recently at the Commission,
so we're all learning and figuring it out.
That's a great discussion.
Commissioner Kelly.
Just briefly I was wondering if we could have a briefing, whether it's monthly or weekly
depending on the quantity of content that's just sent out via email to the commissioners
that from the PIO or whomever just saying here's the news stories that have happened
that are related to us.
A lot of the other agencies that I sit on we weekly or monthly get a report out of when
we've been mentioned in things when we have enforcement actions that have made the news
and when we've had success stories, all of those things I think are helpful.
And then we can choose who to forward them to, whether it's email, social media, or printing
it out and painting it in bright lights, but I think that would be another way just to
use us as advocates and continued awareness of the things that are going on in the communities.
Thank you, Commissioner Kelly.
We have done in the past and it's, have done that in the past and I think we've, we did
it a little bit and we need to get back into it.
Generally, it's just a capacity issue.
But in the interest of this prioritizing,
getting the word out on all these things,
I think we'll figure out how to do that.
It's likely to be monthly as opposed to weekly,
as much as I would love to promise weekly.
I don't want Josh to come over here and strangle me.
But excellent point.
We will work on getting that information out
to news stories or anything that we
think would be useful for you all in your work and that is one reason why we
do these reports to you so that the public can see them as well it's one of
our efforts to try to shape stories and let people know sort of the work that
we're doing in a thematic way so thank you all thank you so much for your good
work and excellent presentation all of you okay it's okay with everyone I'd
like to try to get through the south central coast DDR and then we'll see if
We want to take a little break after that.
Does that work?
Great.
OK.
So moving to item 12.
Chair Harmon, it's going to take us a minute to switch around
and make an extent to we're going to take
a break to do it right now.
OK.
Yeah.
Thank you.
We could come back at 3.35 please.
Thank you.
OK.
I think we're going to get started if everyone's ready.
OK.
so that brings us to item 17. Item 12. Wow, I'm getting ahead of myself. Item 12 please, Mr. Hudson.
All right, thank you. And item 12 is the deputy director's report for the South Central Coast
District. This month it includes three permit waivers, one immaterial amendment and one
immaterial permit extension. We're not aware of any opposition to these items being reported today
and we are asking whether three or more commissioners object to any of the items
in the deputy director's report. Staff is available for any questions.
Are there any public speakers on the DDR? There are no commenters for this item. Thank you.
Any objections from commissioners? Seeing none, the commission concurs with the DDR. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. And that moves us right along to item 17. This is the deputy director's
report for the South Coast District which includes four waivers, one
immaterial amendment and one emergency permit. In regard to the emergency permit
I would note that it was issued to the tuna club in the City of Avalon on
Catalina Island which was in imminent danger of collapse and the emergency
permit was for replacement of four 12-inch diameter timber piles and damage
during a recent storm event. I would also like to note that three of the waivers
being reported today are for new accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, and they're examples
of how your staff is continuing to work to expedite new ADU and housing projects.
We're not aware of any opposition to any of these items being reported, and we're asking
whether three or more commissioners object to any of the items in this deputy director's
report.
I am available for questions.
Thank you very much.
Are there any speakers on this DDR?
I know we have no speakers, but we have two available for questions great. Thank you
Are there any questions or objections to anything in the DDR?
Seeing none the Commission concurs we'll be moving on to item 18
The venice Dell item and just a note before we begin and we have a fair number of public speakers, so
Each public comment will be limited to one minute just preparing you in advance. Thank you
Thank you and item 18a is a request for an extension of time for the city of
Los Angeles to take action to either accept or reject the suggested
modifications required by the Commission as part of its previous approval of an
amendment to the city's certified Venice land use plan that was approved by the
Commission at our December meeting. The Coastal Act provides for the Commission
to extend the six-month time limit for action by a local government on an LCP
or an LUP amendment in this case for up to one year. The City Council has not yet
taken action to either accept or reject the Commission's suggested modifications
in this case, and unless the Commission extends the time for the City to take
action, the LUP amendment would expire. Thus, staff is recommending the
Commission extend the time for the City to take action by one year. I would also
note that the underlying amendment and its related project for an affordable
housing project was very contentious at the time the amendment was acted on by
this Commission and that we have a significant number of speakers signed up
on this item today. As a reminder to the Commission and the public, the hearing
today for this item is only on the request of whether to extend the time
for the city to take action and that's to either accept or reject our suggested
modifications. This hearing today is not an opportunity to rehear or discuss the
merits of the underlying amendment itself. Now the motion to extend the
time limit is found at the bottom of the one-page staff report. That concludes my
presentation and I'll just note that I will be available for questions. Thank you
Mr. Hudson and Miss Warren did the applicant have a request for time? Yeah
Actually said two or three minutes. Okay, perfect. We have three minutes on the clock, please
Good afternoon commissioners
Congratulations chair Harmon and vice chair Hart
DJ more Paul Hastings pro bono council to the nonprofit affordable housing providers who are the applicants of the Venice Dell project
They will deliver 120 critically needed affordable units and supportive services to the Venice community
We're here in strong support of staff's recommendation.
When the Commission unanimously approved the CDPs and LUP amendment in 2024, the Commission
was fully aware of the objections raised by project opponents in the numerous form letters
submitted to you, including the claim that the LA Board of Transportation Commissioners
had effectively denied the project at a meeting just one day before the Commission's hearing.
Nothing has changed.
The Los Angeles City Council, which is the only body in the city with the final authority
to approve the project or deny it, unanimously approved it.
The City Council has not rescinded its approvals and in fact separately approved a disposition
and development agreement in which it contractually agreed to partner with the affordable housing
developers to make this project a reality.
The Board of Transportation Commissioners has no legal authority to obstruct or undo the
City Council's approval and there is a pending lawsuit challenging that Board's conduct.
While certain policies may have, or I'm sorry, politics may have changed at the City, the
fact remains that the City Council is the only authority at the City that can take action
on the LUP amendment that this Commission approved.
has not happened yet as Mister Hudson noted an additional time is needed so
that affordable housing developers can continue to work with the city to
determine a path forward accordingly and consistent with your staff's
recommendation a one-year extension for the City Council to act on the LUP
amendment is wholly appropriate under these circumstances we and affordable
housing developers worked for over two years with your staff to refine the
project to ensure Coastal Act consistency and bring it to you for consideration in December 2024.
That significant effort cannot be discounted and also justifies giving the city more time
so that this critical project can help meet the city's affordable housing needs in the Coastal
Zone. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Also with the applicants we
We have Sarah Letz and Erica Lee, do you wish, okay.
Go ahead.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Sarah Letz and I'm the executive director
of Hollywood Community Housing.
And there's good news to report about the Venezuela Project,
especially in terms of securing state resources
to finance the new construction
of 120 units of affordable housing.
In April, we applied for funding
through the state's multifamily housing program, or MHP,
and requested over $42 million.
On June 2nd, we received written confirmation
from the state that Venice Dell received
the maximum possible points
and is in a position to be awarded 42 million in financing.
With the commitment of MHP funds,
Venice Dell will also be competitive for state resources
including tax exempt bonds
and low income housing tax credits.
And the bottom line is
the Venice Dell project is financially feasible.
We also want to provide an update
on the co-developer's contract with the city,
disposition and development agreement or DDA. The original DDA was approved by council in June of 2022
and in September of 2024 the city signed a letter agreement with the co-developers to update the
exhibits to the DDA. Oh, thank you for your time. Erika Lee. Dear coastal commissioners, my name is
Erika Lee and I'm one of the co-executive directors of Venice Community Housing, one of the developers
for the Venestal Project. I'm here today to urge you to extend the land use amendment for the
Venestal community today. BCH has been an affordable housing developer for over 35 years.
We're proud of the work we've done to fight for housing justice and serve the numerous people
who've been able to exit homelessness and move into permanent housing, the one solution we know
to end homelessness. Los Angeles had two devastating fires this year as in a dire housing crisis.
In 2024 the Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count found over 75,000 people experiencing homelessness,
1700 of which are in Council District 11 where Venice is located. What are we doing about this
problem? Rather than encampment sweeps and sweeping folks away, cutting supportive services,
and exacerbating homelessness, I urge you all to support the Venice Dell community. This project
provides 120 units of affordable housing. This project keeps access to the coastal zone and
will create much more affordable housing and supportive housing. Thank you.
We have two more in-person speakers. Linda Lux followed by Roseanne Boffa.
Commissioners, welcome to the new ones and nice to see the ones that have been here before and I
want to thank you for unanimously approving Vanistel last time when we were here in December
and we hope that you will unanimously approve the extension today.
My name is Linda Lux, I've lived in Venice area since 1970, I've been active in the community
all that time and was on the Venice Neighborhood Council for 10 years, president for two terms.
I did most of the community engagement in the community about this project for the last
seven years and I can tell you the vast majority of people in Venice supported even though
you've heard from a lot of opposition.
So you've heard about Benestel, it's a wonderful project, in fact, if the city hadn't been
obstructing all this time since we were approved by the city in 2022, almost 300 or over 300
people would have either been living in their new development or been close to, it would
have been almost finished.
That's over 300 people, comprised of people who've formerly been homeless, 50%, low-income
artists and low-wage earners, the people who live and work in Venice can't live there.
Thank you for voting yes today.
Thank you.
Susan, we're Rosanne Bauchner.
Good afternoon.
Thank you so much for hearing us.
We hope that you extend it.
So I live in Venice since the 80s and I ask everyone that's working at Whole Foods or
any other local place, where do you live?
Nine out of ten times they live out of the area because they can't afford to live in
Venice.
The average one bedroom is about $2600.
small bedroom. So I ask you to please extend this. We have a city council person
who is being supported by the very, very rich folks who live in the canal and
they're always trying to figure out how to stop this project and we're hoping
that you'll just give us an extension and maybe those people will not be there
in a year from now to try to stop it because that's what they're planning on
doing. They are donated by the richer people and the rest of the people you
have to suffer and they got to sit in traffic. We drove up here? I cannot believe
how much traffic is out there. I have to tell you. Thank you guys. Thank you. Our
remaining speakers are on Zoom. We actually have 19 people sign up to speak
on Zoom, but we're only able to find six. We're starting with Susan Jordan, Robin
and Lydia Ponce. Susan Jordan. Susan, you're muted still. There you go.
Hi, my name is Susan Jordan and I speak to you today on behalf of my nonprofit, the California
Coastal Protection Network, as well as the Natural Resources Defense Council. Our organizations
have a long-standing interest in the preservation and expansion of affordable housing in the
coastal zone and have long been frustrated by the Commission's legal inability to protect
and require affordable housing in the wake of the passage of the Melo Act in 1982.
What the Vanistel Project is truly extraordinary and it is that very rare opportunity where
the commission gets the opportunity to support and proceed with a hundred percent affordable
housing project.
This just doesn't happen, especially in proximity to a beach.
We both test our organizations, both testified at the hearing in December and strong support.
My colleague, Joel Reynolds of the Natural Resources Defense Council, lives near blocks
from this development.
We urge you to approve this extension.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next Robin Rudicile, followed by Lydia Ponce and then Robin Rudicile.
Hey.
Good afternoon.
Let's be clear.
The City of Los Angeles itself has not requested the extension.
The City already determined that this project is not feasible and denied it, largely due
to the unnecessary and unaffordable $25 million parking garage, which poses both fiscal and
environmental risks.
That decision stands.
Every City Council member was well aware they had an opportunity to appeal it, and not one
did so.
As you yourselves acknowledged back in December, the City owns the land, and they, not the
developers or their attorneys or even you are the are the final decision
makers. If the city says no land then there is no project very simple. The city
would have to spend 25 million just to build the garage money it doesn't have
at a time it's cutting vital services and staff. There is an alternative site
right next door identified by the city. Also if the city re-approves the project
at that time you can re-approve an LCP amendment. So please close this door for
now. Let the city do its job. Let's work together to support real feasible and
sustain affordable housing and not uber expensive vanity projects that waste time, money, and
the public trust. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Lydia Ponce, Robin Miras, and then Marjorie
Weitzman. Lydia Ponce. Good afternoon. First LUPC VNC said they couldn't ever provide any
kind of affordable housing in the 90291 because of parking in the requirements. So now, you
You know, people here locally in Venice, in businesses and in homes, travel a great distance,
Pacoima, South Central LA, anywhere but Venice.
They live far, far away and it's taking away their life with their families and with their
community.
And, you know, this would be such a big improvement and everything would be sacrificed and variations
and grants and all kinds of permits for the dollar.
When we're talking about working people,
we're talking about the people that have a real right
to live by the ocean within the coastal zone.
It's called the Melo Act, and it's also called humanity.
I mentioned it this morning.
Please approve the extension.
The other stuff should wash away
with a visit to the beach, prayers up for the people,
by the people and always of the people.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Robin Miras.
We seem to be having trouble promoting it as a panelist.
You should now be able to unmute it as an attendee.
Go ahead.
Please try again.
We can barely hear your audio.
It's still not good.
Give us a second.
We're gonna move on to our next couple of speakers
and come back to you and see if it's improved.
Give us a moment.
Next will be Marjorie Weitzman and then Gary Pearl.
Marjorie Weitzman.
Hi, Marjorie Weitzman, I oppose this extension
along with hundreds of fellow Venetians
and many others concerned.
171 letters of opposition, 22 in support,
most supporters directly involved with the Venice Dell Project
are acting on their behalf in lawsuits,
suing the city for outrageous monetary demands
that depend on this extension.
The developers now proudly say they're one step closer
to getting 42 million in financing.
How does that address the $25 million needed
to build a public parking garage
in the midst of a city budget crisis?
You're being told by supporters
that extending the deadline furthers
the commission's environmental justice policy.
After the project has been in development
for more than a decade,
it shouldn't take a decade to push a flawed project forward.
It's time to move on.
The commission should accept the alternative proposed
at the city's experts,
by the city's experts and stop aligning with the developers
for stalling the process and start producing viable affordable housing potential.
Thank you. Next, Gary Pearl and then we're coming back to Robin Murez. Gary Pearl.
Gary, we can't hear you. We see that you're unmuted but I'm not hearing any audio.
Please try again. I know we can't, we can't hear, we can see you but and we see that you're
unmuted, but we're not hearing anything. I'm going to try to bump you back as an
attendee and see if you can unmute as an attendee. Meanwhile, Robin Mirrors, we're
gonna try you again and you should be able to unmute. Hi, I'm unmuted. Is this
any better? Oh yes, that's a lot better. Go ahead. Great. So thank you commissioners
and staff, I want to bring back to your attention something that has been repeated by many of
you today, by many of the commissioners and staff and everyone here. And that is that
CEQA should not be overlooked when doing anything in the coastal zone. And not only was it overlooked,
a special politically promoted law was passed to enable this project alone to not meet CEQA,
to not be evaluated. Everything the community has brought forth has been questioning all of those
aspects from the beginning. This has been a flawed project from the beginning. The fact that it was
only brought before the Bureau of Transportation Commission now is also because they have been
the developers who call themselves non-profit but are totally for profit just like the scams
that have been going on throughout Los Angeles. We have 2 billion dollars has is lost according to
the audit that has been required by. Thank you. Trying Gary Peroligan, Gary you should be able to
unmute. And then Gary, we see that you're unmuted but we still can't hear you. I am afraid it might
be a mic issue on your end, which is weird because we had you for two other comments today, but we
can't hear you right now, unfortunately. So we did have 13 other speakers signed up, all in
opposition, but we're unable to find them. I'm going to quickly list their names. If you're,
If you hear your name, please raise your hand in the meeting so we can find you.
seeing no hands raised madam chair okay well thank you very much thanks for
your work so with that I will close public comment and turn it back to the
commissioners unless staff has any final thoughts they'd like to add no
additional comments just note that we are available for questions thank you
very much mr. Hudson and any comments or emotion from commissioners I'm prepared
move. I move that the Commission extend the six-month time limit from for one
year in order for the City of Los Angeles to consider acceptance of the
suggested modifications to Venice LUP amendment request number LCP-5-VEN-22-0038-1.
adopted by the Commission on December 11th, 2024 and I recommend the yes vote.
I'd like to take a minute here I know I haven't had a lot of time to introduce
myself to my colleagues but my name is Chris I'm a County Supervisor out in
Monterey County and a lot of what I saw in this item reminded me of home and
the challenges that we're facing and the way we brought solutions. I can share
I've got a community of just about 12,000 people in the City of King and
And we're building 42 low-income units in a town of only 10,000 people.
And two towns over, where there's only 20,000 people in a small town called Solidad, we're
building about 32 units.
We're making change by taking on the tough issues.
And I think the conversation that's being asked for here, the space to consider this
is worth the time.
It's worth the investment.
$42 million for this, to me, is what might be used to leverage the other funding, is
a small amount of money.
And I say that because it took us $70 million
to build 100 farm worker units in Greenfield, California,
which is now where I live.
And I'm raising my two young kids, they own Inez.
This matters.
It matters to community and creating space
where I live kids grow up,
reach the age of 18, 19 and never see the ocean.
Even though it's only 10 miles away as the crow flies
and 40 miles away by freeway.
But I can tell you having raised a lot of kids as a coach
at the local high school, when we crest the hill from the Salinas Valley and we
pierce that lettuce curtain and we drop into the coast, these kids who you cannot
control in the back of a van go dead silent. It's like a baptism. It's like
they've reached new life and have a new understanding. The thought of families
having the opportunity to live in a place where they can see and feel the
water every single day between their toes is something that people in
California dream about, and for many never get even get the chance to see it
for decades at a time even though they're as close as my community is. So
for that reason I wanted to second this today and just thank my colleagues for
taking this seriously because it matters. And I know that for so many of us this
is part of the challenge that we're braving to take on. And as we do our
work in local government, the opportunity to say that everyone deserves to live
where they work and exist in all spaces that we consider sacred. I wanted to tell
the community I'm there to support any effort to make sure that the
conversation can continue in a meaningful way. Thank you. Thank you,
Commissioner Locust. Chair, I could just interrupt you for one second. The motion
in the staff report had the wrong number. It's 0038 in the staff report but the
actual number is 0037 so as long as the mover and the seconder are okay with
that will just correct another day.
No, no, it's enough if you're going to be with that.
I do.
Just kidding.
I'm good with it.
Just to clarify, thanks.
Thank you.
I didn't read it wrong, though.
It's 23-0037-1, and, no, it was our mistake.
Thanks.
Thank you.
OK, Ms. Miller, I'll ask for a roll call vote.
And I'd like to let you know, Vice Chair Hart is with us
and a little to vote.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes.
Loehnberg, yes.
Commissioner Notoff.
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Presiado.
Aye.
Yes.
Yes.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I thought I couldn't.
Double.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Aye.
Lopez, yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
Extension's so granted.
OK.
Now we are moving right along.
We'll go to item 21A, I believe.
Yes, and thank you.
Item 21A will be presented by Dulce Cortez, a Coastal Program
Analyst in our South Coast District.
And I would also just like to take this opportunity
to note that this will be Dulce's first presentation
to the commission.
And if we could pull up the PowerPoint presentation please
and Dulce take it away.
Good afternoon commissioners.
Item 21A is a request
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
to amend a previously approved coastal development permit
that originally acquired full removal
of unpermitted storm drain infrastructure
in the Biono Wetlands Ecological Reserve.
This amendment would allow for partial removal
and partial abandonment of the storm drain infrastructure
involving removal of the drain risers
at least 12 inches below grade, filling the remaining portions of the risers with concrete
to appropriately abandon the drains and revegetate the impacted area with wetland appropriate
vegetation. Next slide please. The project site, as shown in this aerial photograph,
is located in the Biona Wetlands Ecological Reserve in Los Angeles County. Specifically,
the unpermitted drains are located on either side of Culver Boulevard in area B of the wetlands,
shown here on this slide. Next slide please. The unpermitted storm drains were installed
in the 1990s without the benefit of a coastal development permit by a previous private property
owner before ownership of the property was transferred to the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Pursuant to coastal development permit 5-17-0253, the drain lands and weep holes
present in the above grade portions of the lateral drain risers were sealed with a marine grade
epoxy as an interim measure to stop wetland dewatering. Process is shown in these photos.
At the Commission's direction, Coastal Development Permit 5-18-0554 subsequently required full
removal of the infrastructure within five years or until drainage infrastructure
could be removed during excavation related to the Biono Wetlands Restoration Plan.
In addition, a mitigation plan was required to mitigate for habitat impacts of insulation
and temporal impacts to wetland habitat. Since Coastal Development Permit 5-18-0554 was approved,
Several members of the public have spoken during the public comment period,
during the public comment section, during previous commission hearings, and have also
contacted the applicant, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, urging that the applicant
amend the permit to allow for abandonment in place of the drain system to avoid impacting
the habitat that had regenerated surrounding the drain since they were sealed. Next slide, please.
In response to these concerns, that the previously required full excavation of the pipes would
require disturbance of approximately 15,000 square feet of wetland and upland
habitat and potentially affect archaeological and tribal cultural
resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife is now requesting to amend the
underlying permit to allow for the subterranean portions of the drain
infrastructure to be permanently abandoned in place by removing the tops
of the risers at least 12 inches below grade, filling the remaining portion of
the risers with concrete and permanently abandoning the two remaining
subterranean horizontal spur lines in place. On May 5th, commission staff met
with members of the public who expressed a preference to fill the entire length
of the lateral pipes with concrete due to concerns about potential long-term
structural degradation of the reinforced concrete pipes and the possibility of
methane gas becoming trapped. However, the applicant has indicated that it is
still their intent to eventually remove all portions of these pipes as part of
planned future restoration of the wetland and filling the entire length of the two 90-foot
long lateral pipes would make their eventual removal far more difficult, costly, and disruptive
to the surrounding habitat. In this case, the Commission's engineer Jeremy Smith agrees that
the applicant's analysis that the proposed partial removal slash partial abandonment approach
involving removal of all above grade portions of the two risers and filling only the risers
of the concrete fill rather than the entire length of the subterranean lateral pipes would
ensure that these drains are adequately and permanently sealed and would avoid any draining
of the surrounding wetlands.
Moreover, this approach would reduce site disturbance and minimize impacts to the surrounding
wetlands on site that would otherwise be disturbed by excavation of the two abandoned 90-foot
long drain pipes.
Members of the public have also asserted that methane gas may be present in these pipes.
however commissioned staff have confirmed that this is not the case. A memo by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, date July 2020, demonstrated that methane was not leaking out of
the pipes. The proposed amendment will serve as a permanent solution to this concern by further
reinforcing the sealed drains and eliminating future risk of any potential of gas leakage.
In addition, air that could potentially be present in the pipes could potentially escape
from the flat gate at Fionna Creek since it is not a sealed system. Next slide please.
Removal of all portions of the drain pipes would have originally resulted in the disturbance of
approximately 15,000 square feet of the surrounding wetland areas. However, the revised project for
partial removal slash partial abandonment would minimize these impacts and only result in
approximately 18 square feet of disturbance around the risers to be removed. As part of
the proposed amendment the applicant will revegetate the disturbed areas around the risers using
appropriate native plant species. In addition the applicant has already implemented a 0.6 acre
off-site willow restoration project to mitigate for prior impacts resulting from the insulation
of the pipes by the previous private property owner. Monitoring in 2023 showed increased native
vegetation, successful willow recruitment and reduced bare ground and that the restoration
site is currently meeting and exceeding success criteria, established by the permit, as demonstrated
in the accompanying photos.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, staff believes the amendment request represents the least environmentally
damaging feasible alternative and is consistent with the Coastal Act.
Thus, staff is recommending approval of this amendment with the special conditions listed
on pages 28-33 of the staff report, which include modifications to special condition
number three to allow for partial concrete fill of the cap risers rather than full removal
of the unpermitted drains and lateral pipes. All work must still be completed by the August 12,
2025 deadline pursuant to the underlying permit unless additional time is granted by the executive
director for a good cause and will be performed manually over two days to avoid impacts to the
surrounding habitat. The motion to approve the project is found on page five of the staff report.
this concludes staff presentation and we are available for any questions
thank you miss cortes excellent first presentation
um i'll start by asking are there any ex partes on this item
seeing none okay then um we'll start with the applicant and see how much time
they're requesting she's requesting yes on on zoom we have richard brody from
cdfw uh they're listed as available for questions
they are in on Zoom and are free to unmute. Okay, great. Happy to have you for questions.
Thank you. In that case, we will open public comment and take general public comment,
two minutes please. Okay, we have five people sign up for general public comment. We'll start
with in the room, Steve Ray, one more time. Then our first speakers on Zoom will be Walter Lamb,
John Davis, and Patricia McPherson. You're going to allow me a fourth time,
But you know my doctor said as long as you can keep talking, talk.
So I'm just following my doctor's advice.
Hi, Steve Ray again here.
I haven't changed my name all day.
That's amazing.
I just had to speak about this issue that's before you,
out of sheer frustration, primarily.
I've been involved with the Biono Wetlands for
longer than a couple of you have been alive, I think.
And the thing that strikes me about every time something
comes before this commission regarding Biono Wetland,
it all centers around one word, that word unpermitted.
Unpermitted because everything that happens out there
is unpermitted.
And it winds up coming here before you
because whether, no matter whether it's in this case,
you know, the drain issue or a variety of other issues
in the past, it always, it's always something
that's happening with unpermitted.
And I just get frustrated listening to everybody talk
about all these issues at Biono Wetlands
that are unpermitted issues.
I don't know what to do about it.
I know enforcement, I guess, Lisa back here.
Message goes to somebody, why is everything
unpermitted that happened out there?
And then we have to find a way to clean it up
or fix it up or compromise a way,
maybe something that shouldn't be compromised
away because it should never happen in the first place.
I just ask that, you know, somebody start looking at this
and find out why everything there is unpermitted.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Walter Lamb, followed by John Davis,
I believe we do have a presentation for you. We're bringing it up.
Thank you, commissioners. Walter Lamb with the Bailar Wellness Land Trust.
Just to state up front, we support this change.
Obviously, we, along with other advocates, requested this change.
We requested this change five years ago, and we were perplexed five years ago
We were perplexed five years ago because this was discussed and then Vice Chair Escalante
said, hey, could it be a better option to abandon these in place?
Staff said, yeah, maybe.
And then that was the end of the discussion.
And then so five years later, here we are, but we are glad to eventually be at this place.
regard to other I think we seem to have lost Walter lamb and he disconnected
from the meeting if he does reconnect we'll get back to him but we'll move on
for now to John Davis Patricia me for your sin Leslie Purcell John Davis go
ahead John I see I'm having trouble getting my video turned on if you could
help me with that give us a second there you should be able to turn on now okay
go ahead. Okay if you could now start my clock I would appreciate that.
Honorable Chair Hart, Vice Chair Aguilar, and distinguished commissioners please
deny this recommended motion. There will be no future of removal. The staff is
lying again regarding the DFW restoration plan. It was defeated in
court and it will not return. I've provided an alternative motion in my
written submission. The clear intent of this Commission was to remove all
all illegal wetland drain pipes within 180 days
and the Commission further required drains
to be temporarily capped for 30 days.
Chief Enforcement Officer Lika, Lisa Hagee stated,
we think that draining a wetland
is about the most amazing violation you could have.
I mean, putting a drain in a wetland
is exactly the opposite of anything you can do
in a wetland, end quote.
The Commission clearly did not intend
lead temporary capping mitigation in place for eight years or more. Nor did this commission
intend to only modify a fraction of the illegal pipeline at the 11th hour. Commissioner Turnbull
Sanders asked staff council to read the original modified staff report to the commission because
the original staff report was failed. As it is today, staff has modified the recommendations
a special condition for will be revised to require the applicant to remove the pipelines
within 180 days. It then needs to actually carry out the removal within one year of the
commission action on that permit. Drains, whether capped or not, cannot be installed
and maintained in a wetland. Public resources code 30233. The commission, the Coastal Act
That mandates the filling of the entire structure with concrete to render them inoperable above
and below the surface to remedy the coastal violation in this case.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Patricia McPherson.
We seem to be having trouble promoting it as a panelist.
Obviously, that you've been accepting it, but it hasn't been happening.
So we're going to allow you to speak as an attendee.
You should be able to unmute now, and I saw another account pop up.
Hetherington, Patricia McPherson, sorry, Patricia McPherson, you should be able to
unmute. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you, go ahead. Hi, this is Patricia
McPherson, Grassroots Coalition, I can't tell you how disappointed I am with the
staff addendum that's written. The staff addendum by apparently Mandy Revell did
not provide me with any information with CDFW claiming that the drains would be
so hard to dig out, should they go forward with the plan. There is no plan that's being
promoted anymore by CDFW. It's been 86ed as far as CEQA lawsuit.
Mandy Revelle has told you there's no information. Well, I provided all of you today with information
of water that does back up through those drains, as shown by Playa Vista's SOMAS consultants,
Mike Kriehan. You have that. She knew that. She was at the meetings in 2017 that we've
been discussing the water backing up through that main drain into those illegal drains.
And by the way, I never said to fill up all of the large main drain. I have asked for
filling the risers and filling the lateral lines. I spoke with the CDFW engineer on this.
She was given no information whatsoever from the Coastal Commission or CDFW with background
for this site.
So this whole thing has been a ruse.
The letter that was written initially was by the regional manager and Scott the engineer
from CDFW.
He never said to do nothing the way the letter stated to do.
Who wrote that letter?
Brodie write that letter and put on the electric signatures of those two people, the regional
manager and Scott Murata, the CDFW engineer. I am being provided no time to respond to this.
This is ridiculous. It's the most outrageous thing. I would like to see this thing filled.
You have us between a hard place and a rock because we don't want to disturb the surface.
How dare you, Mandy? Thank you. Next, Leslie Purcell. And then we do see Walter Lamb back in
in the meeting will follow up with Walter.
You can restart your comments after Leslie Purcell.
Leslie Purcell.
Good afternoon, Commission.
And, well, this is a tough one.
I'm somebody that loved the bionawetlands for many years.
I'm looking at a picture that was from a film,
the nature versus gentrification nature's last stand.
And it shows the bionawetlands when it was full of water
and very green before playa vista was there.
And anything we can do to return it to its best functioning
is what we need to do.
I think that capping the drains,
filling them is probably the best thing.
I'm not an engineer.
I'm not quite sure if we've had enough engineering advice
on this, but the alternative to fill the whole length of the lateral pipe with concrete.
If they are to be removed in the future, that might make it more difficult, but there is
a problem with methane leaking from some of the old oil wells, and there's gas underneath
the wetlands too. So it's it is kind of an issue that a thorny one. We just encourage
you all to do the best you can and we appreciate your work and I'd like to know when the CDFW
is coming forth with a new EIR, EIS that we need for the restoration as such because
the public would like to be involved and we'd appreciate a timeline, some kind of framework
that we knew was happening with that, but thank you very much.
Thank you.
Walter Lamb.
Thank you commissioners.
For bringing your presentation back up, give us a second.
Yeah, thank you and apologies for the tech glitch and yeah, I mean this is a difficult
situation.
You know, the advocates for the Bino wetlands, we do this, most of us are volunteers, a lot
of us spend a lot of time, I volunteer full-time on this. It is a little
frustrating. We're just asking for you to maybe, you know, understand our
frustration from having five years ago this opportunity to do exactly what
we're talking about today. Would have saved you time as well. I know how busy
you are. I know how busy your staff is. It would have saved your staff a lot of time.
It also would have saved the public spending a couple thousand dollars going
down and filing applications for funding for the full removal. That's what CDF
W was going to do, and we really, you know, stepped in to advocate against that, and so
again we're happy that, you know, we are where we are today.
Now, staff mentioned that one of the reasons not to put more concrete in is because they
may want to remove them if they ever do this large-scale project.
Well, we're asking for you to get an update on the large-scale project.
The only reason you gave the five-year extension was because CDFW told you they anticipated
doing the project within five years, and they didn't want to sort of double up on the disturbance
to the site.
And the language from the last staff reports right up here on the slide, the highlighted
in yellow are the specific timeframes, and the first timeframe of CDFW needing two years
to provide more information to the Corps of Engineers, that's what they're saying is still,
right?
And so they're still two years away from that.
It doesn't seem like there's been a day of advancement on that.
And so we really do think at a minimum
to please get an update on when that project will happen,
given that you're being told that someday maybe you
want to pull the whole infrastructure out.
And then the only other thing I'll say is,
you don't really have a choice today because of how long it
took CDFW to get the application.
I'm not trying to, you know, be critical of them,
but just the reality is the existing CDP
is no longer feasible.
So thank you for your time today.
Thank you.
We have no more speakers for this item.
We do have CDFW on and available for questions.
Great.
Thank you so much.
And thank you to our speakers.
I'll turn it back to staff to see if they have any responses.
Thank you.
Yes, we do.
And I'll just start off, and then I'll turn it over
to Steve for some more steps.
comments but first I want to directly respond to Miss McPherson. I hear her
frustration but want to note it's completely inappropriate for her to go
after staff the way she did. We have collectively spent so many hours
working and I'm trying to understand the concerns with the advocates in this
area. We respect them, we respect their love of this place and have worked
really hard to try to, you know, to communicate with them in all the ways we
can. But you know that's that is that's our challenge I guess as staff to you
know we do have conflict and disagreements with folks but we're
working really hard as staff here and I don't appreciate members of the public
going after our staff so I just want to you know Mandy Revell has done a
phenomenal job working through a lot of really difficult issues here and just
wanted to say that for the record we you know there's a long history for this you
know about with this project many of you are fully aware of that but we can go
into that if you if you'd like I think I'll start up by I guess I'll just end
there and give handed over to Steve for some more substantive responses all
right thank you thank you for those comments and I would just like to add a
little bit of history on this because this does have quite a bit I remember
the original hearing about eight five to six seven years ago it's been a while
And at that original hearing I do recall Miss McPherson requested that these subterranean
pites be removed in their entirety.
Now there's apparently been some changes.
During the past year, Miss McPherson has also spoken during several of our public comment
periods of different hearings requesting that the applicant and the commission change the
project to allow abandonment in order to minimize these habitat impacts that we heard about
today.
Now Fish and Wildlife took that to heart and they approached us and requested this change,
which we reviewed with much scrutiny.
Now I would note that although we've heard that there's still disagreement, that disagreement
is about the method of abandonment and not so much the question of whether or not abandonment
could be an appropriate way to deal with these unpermitted pipes.
And the concerns that we've heard here is that the pipe itself should be filled in with
concrete. The the proposal here and as Miss Cortez laid out is that there will
be this complete ceiling of the pipe. That riser, the part of the pipe that
sticks above ground will be removed about a foot below ground. It'll be sealed
with concrete so the entire riser that pipe will be filled with concrete. That
means that there is no possibility of water from the surface seeping back into
that pipe, which was the original problem with this this violation. The
other concern was that somehow the gas that there's because of that
underground gas issue within the area could somehow seep into this pipe and
then out gas into the environment. But this pipe will be sealed subsurface and
our engineering experts have looked at that issue and we don't agree or believe
that there is any concern.
We have had testing done in the past,
and that testing has showed that there was no presence of gas
leaking out of the previous pipe,
even when it was unsealed.
But given that this pipe is sealed,
we believe that issue will be moot.
So I'll just note that, well, that'll conclude
our staff response.
But I'll note that we are available for questions
if the commission has any additional questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
OK, I'll bring it back to the commission
and open it up for questions or comments?
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, just a quick question.
The integrity of the pipe over time, is there an estimate?
I mean, eventually, the thing's going to collapse inward.
Is there a time frame on when we think that will happen?
Yes, that was the question that we posed to our engineer.
And they believe that this is stable for the foreseeable
future.
They don't believe that the pipe is expected to collapse.
So in the past, we have said, is it
necessary to fill these pipes with sand or concrete, in this case, that wasn't expected
to be necessary.
But I would note that the final disposition of this pipe is that there is still a plan
by Fish and Wildlife for its removal.
This and their planned horizon will be part of a larger restoration project that would
involve the excavation of this area and reconstruction of wetlands.
And that is, just by way of background, we often receive much public comment
during our public comment period from members of the public, both in support and in opposition.
But that is a much larger project and at this point in time there's no time frame on when that project might occur.
So I would just note that the long-term plan for this by Fish and Wildlife is for removal of the entire pipe.
fill it with cement would make that long-term removal much more difficult
and costly and would result in these habitat impacts in the short term. So
that's why we're recommending what we are. All right I need I need to find out
what kind of pipe that is because I could use some of that for culverts in
Monterey County. The never collapsing pipe sounds incredible. Thank you. Any
Any further comments, questions or motion?
Commissioner Nada.
I just wanted to, I appreciated the staff presentation
and Ms. Cortez, thank you for that clarification
in the presentation that in fact this is,
we've heard from the public repeatedly
over the last few years about abandonment in place.
And so here you have a situation
where the Department of Fish and Wildlife
has listened to the public and been responsive to that
with coming forward with this amendment.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
With that, I would make a motion.
I move that the commission approved the proposed amendment
to coastal development permit five dash one eight
dash zero five five four pursuant
to the staff recommendation and staff recommends a yes vote.
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
May we have a roll call please Ms. Miller.
Mr. Natta.
I.
Yes. Commissioner Presiado.
I.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes. Yes.
Commissioner O'Malley. Yes.
O'Malley. Yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart. Yes. Commissioner Jackson.
I. Jackson. Yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes. Kelly.
Yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Aye.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes.
Lowenberg, yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
And with that, the amendment is approved.
I think we have some statewide items to take care of today.
Okay.
So we'll move to item 22, the approval of the minutes.
If anyone wants to move approval.
I'll move approval.
Part.
you want a second at vice chair sounds like a motion in a second okay so we
have a motion from Commissioner Lohenberg a second from Vice Chair Hart and if we
could have a roll call vote please commissioner personal personal yes
commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes Commissioner O'Malley yes O'Malley yes
Yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart. Yes. Commissioner Jackson. Abstain. Jackson abstains. Commissioner
Kelly. Yes. Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Lopez. Abstain. Lopez abstained. Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes. Lowenberg. Yes. Commissioner Nautal. Aye. Nautal. Yes. Commissioner Neechir-Harmon.
yes Herman yes the vote is 8 yes with two abstentions thank you the minutes
are approved are there any conservancy reports that anyone wants to make I
don't even know who goes to those so we'll work on that okay um deputy AG's
report I think today okay and I think we're done for today and we'll be going
into closed session now thank you