Good morning everyone. Welcome to the Thursday June 12th meeting of the California Coastal Commission. We'll call this meeting to order and please begin with a roll call.
commissioner O'Malley present commissioner boom loud commissioner hard
commissioner Jackson here mr. Kelly here mr. Lopez mr. Lowenberg missioner
Williams here commissioner wolf your Harmon here thank you very much now we'll
move to the virtual meeting. All right. 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 you 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 web page. Paper forms
and a scandable 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 the Commission's agenda web page, which is a
guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone. Members of the public speaking
during general public comment may be given up to 2 minutes to speak at the
description at the discretion of the chair request 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 speak on an item up until the chair opens the hearing on
that particular item. If you've 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 yourself
on the phone. Madam Chair that concludes the virtual hearing procedures. Thank you
very much and I think we have a report out in closed session. Thank you Chair
Herman. Yesterday in closed session the Commission received litigation
information and advice and took action on Casimir Homeowners Association versus
California Coastal Commission, Bookout versus California Coastal Commission,
Haudian vs. California Coastal Commission. It also received litigation
information and advice on Sable Ink vs. California Coastal Commission and that
concludes my report. Thank you very much. Now to you Mr. Schwing for agenda changes.
Thank you and good morning to the Commission and to everybody who's
attending today. There was an agenda changes sheet posted on Friday and there
are a few additions to that this morning which I'll note as I go through the list.
Starting with item 11A, this is the City of Newport Beach's LCP amendment on non-residential parking standards, that's moved to consent.
Item 12A, that's the appeal A5 DPT 2266 Sanson from Dana Point, that's postponed.
Item 12B. This is the appeal A5-LGB 2515, Kiani from Laguna Beach. That matter is withdrawn.
Item 13B, it's application 523-831, Thompson Trust and First American Trust at a Newport
Beach that's moved to consent. Item 15a the city of Del Mar's LCP amendment on
short-term rentals this is just an LCP time extension that's moved to consent.
Item 16a application 617 for 2828 oceanfront in Del Mar that matter was
withdrawn and item 16c application 624.503 Olnick out of San Diego that is
postponed and that concludes the agenda change this morning.
Wonderful thank you very much now we will move to public comment please.
Okay for members of the public I'll be announcing the names of the upcoming
speakers and invite you to speak when it is your turn. Each speaker will be
allowed 2 minutes during general public comment at the discretion of the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom, we will be bringing you in as panelists.
As we bring you in, here Zoom will reload, and 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 names in the order that they
appear in our sign up list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium and announce yourself with your
name when you approach the speak.
Several helpful tips, there is a raise your 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 9.
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 on Zoom.
it is your time to speak. We'll invite you to unmute and turn on your camera. You can
unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star 6. We have quite a few people sign up today.
We have a total of 44 sign up for general public comment. We'll start with people in
the room. Charlie Bowen, Susan Simon, Ernie Simon, Leanna Zavelli, Charlie Bowen. Could
you could you turn the mic on right there all right we'll start over again
good morning commissioners my name is Charlie Bowen communications director for
save ocean side sand SOS thank you for authorizing the recent grant award to
Oceanside this grant will fund a central baseline monitoring for the city's
rebeach sand nourishment and retention pilot project it will also support work
to help Oceanside comply with SB 272 and move beyond a single pilot project into
a broader long-term coastal management plan. That's critical because it helps
position Oceanside for future coastal resiliency funding. Momentum is growing.
Just last week, SANDAG adopted REBEACH as the region's sand retention pilot
project. Perhaps it's time for a state level agency to do the same. Oceanside is
leading with an innovative science-based, nature-based solution unique in
California and the nation. ReBeach is not only needed an Oceanside but could
serve as a model for other vulnerable coastal communities. SOS appreciates the
Commission's interest in ReBeach. We've seen significant investment in planning
and coastal vulnerability assessments but we urge the state to now prioritize
funding for implementation the actual work that's builds resiliency. We also
believe it's time for California to create streamlined permitting pathways
for coastal adaptation projects. A faster clearer route to approval is vital to
bring solutions to communities and beaches that need them now before
erosion outpaces action. We welcome the Commission's thoughts and we're eager to
help foster a collaborative dialogue to improve the process and turn plans into
progress. Thank you again for your leadership and for the opportunity to
speak today greatly appreciated. All right we need to take a pause.
Hi everyone we are gonna take a 10-minute break while we work on getting our
technology back together thanks. Everybody's still there we lost internet
here so sorry for the cutoff. I do see a number of everyone back on the panelists
ten days please stand by. Thank you everyone, appreciate your patience. Okay
we are gonna get started and let's go back to public comment. Everyone we're
starting the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. We're ready to start the meeting. We
have a presentation from the Embarcadero Coalition. We have six speakers. We're
starting with Susan Simon, Ernie Simon, and Leanna Zavalli.
We have your presentation up, and go ahead.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
I am Susan Simon, co-chair
of the Embarcadero Coalition of San Diego.
Our slides are in your package for review.
Our members are present and dressed in blue in the room,
and thank you to those of you
who are joining us silently, also dressed in blue.
We ask the commission to reject the Port Master Plan update,
or PMPU due to multiple violations of the Coastal Act.
Where is our world-class waterfront?
Next slide.
This is a list of the 41 amendments
to the current port master plan, or PMP.
The PMPU is not the 42nd amendment.
There is no markup for the changes.
The PMPU states, this document represents
the first comprehensive update
to the originally adopted port master plan.
It incorporates previously approved amendments
and presents a new vision for the future.
The PMPU replaces the current PortMaster plan.
Next slide.
The port describes the PMPU as a comprehensive
and inclusive integrating planning initiative
to update our PortMaster plan.
The proposed PMPU will apply bay-wide
and proposes new land uses, definitions,
standards, and policies that represent a complete overhaul
to the current PortMaster plan.
Next slide.
This map shows the areas left out of the update
and the central Embarcadero,
which has a massive development plan.
The two big red boxes are the two missing sections
and the small red box is the central embarcadero.
The update omits known proposed uses
and withholds necessary detail and information
in violation of section 30711.
The PMPU improperly omits entire planning areas
and is contrary to the principles of careful planning.
The PMPU must include proposed uses of land and water areas
where known to comply with the Coastal Act.
National City and Chula Vista Bayfront,
so the large red squares, that's 46% of the Port District
is excluded from this comprehensive plan.
The small square, again, Central Embarcadero,
the Port can't honestly say this area is staying the same.
Thank you.
Next slide.
Thank you.
Don't take my notes.
Sorry about that.
There you go.
Good morning.
My name is Ernie Simon, and I'm a member
of the San Diego Embarcadero Coalition.
This Embarcadero map summarizes the wall-to-wall hotel rooms
and boat berths in the PMPU and the seaport project.
The black shows the current Embarcadero.
The red shows all the new PMPU development.
And the purple is the development of the seaport.
Next slide, please.
The Central Embarcadero sub-district is in the middle of the Embarcadero planning district.
The omission of the Central Embarcadero and Seaport Project development standards prevents
an accurate understanding of the PMPU impact, including its vision.
The sub-district plan contains the densest concentration of hotels on the California
coast and one-third of the Embarcadero planning district.
slide please. These maps show the huge seaport project including the addition
of private marinas to block the Bay water views and the heights of the seven
proposed buildings. The port wrote the PMPU does not propose any new uses
development of change or changes in the intensity of development in the central
Embarcadero. With the exception of the existing restaurant on G Street mole
that has a maximum height of 45 feet, the PMPU proposes the continuation of the
existing conditions. These statements by the port are blatantly untrue. The port
has been pursuing and planning the sea park project since 2016. The plan is in
seek of review. The public was promised that the port would not wall off the
public land and water after the Convention Center and major hotels
block the south of Barcadero. The port's lopsided focus on luxury hotels does not
align I believe with what the Coastal Commission is trying to do. Thank you.
Thank you. Continuing that presentation, Leanna Zabelli, Monica Thrasher, Janet
Rogers, and Bill Rogers. I'm Leanna Zabelli. These maps show the existing
seaport village with a maximum height of 45. Do we have the next slide? Next slide.
Aha! Okay, I'll start over. These maps show the existing Seaport Village with a
maximum height of 45 feet compared to the Seaport project with a 500 foot tall
hotel and blocked Baywater views. The port says that it can do whatever it
wants. The port refused to put the guidelines and parameters for the
Central Embarcadero into the PMPU. There are no guidelines or parameters to
measure consistency of the plan under the Coastal Act. The port thinks it is
being clever to leave everything out of the PMPU and then ram the project through as an
amendment. We let them undermine the planning process and the Coastal Act. Next slide.
This map shows the North Embarcadero in the current master plan. The PMP has an outstanding
legal obligation for a major park, plus a park on the Broadway Pier and the curved pier in the
North Embarcadero. Where are they in the PMPU or their equivalents? The PMPU is eliminating
legally required public spaces.
Next slide.
The PMPU describes significant development in the South Embarcadero.
A convention center expansion amendment already exists, including up to 985,000 additional
square feet for various uses.
These pictures show both sides of the convention center.
On the water side, the expansion is planned to take up the green space.
Do we only have a concrete walkway?
On the city side, it is already impossible to know you are close to the water.
The Hilton Bayfront has up to 600 new hotel rooms, with 57,500 additional square feet
of various uses along Harbor Drive.
The PMPU states there are no building standards specified in the south Embarcadero Subdistrictors.
The planning process is again ignored.
Next slide.
Good morning, I'm Monica Thrasher. These pictures show the current bay water views by the Hilton
Bayfront Hotel and the Fifth Avenue Landing Marina. The PMPU states develop up to 35 additional
recreational boat berthing vessels. These slips are planned for mega yachts. Billionaires
will want the same security fencing at their ships. All the views will be lost between
mega yachts and security fencing. Large pointed metal fences are not welcoming. Next slide.
The current master plan defines public versus commercial recreation and public recreation
includes access for environmental justice and activities without user's fees. Categories
include public parks, promenades, fishing piers and bicycle corridors. Commercial recreation
includes developed areas and properties with a user fee paying public.
Categories include golf courses, restaurants, hotels, marinas and yacht clubs.
Next slide.
The PMPU improperly combines commercial uses with public recreation spaces.
Combining parks, closers, golf course and open space into a single recreation open space
or ROS designation is not in accordance with the Coastal Act section 30711 or the Public
Trust Doctrine. Why is the Coronado Golf Course categorized as public recreation in the PMP
and ROS in the update instead of commercial recreation? Based on State Lands Commission's
explanation, golf is not a visitor-friendly serving activity. Please do not certify the PMP.
Next slide. Thank you.
Hi, I'm Janet Rogers, co-chair of the Embarcadero Coalition.
Promenade's parks and plazas should be reported separately, given their different functions.
Playing in a park is not the same as a walk on concrete.
Instead, the PMPU combines all three into one designation that lets the port convert parks to concrete walkways.
Don't get scammed by the Seaport Project.
We would lose 3.5 acres apart if it eliminates Rookel Park and replaces it with a wider concrete walkway.
The Marina Park North Peninsula stays the same size.
Next slide.
Compare the summaries of the current master plan with the PMPU.
The current summary shows both commercial and public recreation at about 400 acres.
But public recreation includes the golf course, which should be in commercial recreation.
Moving 97.8 acres changes the balance between public
and commercial recreation.
It should show 500 acres as commercial
and only 300 acres as public recreation.
That is already bad.
Look at the detail in public recreation.
Park Plaza is separate from Promenade.
Notice the detailed breakdown and notice the 2,776.7 acres
of land use.
Next slide.
This slide shows the summary of the PMPU.
It does not provide enough information to certify the plan.
The update eliminates the detailed categories
which obscures what they are doing
and violates section 30711.
The PMPU only has 1,020.84 acres of land.
Why are the numbers so different?
1,756 acres of land didn't disappear,
whereas 950 acres of water use.
46% of the Port District is excluded, which relates to the map we showed at the beginning
with the missing acres.
This plan is not a comprehensive replacement.
Next slide, please.
Thank you.
Bill Rogers.
And then following Bill will be Adam Leverens, Julia Chung here, and Dr. Ronald Askeland.
Go ahead, Bill.
Good morning.
I'm Bill Rogers.
Port managed land and water is held in the public trust for the benefit of Californians.
So please stop the dense concentration of hotels primarily for out-of-state visitors.
Don't block water views with a sea of boats and a wall of buildings.
Although we focused on Section 30711 of the Coastal Act today, we sent you the letter
from our attorneys at the Chatton Brown Law Group with explanations of additional Coastal
Act violations.
We need you to enforce the Coastal Act.
Next slide.
It is imperative that the PMPU be comprehensive, accurate, and include all of the managed land
and water.
The Commission should reject the PMPU in whole since it leaves out 46% of the land and water.
It fails to create guidelines for seaport and doesn't tell the truth about the central
Embarcadero.
Next slide.
The port's plan is to maximize revenue, not public access.
The port's income in 2023 was $38 million.
And in 2024, it was $95 million.
This plan is about making even more money for the port
while decreasing public access in the Embarcadero, which
is where the public needs it most.
Please don't certify the PMPU.
Send it back to ensure a world-class waterfront.
Next slide.
Last year, we invited you to walk the Embarcadero with us.
We understand that you walked with a developer this week.
We believe you should walk with us, the concerned public,
since it is our land and water.
While you are in San Diego, please walk with us
so you can observe these issues firsthand.
Please contact us at EmbarcaderoCoalition at gmail.com.
Thanks for giving us a chance to speak on this issue.
Thank you.
Next speakers, Adam Leverens, Julia Chun here,
Dr. Ronald Askerwind, and then Adam Leverans,
we have your presentation, just give us a moment.
Yeah, I may not even get to that, thank you.
Good morning, commissioners and staff.
Adam Leverans here from Newport Beach.
Like some of the speakers you've just heard,
Newport Beach seems to be looking towards revenue
more than access, and what this is doing,
it's changing, somebody will still be able to afford access,
but not a lot of us that have access now,
and the reduction is very concerning to some.
The Newport Moring Association sent a letter dated June 6,
if you haven't had opportunity to read it,
I hope that you do, there should be a number of speakers
today talking to points in that letter.
I see some faces up here that are fresh faces
on the commission.
So I'm gonna go over some voting terminology
for those of you that are already aware of this,
I've heard it before, I apologize.
But if you look out the window to your right,
if you haven't yet, these are boats on slips or berths.
There are also anchors, boats that anchor.
Just throw an anchor out and sit there.
And then there's moorings, which is what we're primarily
talking about.
A mooring is a boat anchoring, but the anchor
isn't carried on the boat.
You pull up to some weights in the water.
You tie up a boat to it and sit there.
And then, Chris, if you could call up the slide.
As you can imagine, substantial differences
on difficulty in access between a boat and the slip
like out here and a boat on a mooring.
And someone will speak to that later.
But the city treats these two classes of boat birthing
quite differently.
The boats on the moorings are heavily regulated,
have much more complicated access. Yet they pay more than 12 commercial
permittees in Newport Beach and they pay multiples more than residential peer
permit stocks that houses and the graph in front of you shows that a mooring as
a mooring permit e I have to register and ensure my boat. I have to provide
that information to the city.
I know someone recently they didn't get their document in time. The insurance
didn't lapse but they didn't get the paper in the city, a hundred dollar fine.
Votes at residential, peers, stocks at houses, don't have to ensure themselves out of time.
This will continue as you well know. Thank you. Thank you. Julia Chun here, Dr. Ronald
Askland, and then Nathan Brenner. Good morning, I'm Julia Chun here with the
California Coastal Protection Network, a unique advocacy organization dedicated
to protecting California's most precious natural asset, our magnificent coastline
for all generations. I was going to speak to you about the bone public comment period on the OCS
oil and gas leasing process, but I heard yesterday that you're already working on comments,
so I wanted to thank you for your strong voice on that important issue. After working on the
natural resources damage assessment following the Huntington Beach spill in 2021, I know that oil
drilling has no place on our coastline. So I want to take this chance just to introduce myself to
the new Coastal Commissioners and welcome you to this really important role. I'm a long-time
advocate on many of the issues before the Coastal Commission including coastal
armoring, coastal development, beach nourishment, seal rise planning, and I
look forward to continuing to engage with all of you on the many challenging
issues before the Coastal Commission. Thank you and welcome. Thank you. Next Dr.
Ronald Askelyn, Nathan Brenner, and Robin Davidoff. Could you bring up our slides
please? Yes, give us a moment. Good morning. I'm Dr. Ronald Askelyn. I'm chair of the
San Diego Conservation Committee of the Sierra Club. We'd like to thank the
Coastal Commission for their support in the past with the SEAL Society. Our key
message today though is things are not going well and we need to take action.
Next slide please. At the May Coastal Commission meeting we spoke about the
city's failure to implement the updated management plan for Point La Homa
Sea-Eye and Rookery where they allow the Rangers to monitor La Coya Cove which is
only 20 yards away. So far there's been little to no implementations. Rangers
rarely monitor the Ojekoab area or make announcements as they're supposed to.
Over 1,000 people every day go down the stairways to this tiny beach and crowd out adult sea
lions with their newborn pups.
This is a very serious public safety hazard.
We've made every effort to contact the city and the mayor's office and there's been very
little effect.
Next slide.
On the April meeting of the CCC, we approved a management plan to gain compliance and educate
visitors to stay a safe distance from the sea lions.
The rangers are supposed to perform periodic checks which aren't really happening.
They're supposed to make public announcements and it's not happening like it should be.
We'll talk in more detail about that.
So next slide, please.
So the city of San Diego is failing to achieve the goal that the commission has set for them.
lack of clarity. There's an inability to hold rangers accountable. The effect we're
seeing is hundreds of tourists put themselves in dangers every day by being
within a few feet of wild sea lions. This plan fails to manage this mass
tourism, reduce harassment, and prevent the death of newborn pups and those pups
are being born as we speak. So thank you very much and I'll hand off to Nathan.
Nathan Brenner, we have a video for you. Let us know when you want to play. Thank
Thank you.
Good morning commissioners.
I'm going to show you a video of exactly what Dr. Aschlin is talking about.
We have a city council president who says I want Rangers down on the beach as authority
figures because people behave better when there's an authority figure there.
What I'm going to show you is it's upsetting.
You may want to cover your eyes but please don't.
This is a typical day, and mind you, this is sea lion
popping season right now, when sea lions need the most protection.
This is a typical day at the La Jolla Cove, and you'll note there isn't a single ranger
on that beach.
The only person you'll see doing crowd control is a Sierra Club docent.
So go ahead and start the video, and please understand that we need action now at La Jolla
Cove Beach.
It's a danger to the public.
It's a danger to the wildlife.
That's a child screaming and kicking while his father forces him to take a selfie.
This happens every day.
This is typical.
There's a lone Sierra Club docent trying to manage this crowd.
And that is a newborn pup right there, a newborn pup waiting for its mom.
So we understand that the Coastal Commission basically said we'll give this city a chance.
It's a work in progress.
That was two months ago.
The city has not done anything.
And unless our mayor gets a strong message that this is not acceptable, this is the most
valuable coastal resource we have in La Jolla.
And it is chaos.
We have a crisis at the Cove and only the Coastal Commission at this point can step
in and demand the city manage their resources.
It's all of Californians resources,
and it's a travesty.
I'm going to turn over to Robin Davidoff,
the chair of our Seal Society for Sierra Club.
Thank you.
Robin Davidoff, and then following Robin,
will be Tiffany Curry and Steve Benegas.
Robin.
First slide, please.
So I'm Robin Davidoff.
I'm the Sierra Club Seal Society chair,
and I thank both Dr. Askelen and Nathan
for their presentation.
Can you put up the first slide, please?
So first, I want to say we support keeping the La Jolla
Cove Beach open year-round.
But as you just saw, the city must step up and do something.
These are felonies that are being
committed every single day.
And NOAA's not coming.
We know that.
So the city has to step in.
So one of the problems is the way
that the updated plan was written, right?
They say, oh, do it as conditions and visitation
allows.
Well, that's just a manage-as-you-see fit.
As a result, we see Rangers sitting in their truck
for their entire two-hour shift.
We see them picking up trash all over the park.
Great, but that's not managing the cove
and what's going on down there.
So the solution is to require the Rangers
to monitor the cove at a minimum of every 30 minutes
as part of their already assigned duties at Point La Jolla,
which is the closed area,
and that's special condition number three, 6.7.
Next slide, please.
The plan's public announcements
that they're supposed to be making with their bullhorns is a very long conversation
and it's just too long and it doesn't work.
And so what we recommend is that the city is required to make recorded announcements
in English, Spanish and Chinese and give instructions that are simple to follow
like stay 25 feet back from the sea lions or three car lengths.
Next slide please.
Another problem we have are newborns and sick and injured sea lions.
And right now, there is no way to manage that.
So Rangers, we want to temporarily
be able to place A-frame signs and cones on the beach,
creating a visual guideline for people to stay behind.
And we currently have three pups on the beach right now.
One just died from human intervention.
Last year, we had seven of nine die from human intervention.
And here we have little girls trying
to protect little pup from being stepped on.
We asked the Commission to instruct the city to implement their current plan and increase
the COB's monitoring to every 30 minutes, make announcements, as we just said, and instruct
the city to allow the temporary use of cones and tape around newborn pups and allow the
Ranger's Police and docents to help them.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Tiffany Curry, followed by Steve Vanegas and then Andrew Meyer.
Tiffany Curry.
Good morning, my name is Tiffany Curry and I'm the Public Policy Coordinator at Outdoor
outreach. I'm here this morning to thank the Commission for the resources they
allocate to communities like ours to increase equitable access to the coast,
particularly through the Whaletail Grant Program. This is a photo of one of our
programs. This is a kayaking trip taking place in Liberty Station in 2024 with
one of our partners, the National Conflict Resolution Center. Next slide.
Outdoor outreach connects youth to the transformative powers of the outdoors
and giving them a space to explore their world,
cultivate belonging, and discover what they're capable of
through recreational activities.
Outdoor Outreach has been awarded the Whaletail Grant
over the last decade to help fund this important work.
Thanks to the Whaletail support,
Outdoor Outreach has served over 20,000 youth
in our 25 years in operation.
Not only has this project provided San Diego youth
with meaningful experiences on San Diego's coast,
but it has also raised awareness
about self-based transboundary pollution, crisis,
and empowered youth to access decision makers
and use their voice to advocate
for the needs of their communities.
I'll leave you with a quote
from one of our instructors, Nico.
I met a youth participant named Graciella
on a tide pulling trip to the Cabrillo National Monument.
I noticed she was often isolating herself from the group,
so I made an attempt to spend more time with her.
I found out that she was only in her second week
a new high school. She told me that she loves going to the beach but her family
doesn't so she rarely has the opportunity to go. Soon enough she made a
connection with another participant Chanel and they bonded over their love
for exploring the tide pools. They even opted for less time at lunch so they
could spend more time tide pooling. They were the last two participants down.
During our lunch I went to check in with Graciella again and when we were chatting
a whale spouted closer to the coastline than I had ever seen before. The spray was about 10 to 15
feet up in the air and we both gasped aloud. I told her it was a whale migrating along the
coast and she had never seen one before. I thank the Commission for their time this morning and
their support through the Whale Tail Grant Program. Thanks. Thank you. Next is Steve Monegas,
Andrew Meyer, and then Jim Kennedy. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Steve Monegas.
I represent the 12 Kumeyaay bands in San Diego County and matters of repatriation.
I'm here to introduce myself to let you know that the Kumeyaay territory is vast and is
from the Mexican border clear to Pass Riverside.
Along the coastline are a lot of sacred sites that need to be protected and we're here to
to work with anybody and help anybody to protect those sites.
The Kumeyaay people have been here since, some say, 100 to 150,000 years.
So along those border, what are now borders and counties and lines,
our territory lies within those.
And in each of those territories or those areas,
there are sacred sites, especially on the coast.
So like I said, we look forward to working with anybody,
especially you folks, to preserve and protect sacred sites.
I don't know what you have planned.
I don't know.
But I do know you want to work with us,
the original folks of this area, and others.
And we make ourselves available to help
work with this for protection and to keep these sites
from being violated and essentially being robbed.
I want to thank you for your time,
and I want to welcome you to Kumeyaay territory.
Thank you, commissioners.
Thank you.
Andrew Meyer, Jim Kennedy, and then Douglas Higgins.
Hi, good morning.
I have a visual aid.
Give us a moment to bring it up.
Thank you.
Great.
Thanks.
My name is Andrew Meyer.
I work for the San Diego Bird Alliance, formerly known
as the San Diego Audubon Society.
We've been working with the Coastal Commission for years.
We're over 75-year nonprofit.
And the Rewald Mission Bay project is a title
wetland restoration project that we've been leading
as the San Diego Bird Alliance
with a coalition of over 97 other organizations.
Many of them are here in the room with their own issues.
I appreciate the work that the Coastal Commission
has done up and down the coast,
obviously enforcing the Coastal Act.
This is an opportunity to not only restore public access,
but also lead on restoring coastal resiliency
by putting nature-based solutions first and foremost.
If you could go to the next slide.
The story of Mission Bay is just like every other coastal lagoon
we have in California.
Next slide, please.
Mission Bay has been moved around,
changed dramatically since the Kumeyaay
lived here along the shores of a vibrant tidal wetland marsh
that looked like this.
Next slide, please.
It now has gone through drastic change,
earth moving with a lot of impacts to Kumeyaay communities,
no doubt, as well as endangered species, some of which
shown on the bottom here. If you could play this video, any chance to show a little bit
of bird life along the coast? And this beautiful fall that only a mother can love, this is
the endangered Ridgway's Rail. And this is an image of a wildlife cam in Kendall Frost
Marsh, the last 40 acres of tidal wetland in Mission Bay, the last memory of what tidal
marsh used to look like in Mission Bay.
And this drives home the point that not only do humans need restored public access to this
space, so do endangered species.
The water quality, the coastal resilience, all of the issues that we have for these kinds
of habitats are also the lifeline for endangered species just like this Ridgway's rail.
The San Diego, the Buena Vista Audubon Society and San Diego Bird Alliance fully encourage
the Coastal Commission to enforce the Levegland project in the City of Carlside as well, also
Thank you, Jim Kennedy, Douglas Higgins, and then Pamela Hetherington.
Jim, go ahead.
Yes, thank you.
Members of the Commission, thank you for hosting the public this morning in order to speak on
those items that are not on your agenda.
I speak today as a member of the California Coastal Community and as a land use professional
land use planner of 30 years and having interacted frequently with the Coastal Commission.
And I speak today to bring a matter to your attention and the public's attention and it
is a matter of your perception and your competence and credibility regarding political meddling
and antics.
The Coastal Act was established in 1972 by voter initiative and the primary objective
of the act was to maximize public access along the coast and maximize public recreational
opportunities. That's it. That's the essential charge. What you have often become is a political
action committee. I'm speaking of your blatantly political interference and attempting to obstruct
the permitting process for SpaceX for purely political reasons. Elon Musk became a supporter
order a President Trump's election campaign and for that reason alone you positioned yourself
politically and became his political enemy. You politically attacked Mr. Musk with public
statements making it completely clear your pure political motives in obstructing SpaceX
operations at space for space. These things have nothing to do with public access. I don't
care very much about public Elon Musk or about partisan politics but what you've
done I'm afraid is undermine your credibility and for what? As a land-use
planner and professional for my entire career I've been shocked by how these
kinds of antics have been aired in public so I know that sometimes there's
a bit of an echo chamber here but the public has been watching the public has
not forgotten. And I think that you should stick with land use matters and not engage
in purely partisan politics. Thank you.
Thank you. Douglas Higgins, Pamela Hetherington, and
then Mark Stevens. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Doug
Higgins, and I am here to introduce California Affordable Lodging Solutions. CALS is a nonprofit
that we have formed with the intent of preserving
and developing more affordable lodging
in the California coastal zone.
We spent decades in the private sector
working on coastal development projects ourselves,
and I think we have been watching for 15 years
as in lieu fees have swelled.
Those funds have not been able to be spent effectively
on actual physical accommodations for people.
We'd like to solve that.
And we believe that we can be the bridge
between private developers and public entities.
We have spent the last two years talking
with the California Coastal Conservancy
and with California State Parks
and talking about specific projects
that we can work with on them,
developing specific projects for them.
My partner Andrew Swardloff was the developer
that put together the whole mitigation project
with stay open hotels in San Diego with the port.
That ultimately did not happen.
Unclear exactly what politically happened
that that fell apart.
But they collected $6 million on that project
that my understanding is still sitting in escrow,
looking to fund a project.
And so there's over $20 million in escrow fees
for in-lue projects that have not been spent yet.
We can do on-site mitigation, off-site mitigation,
and we can develop in-lue fee programs that
can make effective use of these funds.
Thank you very much.
I'd love to meet you all, and feel free to reach out,
doug.higgins at gmail.com.
Thank you. Pamela Heatherington, Mark Stevens, and Peter Kaz.
Could you put up my PowerPoint please? Hi, everybody. It's all about access, at least for me. Has been for a long time. My name is Pam Heatherington and I'm the director of the Environmental Center of San Diego. And today I'm here to give you a brief update on a trail that we've been working on in La Jolla called the Princess Street Coastal Access Trail. Next slide, please.
It's been a long history. 1974, it was declared a coastal access trail by the city of San Diego.
1979, the commission allowed a house expansion and the easement to the beach.
The next 30 some odd years were taken up in litigation until 2016 when an offer to dedicate
was recorded by the San Diego Superior Court. 2017, the Environmental Center was found
acceptable and accepted the vertical and lateral offers to dedicate at Princess
Street. Next slide. Just to give you a physical location we are a little bit
south of La Jolla Shores. Next slide. This is a footprint aerial view of the trail
coming between two houses down to the beach. Next slide. Now you're asking how
is the public gonna know that there's a trail there? Well the Commission was
astute enough to make it very obvious. So next slide. This is the footprint of the
proposed trail. Every 12 feet we have a landing. It's a very steep decline.
So there's resting spots and there'll be a bench or two for viewing. It's a
beautiful place. Next slide. I'll leave you with this slide. It shows you the
last two years we've partnered with Surfrider Foundation to do tide pool
walks at Minus Tides. We had 30 people on one trip, 30 on the waiting list, and we
did that twice. Where we are currently is waiting for the city to give us our
CEQA determination and then we're going to be so excited to come to the Coastal
Commission for a CDP. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mark Stevens, Peter Kaz, and
and Daryl Gail.
Good morning, and welcome to San Diego.
I'm Mark Stevens, a downtown San Diego resident
and professional planner.
I appreciate your service and the opportunity
to provide additional comments on the project that's already
been referenced, the Seaport San Diego
proposal for the Central Embarcadero downtown.
As noted, the current proposal would
overwhelm local infrastructure, service capacity,
and environmental carrying capacity.
By admitting this proposal, which would generate more coastal development than the rest of
the Port Master Plan update combined, really calls into question the EIR, the port is prepared
for that.
The Seaport San Diego project is already eight years behind schedule, and the draft EIR was
due to be released last year, but the applicant failed to meet this deadline.
There would doubtless be a multitude of unmitigable, significant adverse environmental effects.
Recently, State Senator Steve Padilla of Chula Vista introduced SB 675 Special Legislation
regarding the proposed project, which is not in his district, designed to severely limit
the Coastal Commission's ability to review, condition, delay, or deny this specific project,
which is absolutely outrageous and nonsensical.
If you're familiar with the Convention Center, which was also previously noted, this proposal
would exceed the entire 2.6 million square feet of commercial space that the Convention
Center takes up and blocks off five whole city blocks of coastal waterfront.
The Boco Park would be totally replaced with high-rise buildings, a Bayfront 3.5 acre park area.
The rendering of plans for tuning the Harbor Area is still prominently featured on the
Seaport San Diego website, even though commercial fishermen contend that the proposal would
simply put them out of business.
to the gross of the field star proposal.
They're now requesting $500 million of public subsidy.
It's absolutely crucial
that the Coastal Commission retain its ability
to conduct an unfair review of this proposed project.
Thanks again on behalf of responding to any questions.
Thank you.
Peter Kaz, Darrell Gale, Katie O'Donnell.
Good morning, commissioners and staff.
My name is Peter,
and I'm a morning permit holder in Newport Harbor.
I'm here today because I'm seriously concerned that the city of Newport Beach is not living
up to its responsibilities as a trustee of the public guidelines.
These lands are supposed to be managed for the benefits of all Californians, not just
the nearby homeowners or business interests.
The city is not trying to replace our long-standing morning permits with short-term city-owned
line sense that cost a lot more.
This major change was rolled out with almost no notice,
just one business day over a holiday weekend.
And with no hearing from the public,
we didn't have any opportunities for the input.
That's not how the public trust lands
are supposed to be managed.
It was not open, it was not fair,
and it did not follow the basic principle of due process.
We are asking this commission to step in, please require the city to pause any changes
for the mooring system until they have addressed the current inquiries.
And going forward, make sure any changes happen through the truly transparent process that
includes input from the people who are most affected, those of us who usually use care
and maintain the moorings.
In addition, the moorings are going to be converted to the city-owned.
would cost much more and take away the livable permit in a time that we are
battling the lack of affordable housing and homelessness. Instead of adding more
live aboard the city has adopted reverse strategy by eliminating the affordable
housing. Unlike the slips that we have on your right the mornings do not require
any construction, power lines, utilities or power. They are very very efficient
kind of lifestyle living and completely off-grid also in Newport which did the
moorings and they both are regulated and safe and see what thank you so much
Thank You Darryl Gale, Katie O'Donnell, Mark Renya. I'm Darryl Gale. Hello NRC
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Hi it's me again Connie Canister thank you for
zooming with me today. You said you'd come visit my school, San
Anofre Middle School, when I told you about my green, glowing
octopus. I'm still waiting. But something else just happened.
And I'm afraid you're not gonna believe me. So I took a picture.
Okay, are you ready? This, this morning, some kind of giant
Godzilla looking glowing green creek green and yellow creature just broke out of the dome.
Addison, you will not have to dismantle this dome in San Diego Zoo. If you're listening,
you've got to capture this thing. Don't kill it. Get rid of those damn pink flamingos. This will
make you way more money. Oh, and on the edge here that's my husband and eight-year-old
son. Well, when will you be coming? Will it, when will you be going to come and visit
us? Hurry up. I want everybody to see this. Thanks.
Thank you. Next, Katie O'Donnell, Mark Ranjak, and then Steve Ray.
Good morning Chair Cummings and commissioners.
I'm Katie O'Donnell.
I'm representing Wild Coast, an international coastal and marine conservation organization
based in San Diego.
Thank you for the opportunity to give an update on the lagoon inlet closures in San Diego,
which I gave comments on last month.
The San Alejo Lagoon Inlet has been closed off from ocean tidal flow for over nine months,
and last week we saw dead fish in the lagoon.
This is very worrying as this is only what was visible during a visit to parts of the
lagoon, and we are working with California's Department of Fish and Wildlife and other
stakeholders to address this.
This is an issue in Southern California that will continue to happen, which is why we're
also closely watching the San De Guido Lagoon with CDFW and other local partners.
It will be critical to develop a framework so that we have a plan for what to do when
a lagoon inlet closes again and respectfully asks the commissioners for help with any permits
that are needed to reopen the inlet in San Diego and prevent the closure of the inlet
at San Diego.
We are eager to connect with anyone that can help with this.
Our work together will prevent any more die-off in the future and maintain healthy lagoon
ecosystems and important resources within our lagoon marine protected areas.
Thank you for your work and thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Mark Ranjak, Steve Ray, Mary Worley, and then our last in-person speaker we have is
Lisa Gilfillen.
Mark Ranjak.
Yeah, I have a slide.
Let's move that up, please.
So we are bringing it up.
Yeah.
Good morning.
My name is Mark Ranjak.
I'm a member of the San Diego Embarcadero Coalition, as many of us are here today.
I strongly urge the Coastal Commission to reject San Diego Port's PMPU because it is
is grossly misleading and totally incomplete,
as you've heard many examples of that.
Deceptively states the central Embarcadero seaport
will remain as it is while the port simultaneously
has planned a 2.7 million square foot seaport project
with clearly foreseeable major environmental impacts
that are absolutely not legal and allowed by the tiering
that they're planning to try to slip this under.
The real seaport San Diego plan must be included
and illegally compliant PMPU.
Some examples of huge environmental impacts
from the real current plan,
which are illegally omitted from the current PMPU,
include adding over 47,000 additional metric tons
of CO2 equivalent every year of operation.
And compared to the as-is, which they state is their claim.
This is clearly significant environmental harm.
Seaport San Diego water pollution risk to the bay
will increase up to four times greater than the false PMPU as is conditioned due to stormwater
runoff and other sources.
To fully and legally evaluate the critical environmental impacts of the true Central
Embarcadero redevelopment, the real Seaport San Diego project unquestionably planned
and has been publicly presented by the port and its developer must be included in the
PMPU.
As it stands, the Commission must reject the current PMPU due to its omission of significant
negative environmental impacts in the poor object that absolutely and cannot legally
be piecemealed or tiered by the current law. Thank you.
Thank you. Steve Ray, Mary Worley, Lisa Gilfillan.
Well, good morning Madam Chair, commissioners, staff, other staff, and members of the public.
I'm Steve Ray. I'd like to take the next two minutes to talk about the next two years
your lives and all of our lives. I've been coming to the coast commission for 43 years now and over
that period of time I've seen a wide variety in the quality of commissioners and commissions
and the work that's being done and the coast is being saved. Starting with the chairmanship of
Dana Botchko who is still on this commission and continuing through the chair and ships of
Donna Brownsey, Carol Hart, Justin Cummings, and now with Megan Harmon.
This has been by far the best commission I have ever had the pleasure of dealing with.
I hope it continues.
Right now we have four new members this year on the commission.
There may be possibly a fifth, hopefully not.
whatever however forward we go you have two years ahead of you of work to look at because in two
years in 2027 the terms of eight members of this commission will expire. I've seen commission
changes of four people five people six people that's an awful big change and a lot of hard work
for the commissioners and the staff especially.
Set 8 could be the deal breaker.
But fortunately we have such a great staff to deal with this
and to help guide the commission and that the commission can look
to for all that hard work that they do.
And that could be the salvation here, but you have two years
to establish your legacy and become the Lord of the Commission.
Good luck.
Thank you, Mary Worley, Lisa Gilfillan.
I don't see it Mary Worley, so Lisa, go ahead.
Good morning, commissioners.
I'm Lisa.
I'm with Oceana.
And I'm a field representative based here in San Diego.
So welcome to those of you that are visiting.
Oceana is an organization that focuses on advocacy.
So I'm here today to thank you for all the work
you're doing, in particular, addressing the stable offshore
corporation up in Santa Barbara.
So as we face unprecedented environmental rollbacks
at the federal level, we need California and this commission
to continue to lead the country forward
by protecting our beloved ocean, coast, and communities
from any expansion of offshore oil and gas production.
I'm glad to hear that you guys are planning
on submitting a letter for the BOEM RFI period.
That's wonderful.
If you need any help with that, I'm happy to do so.
have worked with lots of local cities and counties
to get that done throughout California.
And on behalf of our more than 130,000 California members
of Oceania, we're here to speak in solidarity
with our coalition partners that you heard from yesterday
and hopefully some are on the line today to comment.
To again, thank you for being the strongest leaders
in opposition to Sable's illegal work in Santa Barbara.
We're in a climate crisis, and that impacts our coasts
and our lives, and California should not be increasing
offshore oil and gas production and reopening pipelines
that are predicted to cause destructive oil spills.
We're here to encourage you to keep up the great momentum
and to protect our coasts and all of the people in wildlife
that depend on clean, healthy oceans.
We urge you to stand strong in continuing to push
for a proper coastal development permit
for restarting the Santa Inez unit,
and to not allow the project to move forward at all
if the risks are there for another catastrophic oil spill.
Thank you for your time and all your amazing work
and looking forward to see what comes.
Thank you.
One more call for Mary Worley.
And then before we continue,
I'll just mention that we have 19 people signed up for Zoom.
Public comment.
Our first speakers will be Camila Rang, Samantha McDonald,
and Barbara Griffin.
Griffith.
Camila rang give us a moment as we're being promoted in
When you're able to please unmute and begin
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you go ahead
Yes, yeah, I couldn't hear you
Nurse so I couldn't be there in person. Do you guys see my presentation because I can't see it on my screen
Oh, yes, it is up
Well, perfect. Okay, I'm Camila rang from Del Mar the town where Sandek is
to keep the train off of a very fragile bluff.
And as you know on the latest NOP they have
added an option to put even more pressure, weight, vibrations and holes in
the bluff but trying to double check this very
narrow and fragile stretch. Not only would that either destroy the
bluff but to keep the train safe San Diego plans to install 20 foot
tall stee walls along the whole beach. They have already added sea walls for
the latest station and now they're asking to install
of multicultural laws along the whole sphere.
We wrote them a letter in February 27 this year
telling them, this is not a viable option.
Reference in paragraph 30253 of the Coastal Act.
Despite this, they charged through.
I want to strongly state that double tracking the bluff
should be seen as a new development.
The development that significantly will contribute
to erosion, geological instability,
destruction of the bluff.
The alternate platforms of the regions below.
The community will be negatively impacted and suffer heavily because the unique character
of Del Mar, which draws a million visitors to a town each year, will be destroyed and
our beaches will slowly disappear due to the 20-foot sea walls.
Please stop this.
Please vigorously oppose double-track the bluff.
Next slide, please.
Please join us in supporting an option that will have no negative effect on either the
people via the so-called Northern Yellow Line.
This line will run on pillars north of the San Diego River
between the fairgrow and the IFAV through the Delmar Hill.
This road also opens for resorting.
It's natural state with no train running on Earth.
The right line is a win-win for all involved parts.
Let's push for it.
Or the long-term solution would be to the whole line.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next, Samantha McDonald, Barbara Griffith,
Bud Goomens, Samantha McDonald.
Hi, can you please bring up mine?
We have your slides.
My name is Samantha McDonald.
I'm from Newport Beach,
and I live aboard in the mooring field.
We've talked to the commission a lot about this issue.
It feels like almost two years now,
and we have to keep coming back
because there hasn't been much done yet,
but Newport Beach really does need a CDP,
a Postal Development Permit,
the ordinance that they have passed.
I'm not a lawyer, but this is just me as a citizen
reading the Coastal Act into perceptions of it
and why they really do need to be at least invited in.
Next slide.
Section 301-106 around development.
These changes that Newport Beach are making
is a form of development that is changing the intensity
of use of water and access of water,
which is in the Coastal Act.
Next slide.
Section 302-1-1 is around the development
not interfering with access.
Again, this ordinance around moorings
is reducing public access in so many ways, especially for low-cost boaters.
Next slide.
Section 302.13 around lower-cost visitor recreational facilities.
This is eradicating a form of low-cost boating and recreation, and it's really important
that the Coastal Commission look into this and understand why this is the case and why
for us this is going to be a huge loss to the boating community in California and to
us in Newport Beach especially.
Next slide.
Section 302.2.0, or on the protection of certain water-oriented activities, again, this ordinance removes opportunities for water-oriented voting activities.
Next slide. This is the last one I'll share.
Section 30001.5 looks into the account of social and economic needs.
This ordinance is altering the rights and privileges associated with low-cost voting for the benefits of the wealthy boaters, boaters and homeowners in Newport Beach.
and it's just clear just for me is that they really do need a coastal development permit
and I really encourage you to make sure that's part of the plan of addressing this. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Barbara Griffith followed by Bud Coomans and Patricia Coomans. Barbara.
Good afternoon. My name is Barbara Griffith and I'm here to speak about ongoing pattern of
discrimination against warring holders in Newport Beach. As a boater, since I was the age of 16,
whom my brother worked as a maintenance person at Cal State University, he purchased or he
bought a permit in Newport Beach. And from then on, as we've grown older, we have been able to,
you know enjoy the tight lens of Newport Harbor. It is about the last stable affordable way to
access the coast for many of us. But in the past few years we've seen a series of policy changes
that feel like they are designed to push the boaters like myself and my brother out of the harbor.
In 2022, the city tried to raise the mooring rates, not the homeowners'
peer rates, but only the mooring rates of 1,000%. In 2024, they proposed a 300 to 500 rate increase.
In 2025, they tried to cram and select moorings dangerously close to each other.
And now, with no due process, they are trying to take away our permits and replace them with
expensive, short-term city-owned licenses, which will then result in the loss of
cost-effective mooring tackle and the deposit that were made to acquire these permits as
my brother did well over 50 years ago.
These changes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Bud Coomans, Patricia Coomans and then Lydia Ponce.
Bud Coomans are you with Pat Coomans?
Yeah, good morning.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Great great. All right. Good morning. I'm bud coomans a long time mooring
Permittee and are my slides up?
Yeah, great. Thank you
I'm bud coomans longtime mooring permittee in Newport Harbor. I want to point out that mooring holders have been paying
More than our fair share for over a decade while enduring more restrictive rules and regulations than just about any other group in the Harbor
And now instead of being treated fairly, we're the ones facing elimination.
Even though the mooring permit system is called low cost, it actually brings in a lot of money
for the city's Tidelands fund more than any other permit type in the harbor.
According to the city's own financial report for 2023-24, about 1,200 mooring permits brought
in 1.9 million through offshore and onshore fees, sublets, and transfer fees. By comparison,
the roughly 1,200 residential pier permits only brought in about 280,000, considerably
less during that same period. There's a huge difference for the same Tidelands usage.
Next slide, please. But the city wants to take our mooring permits and convert them
to even more expensive city-owned licenses. For us, retired on a fixed income, it amounts
to a 450% raise. At an average 3% CPI, it would take 57 years for a cost to go up 450%.
When we bought and planned to live aboard, there can be no way to budget for such an
unexpected jump. Then I learned what the homeowners pay for yachts compared to us, which is way
way less now without even this big raise, which as the slide shows, the discrepancy
really, really increases. We hope you'll agree that this city will fix the fee imbalance
before making any drastic changes to a system that's already working. Thank you, thank you
very much for even considering all of this.
Next is Pat Coomans, followed by Lydia Ponce, and then George Weiss. Pat, give us a second
as we bring your presentation up.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
I have a slide as well.
It's a little different than Bud's.
Yes, we're bringing it up.
Should I start?
Really great.
Hi, good afternoon.
I'm Pat Koomans, a Coast Guard licensed captain, a longtime
mooring committee, and one of the 51 living
boards here in Newport Beach at the 800 moorings.
I just wanted to highlight how well the current mooring permit system works for the public
here on Newport.
If you look at the slide, you'll see two very different ways boats are stored.
On the left is a typical dock.
You can walk right up to the boat.
There's power, electric heat, water, often dedicated parking and other nice amenities.
Now look at the right side.
That's a mooring out of the middle of the bay.
There's no parking, no water, no electricity.
get to our boats by rowing or paddling out in a dinghy or kayak. The local coastal program
actually recognizes the reduced value of this. It says the city should continue to provide
shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low-cost public access
to the water and the harbor. Under the current permitting system, we own and pay to maintain
the mooring gear ourselves. The ball, the chain, the anchor that holds the boat in place.
We cover those costs out of pocket. This keeps the system affordable. It's what provides
stable coastal access for regular working people, lifeguards, teachers, mechanics, licensed
captains, retirees, folks who love the ocean but are on a budget. Our moorings don't just
benefit us. They provide coastal access to other boaters. When we are away on a trip
or a boat is in the yard for repairs, the city sublets, the sublet program lets visiting
boats use our moorings. And while we maintain the gear ourselves, the sublet revenue goes
straight to the city Thailand's fund. Seems like a good trade-off. This could be a great
way for less affluent boaters to get access to Newport Harbor, but the sublet fees have
gotten so high that many traveling boaters just skip no poor beat together.
Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you.
Next, Lydia Ponce, George Weiss, and then Brian Rosen. Lydia Ponce.
Let's all remember relatives that it's a good morning because our eyes opened
and we're here together to put our best thoughts and prayers and our
ideas together. The ocean doesn't need us
to talk about how we're going to change her yet again.
The ocean is our medicine.
She's part of our mother, our Earth mother.
And the coast is never saved.
It's always being saved, Pope Peter Douglas and maybe
rest in peace and continue to not be turning in his grave.
But the atrocities that are being planned,
the mining of our ocean floor, and so many conversations
about the volcano that's going to blow
in the middle of the Pacific Ocean
and that it's gonna cause 10,000 earthquakes.
You know, maybe that's what's gonna bring us back
to our humanity, as I mentioned yesterday.
Maybe, unfortunately, we would need a natural disaster.
I don't wish death upon anyone or harm to anyone.
Not any living, you know, sentient being.
These relations that we have with the sea lions,
they're not ours to discern whether or not
they're being cared for or well cared for
because you should be first going to the Kumeyaay
and they know how to best mitigate these things
because we're so detached and so attached
to papers and agendas and minutes
that we really need to reconnect ourselves to what is right.
Too often in the past years,
I've heard of people with their ideas of the rats on an island
and how they're going to poison them
and how they can possibly give them birth control
and just all these crazy things.
We have to get back to nature, one within ourselves.
And taking, just drawing breath is an act of resistance
to the things that are upon our heads.
We equally have and share the opportunity
to build different along our coast to be better relatives,
to everything that provides so much for us.
She is our medicine.
That ocean is our medicine.
So please take care of each other
and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
George Weiss, Brian Rosen, and then Sahar Zayevi.
George Weiss, we seem to be having trouble promoting you as a panelist.
I'm going to allow you to speak as an attendee.
You should be able to unmute now.
Thank you.
Thank you, George Weiss here.
I'll try to do as brief as I can to bring up the presentation.
This is a picture of waves hitting a table rock during a recent storm.
It's a three-story building.
probably shouldn't have been built where it was built and they had to board up first and second floors due to the high waves.
So I just wanted to present that as an element of what I'm talking about today.
Next slide, please.
In 2015, this project was built actually after that, and it was supposedly a minor remodel of a home on 11 Lagunitas,
as one of our prominent beaches at the Port of Beach.
The Coastal Commission sued the owners
because they had not gotten proper permits
from the Coastal Commission.
It was brought all the way to the California Supreme Court,
fined $1 million, and the seawall, illegal seawall,
was taken away that had been reinforced.
This was built on the beach, and the original house's
grandfather so it would only be able to remodel in its current condition. Next slide please.
So this is what happened recently and the seawall is gone today. That was a few months ago that
picture was taken by me. I just wanted to point out the kind of development that's taken place
in Laguna. Over the years there's been a lot of grandfather buildings and structures on the beach
and on the coastal bluff. So just after the 2021 final ruling on this, the city manager John Pete
initiated a study of the rates of erosion along the seven-mile long coast and it found that there
was very little erosion so the city could actually build closer than the 25-foot mark which coastal
Commission rules, and this ordinance will be brought back to City Council
supposedly the end of the year. Thank you. Next is Brian Rosen, Sahar Zaidi, and
more O'Neill. Brian, I see that you're on a phone. You should be able to unmute now.
Hi, Coastal. Hi, Coastal Commission members. I just want to talk to you about how difficult
it is for people without computers to be able to communicate with you. You know, my friend
doesn't have a computer, and I have to give her the information, and it should be easier
because I do actually... There actually are people that don't have computers. I even know
people that don't have cell phones. So we need to make it easy for everybody including
elderly people who aren't savvy with the latest technology to participate. I tried
so hard to participate. I kept clicking the button, speaker form. It was the hardest thing
in the world. Then I had to call in and sign up that way. So finally, I don't know what's
wrong with the site right now, but okay, we don't have a lot of time. You know, all of
you are taking airplanes to the meetings. I love the way Greta Thunberg doesn't like
taking airplanes. The trouble is we've got millions and millions of people who all have
a good reason to do it. The population has increased so dramatically, so we're all having
this huge impact. I wish you could take the train. And, you know, I think you need to
really, the politics is too powerful. I remember on the SERP project, all the politicians zeroed
in and all of a sudden they changed their mind and even though they admitted it would be a
potential impact, they changed their mind and didn't make any sense. Every alternative was
infeasible because they would have to be studied. They had all kinds of reasons and I think with
Sherwood and Hart, all the traffic was described the nightmare. Well, that traffic would still be
there even if the surf was put in because it only bypasses 4 miles of freeway where
the best flow is.
So I think you need to, it's bad because I don't think you even understood it.
There's still going to be a lot of traffic and you might bypass 4 miles of highway 1
but there's going to be tons and tons of traffic and you didn't understand and call the text
name and thank you very much.
Thank you.
Sahar Zaidi, Maura O'Neil, and Samuel Casillas.
Sahar Zaidi.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Sahar Zaidi, and I'm a Canadian law student
at the University of Windsor, specializing
in international environmental law and policy.
I'm currently a legal intern with NML, a nonprofit committee
to enter in public policy and specifically
for eduplums and ecosystems.
I'm here today to respectfully urge
the committee to protect the ladies because
The military community is at risk. The proposed activities would drastically increase voice pollution, vessel traffic and high intensity for the various, almost hundreds of thousands of square miles of the larger group of people.
I don't have to put that in the middle, dolphins, lions, and sea birds. I didn't refer to it as fish habitats.
The Navy itself has estimated that over 3 million distribution and 100 million people were the best to really end this.
Are you sorry to interrupt. Are you talking about an item on today's calendar? I couldn't quite hear the beginning
Yes, I'm speaking on the Navy suppose explanation of military training. That's an item on our agenda. So
That's item 9a so we'll call you back in item 9a
Next is more O'Neill Samuel Casillas and then Mike Fleming
more O'Neill
Good morning commissioners and congratulations to the new chair and vice chair um my name is
Maura O'Neill I'm a policy analyst for Better Neighbors LA a coalition of host tenants housing
activists and community members. We seek to regulate short-term rentals through two
true home sharing and hosted only rentals to balance coastal access and long-term housing needs.
I'm here to speak on general public comment about Del Mar's amendment to its local coastal program
which is intended to regulate short-term rentals. In reviewing the LCPA, the Coastal Commission
and its staff should consider stronger regulations on short-term rentals to properly balance coastal
access and resident needs. Del Mar's LCPA institutes a primary residency requirement,
however, the LCPA grandfathers in over 100 previously existing short-term rentals
that don't have that primary residency requirement. Additionally, the ordinance establishes...
This item is also on our agenda for today. Thank you. I'm commenting on the generally on the
LCP not on the time extension if that's okay but it's not I understand. And that is correct
it's just the time extension it's on today not the substance of the amendment. Thank you my apologies
please continue. No worries I definitely understand the confusion. Yeah so this is just generally
speaking about it as it comes before staff and the commission in the future.
So I'll just continue. We recommend lowering the cap which is currently at 5%
for the total number of short-term rentals in the City of Del Mar to a 1% which protects tenants
and homeowners and also has been implemented in other jurisdictions in the coastal zone such as
Seal Beach. More short-term rentals we've advocated before on this topic they don't lead to more
affordable coastal lodging. So in Del Mar the average daily rate of a short-term rental is
actually $260 per night which is over the threshold for to qualify as affordable housing.
So we just hope that you consider this as you see the Del Mar
LCPA in the future and thank you for your time today. Thank you and I believe we're down to our
last five speakers. Next Samuel Casillas, Mike Fleming, and then Leslie Honda. Samuel Casillas.
Go ahead. Hi, Coast Commission. During last month's hearing for Pacifica's LCIUP, I was appalled. I
was devastated by your betrayal, not just the people of Pacifica, but to the people of California
and to the environment. This Commission and its staff used to stand behind the best available
science, value the public's input, and stay politically neutral. Instead, you capitulated.
to lobby the forces of Sacramento from land speculators, realtors, and developers who have
no intention of mitigating proposal hazards or building affordable housing and you called
it a compromise. Your boy Scott Wiener rolled you and you were compelled to grovel to their puppet
from the city of Pacifica. If the outcome wasn't so devastating, it would have been comical to see
you justify your votes. The horrible statements always uttered with lazy CYA excuses, don't let
the perfect be the enemy the good. It's better than nothing. Can't stand the way of progress.
You jumped up and down for a bunch of future policies the city has no intention of enacting
and you have no wherewithal to enforce. This was not anywhere close to good, goes backwards and is
worse than nothing by approving the destructive the destruction over shorelines. During public
comments the vast majority of the public asked you to reject this LCIP based on on science and
obvious violations of the COSA Act. The only supporters were a bunch of politicians who
are bought and paid for by developers. You all looked bored and disengaged with signal that
outcome was predetermined. After the vote, one who even tried to gaslight us by invoking the
name of Peter Douglas, who would have eviscerated this decision to carve up the COSA Act and he
would have forced you to resign for your lack of political courage and betrayal of the people of
California. But I shouldn't be surprised since this developer giveaway has been building since
as you shiv Charles Lester.
Because of your vote,
don't be surprised by future lack of public participation.
Why bother if you don't have the money to litigate?
It is clear that the public will never again
get a fair hearing by this commission.
You only punch down.
And only recourse is expensive litigation
that is affordable only to the filthy rich.
And next is Mike Fleming, Leslie Honda, Diana Sandoval,
and then finally Elena Tillman.
Mike Fleming.
afternoon, commissioners. I'm Mike, I'm a Coast Guard license
captain, I've been boating all my life. And I'm now living on a
moored boat. And the first thing I want to do is just thank you
so much for standing up for us. When the city harbor
commissioners tried to railroad through a crazy mooring
arrangement where we'd all be moored so close to each other, we
not run into each other trying to get on our mooring when the wind or tide is going the wrong
direction. We saw that plan over and over and over same slideshow every month as if
they were completely deaf and the most recent thing that they did was after you've seen this
this statement by my other mooring permittees about the huge difference in price for us to have
a very undeveloped, primitive ball out in the middle of the water with very
inatic docking for our dinghies, little or none. Many people go on a paddleboard
or in a kayak to get to their boat and if they don't live down here
they have to bring it down on the roof of their car. It's not at all worth
the money more, or let me rephrase that, it is worth it. But it's crazy that the
city wants to increase it by three or four hundred percent and you somebody
Tidelands or you stepped in and said hold on let's take a look at this
because the people that are paying much less and have the ability to pay equal
or more than us have just been passed over year after year after year and we
really haven't heard anything as far as where this is going but I just pray that
you will continue to keep your eyes on the city. They're straightforward in
what they're doing and that is to make the moorings something that's out of our
price range. Thank you for your help. Thank you.
Next, Leslie Honda, Diana Sandoval, and then Elena Tillman. Leslie Honda. Hello, can
you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Honorable commissioners in the
General Public. My name is Leslie Honda, lead ornithologist at the San Diego Bird Alliance.
We're concerned that the City of San Diego plans to resume spraying a bioagent on the
bluffs in La Jolla in efforts to reduce the smell. In absence of oversight from the Regional
Water Quality Board, I urge the Commission to take action to protect our sensitive marine
biodiversity in this important marine protected area. Last time, the City of San Diego demonstrated
extreme negligence to wildlife management in sprayed near-active nests in flightless chicks in the sensitive
seabird breeding colonies of birds of conservation concern Grant's cormorant and
Western goal, which is also an orange tipping point species
which requires immediate attention in proactive conservation efforts to prevent further declines and
potential extinction for the
2025 state of the birds report
According to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CDFG 3503, it's unacceptable to spray any
chemicals in your active nests or eggs, as the porous eggshells can absorb chemicals and the
young flightless seabirds cannot rinse off chemicals if sensitive mucosal membranes are irritated.
We're also concerned about chemicals and surfactant in the spray running off into the marine protected
area of the Motleyhile State Marine Reserve with transference from wildlife, excessive
treatment of spraying multiple times a month by the City of San Diego, and past negligent
management practices where the City of San Diego sprayed right before it rained.
As surfactants are known to be damaging to delicate immune ecosystems, could disrupt
marine animal communication, contribute toward algal blooms, reduce oxygen in the water,
introduce sufficient populations in biodiversity,
reverse the Commission to take action to help protect the psychologically
sensitive marine protected area. Thank you for your time and inspiration.
Thank you. Diana Sandoval, Elena Tillman, and then I'll call some names that we
weren't able to find. Diana Sandoval. Good morning, can I have
my presentation up please? Yes, we're bringing it up.
Thank you. Good morning commissioners, my name is Diana Sandoval and this is my
seventh time discussing the block the public equestrian hiking trail at 3215
foot hill road carpentry up. To recap this public trail which should be
accessible to the public has been unrecorded and blocked for years. Despite
this clear violation Santa Barbara County has known about it for 13 months
and that the Commission has known for a year but the issue remains. The public
trail is unrecorded and blocked. The 15 foot wide public equestrian hiking trail
easement was required to be recorded prior to land use clearance yet this
This condition was not met, but the permits were unlawfully issued, violating the Coastal
Act and the permit condition set forth in several CDPs.
Slide, please.
Since the trail has gone unrecorded, the Commission has the opportunity to require the county
to immediately open a Southern entrance via Cerapola Drive, a public street that would
allow immediate public-to-public access once recorded.
Slide, please.
Santa Barbara County is using a one-foot buffer, again one foot, at Cerapola Drive, which the
same property owner owns as an excuse to deny the southern entrance. As we see in
the in this grant deed the one-foot buffer is part of the same deed and
should not be used as an excuse. I respectfully request an update from staff
for enforcement on the current status of the block public trail as I have not
received any communication from the Commission for several months. Thank you.
Thank you. Alina Tillman we seem to be having trouble promoting you as a
panelists you should now be able to unmute as an attendee. Yes thank you very
much. I'm going to be reading something on behalf of another person who was
unable to attend today. I'm just gonna be reading a letter. Can you hear me? Yes go
ahead. Oh okay I'll go ahead. This is on behalf of Ellen Stanton. She says I have
an MA in psychology and academic work that includes animal behavior and
I've been observing the pinnipeds in La Jolla for over 15 years and have provided many
educational programs, including a STEM lecture.
I've worked with La Jolla friends in the fields in many capacities and have created
several documentaries on the subject.
The importance of effectively managing the areas in and around Point La Jolla and the
Cove Beach cannot be overemphasized in my view.
People get too close to animals on the Cove Beach.
Rangers need to monitor the La Jolla area carefully and consistently.
Supervisors need to ensure that there is effective and sufficient coverage so that people are
are not put at a safety risk by getting too close
to sea lions and pups.
My observations indicate that the presence of a ranger
on site is critically important to the effective management
of the huge number of tourists that come to see these animals.
This means that a ranger needs to be there daily.
I've seen injured sea lions dying in the surf,
being approached by people who may be well-intentioned
but who are ignorant of the added stress and distress
that their presence may be causing to a compromised animal.
I have also seen people on the beach
getting too close to the animals,
creating significant concerns about safety.
a ranger presence to provide the appropriate management
is very important in such situations.
Of critical importance is the ability of rangers,
docents, and lifeguards to use and place cones
around injured sea lions and neonates
to keep people and their heads safe.
This tool is of great importance for effective management.
As a side note, the videos that were shown earlier
were especially powerful and also support the need
for rangers on that beach.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, and then a few names that we weren't able to find.
Again, in-person, Mary Worley,
Ronnie Jacobs, Omar Rahal, Jim Takayama, and Lorna Moffat.
If you've heard your name,
please raise your hand in the meeting.
Again, that's Mary Worley, Ronnie Jacobs,
Omar Rahal, Jim Takayama, Lorna Moffat.
I'm seeing a couple raised hands.
One is an unknown phone number.
going to allow you to unmute and please state your name. This is the number ending in 705.
Hello. Thank you commissioners. Lorna Moffitt here. Welcome to the Fourth Reich. Trump is testing
the metal of all Americans and you commissioners are no exception. You will be threatened as no
time in our history and you will be tested as all of us are. It's better to resign than bend to the
to remove. I'm afraid for us all, but that fear is our defeat. We must think outside
the protest box. How can we defeat this movement to bring back gas and oil, to deny global
warming? It's going to have to be an individual effort on all of our parts. We ourselves are
going to have to stop using so much resources it's going to be difficult
it's going to be hell but we have no choice because we are up against Trump
thank you and then we're seeing one other hand raised under the name Jim
I'm going to allow you to speak.
Please unmute.
Sorry, I'm using his email to log in.
So this is Jim Takayama.
Commissioners, I'd like to start by congratulating
Homosa Beach Councilman Ray Daxson on his appointment
to the commission.
He's the one with the baseball cap.
As Homosa Beach Strad homeowners worthy within the coastal zone,
I welcome the idea of having one of our own
helping to shape our statewide coastal policy.
However, I must raise a serious concern.
At the March 25th Hermosa Beach city council meeting,
Hermosa Beach councilman Jackson delivered
a five minute prepared statement supporting
a broad band of short term vacation rentals
across most of the city.
If you could please make sure to confine your comments
to the coastal act and matters that are likely
to come before us as a commission.
Thank you.
Yes, that's what I'm doing.
Thank you.
I'd like to retain my time, including the coastal zone.
The transcript is in your package.
His comments directly contradict
the long-standing directive of this commission
that short-term rentals are a form of coastal access
and cannot be broadly prohibited
without commission review and approval.
In addition, he voted to adopt
the city attorney's recommendation,
asserting that Homosibee's current short-term regulations
are valid and enforceable,
even without the approval from the Coastal Commission.
Given these circumstances,
I respectfully request the Commissioner Jackson
recuse himself many Coastal Commission deliberations
or decisions relating to Homosibee's local coastal program
and short-term rental policy.
This is not personal,
about maintaining the public trust in the commission's neutrality and process integrity.
Finally, I'd like to follow up on the inquiry made at the April meeting where a commissioner
asked about the status of the Homosa Beach LCP after public comments. I haven't seen a public
update yet and simply asked that it doesn't fall through the cracks. Ten years after accepting
grant funding, the hummus has no LCP yet. I'm seeing no other hands raised. Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay. So I'll bring it back to the commission for
questions or comments. Commissioner Lomber. Going back to the La Jolla Cove seal pumping.
Ms. Hagee I know you're not on the dais but through the director, is this a violation
of some sort given that it seems to be a requirement of some sort?
So I don't believe we think there's a violation at this time but we're always paying attention
and watching but I am going to if it's all through the chair turn it over to Carl to
give a little bit of a response from staff on this issue.
Thank you.
So this is an issue we obviously take very seriously and we appreciate the passionate
advocacy from the members of the public who care deeply about the sea lions at La Jolla
Cove.
Staff share those concerns and we support a responsible stewardship of marine life and
coastal access alike.
However, the Commission's role here is somewhat limited.
The primary authority for marine mammal protection lies with NOAA under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.
While we have consulted with NOAA in the past, they've advised that they do not have enough
enforcement staff to take action in La Jolla, especially given that the overall sea lion
population is healthy and not under threat.
Staff has worked extensively with the City of San Diego on their adoption of a management
strategy that includes the signage, the seasonal closures, the Ranger patrols focused on education
and compliance, and we acknowledge the frustration of advocates who believe these measures fall
short, and that more needs to be done.
However, the City has communicated to Commissioned staff their intention to keep evaluating the
site, but is not proposing any changes at this time.
staffs continuing to stay engaged, monitoring situation, maintaining communication with
city staff, and assessing whether any future changes might trigger a stronger role with
the commission. We are also mindful that our staff resources are limited. And this is one
of many coastal act issues across the state that's demanding our attention. We understand
that this is a deeply felt issue
for many members of the public.
We remain committed to staying informed
and responsive as the situation evolves.
However, at this time, we do not believe
there is any additional action for commission or staff.
Would it be appropriate or inappropriate to ask,
maybe at one of our future next couple of meetings,
that they appear by Zoom?
They don't have to come to the meeting.
I understand there's a travel and all that,
but is it appropriate to ask that they come
and maybe give us an update?
The city of San Diego?
Yeah.
Yeah, we can ask them.
And say, we're very concerned about this,
and we'd like to know what you're doing proactively,
given there have been some suggestions that
seem rather benign and not overly hardship.
No big hardship to put barricades around when they're,
I know that in Hawaii, they do it around the nae nae nesting
and it's not that big a deal.
I wanted to just also share that in the city of Monterey,
San Carlos, so there's uneven dealing with this situation
in different jurisdictions.
So for example, the city of Monterey right now,
sea lions on San Carlos Beach are occupying San Carlos Beach.
And the city has closed that area.
You can't go down on the beach.
You can look next to it and see all the sea lions.
So there's an uneven application within jurisdictions.
I wonder if the League of Cities or the County Supervisors
Association have any guidance.
I know they have coastal caucuses at both
of those local jurisdictions.
And so I wonder if they have some guidance that
would share best practices.
Yeah, we can certainly raise with the city of San Diego
your request to have them appear and give an update on where
they are in their monitoring.
Again, we've maintained staff-to-staff contact,
but we can certainly ask them to come and give an update to you
directly.
And then I appreciate the comment
about the League of Cities.
There is a coastal caucus, and I believe
maybe we could even raise that with them
is a potential suggested topic.
So thank you for that suggestion as well.
Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to start out just thanking my fellow sandingers
for showing up today.
There's too many of you to thank,
but thank you for all your advocacy and everything
you're doing.
I really appreciate it.
I want to ask a question that I want to circle back really
quick.
For the speakers on the Embarcadero,
they mentioned that Chatham Brown Law Firm
has submitted a letter.
We we have that as commissioners don't as it was general comment, I guess it wasn't listed publicly in the gym.
So this issue we may get staff may have received a letter that wouldn't have been passed on to you yet because the issue is not before you and it's frankly a long time before it would come before you.
So however, we're happy to provide provide that letter if you're interested.
Absolutely.
For anybody who's interested.
Let us know.
We can pass it on to you.
Okay, thanks so much.
And then on the Covency lines,
I live just a few miles from there,
I think I've spoken about this before.
I mean, I just want to be on record saying
it's an utter failure, the city of San Diego,
their leadership, their staff in this case,
I would be happy to serve as a liaison
to take some of the weight off you guys
and dealing with the city on this,
but I can't say the words today
as to how I actually feel about this,
but is there anything I can do locally?
I would do it because I really,
I won't even bring out of towners to this area anymore, which is just a shame so I
Appreciate the work that folks are doing out in the public and I do think I'm the city of San Diego has failed
You know those of us who care so much about wildlife in that issue
Thank you, Commissioner Malley. We will take you up on your offer
Thank you, um, and just one question for me. I'd love to get an update on the Santa Barbara County polo trail
Thank you
I'm gonna ask Lisa to come up Lisa Hagee to give a quick update
So I'm happy to say that although we've not had a success we've been
Making efforts since the last meeting we sent a letter to the city and asked them for documentation
About acceptance of the easement since there seems to be some dissent disagreement about that
And we also asked for copies of the original OTD
Made to satisfy the permit conditions in the first place and we asked them to also open the trail segment
So what happened was we got a letter back from them telling us that an offer had been
made and that they were looking at it internally and they didn't provide any of the documentation
that we asked for.
So we asked them again for the documentation and we are preparing a follow-up letter.
So we're on it and I just wanted to say that we also were addressing the issue of the permitting
for the bridge repair.
I can't remember if she mentioned that today but she has mentioned it before in other public
comments.
So we're on both of them and we'll keep you posted.
Thank you very much and I really appreciate your continued effort and I would say I very
much hope to see the county engaging collaboratively moving forward.
We do as well.
It would be very helpful.
Indeed it would.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the speakers.
I watched one of the coastal meetings before my appointment I think it was the last month
And the sea lion issue came up.
And the fact that nothing's been done in that month
is somewhat disconcerting.
To watch the sea lions is a beautiful thing.
A lot of people are excited.
And of course, they all want to take the selfies and whatnot.
And the city actually promotes the sea lion tours,
which is a great thing.
But you also have to take into consideration
safety of the visitors as well as safety for the wildlife.
And I think the city needs to take a look at their efforts in that regard.
I just wanted to ask quickly about the moorings.
Anything that we can talk about that?
Sure.
I can give a quick update.
As folks on the commission who've been here for a while will remember and a little bit
of background for some of our new commissioners.
This issue came before us a year plus, two years ago.
Last year, thank you.
proposal by the City of Newport to change the mooring fee structure in
Newport Harbor and it was unclear at the time whether they needed a CBP. We
engaged with the city on this and as well with the state lands Commission
because these are public tight lands and at the time when we received that
proposal we asked the city to pause to pause in their adoption of any of any
mooring fee changes and they did so and and in part to because the state lands
Commission stepped in and said that they would like they were going to do a full
review of all the mooring rates and the way that the city was looking through
any changes to to how their harbor was managed so this state that isn't ongoing
we got an update from the state lands Commission that their commission they
they receive a lot of public comment on this well their Commission asked staff
to do an update at their next hearing, which is for August.
And while we don't have a substantive update from State Lands Commission staff on what
their review will reveal, we expect that in that timeframe, you know, I think in August
we'll have a better sense of where they're going with that review.
So what we can do, I mean, we'll obviously interact with State Lands staff, we'll be
paying attention to that hearing and then can bring you all an update shortly thereafter
with what the state land's determination is on and then what kind of how how we expect
it will move forward from there.
Thank you ma'am I appreciate that I'm now more curious because when you go to Avalon
and Catalina those moorings are privately owned and sell for upwards of a million dollars
so not to conflate the two but now I'm curious so we can talk about that later.
you any other questions okay seeing none I'm gonna suggest that we take a ten
minute break and come back at a eleven twelve twelve minutes eleven twenty but
be back at eleven twenty okay thank you everyone we're back in session and that
brings us to item five the administrative calendar thank you mr.
Thank you.
So agenda item five is the administrative calendar for all districts and units on the
agenda today.
There's two projects from Newport Beach.
Conditions are acceptable to the applicant.
There's no known opposition.
I do want to note there's an addendum with just a correction to the applicant's name
on item 5A.
So on this item we're just looking for whether four or more commissioners object to the issuance
of these two administrative permits.
no objections permits are so issued we should check and see if we have public
comment I don't believe we did but we should double check their public comment
we have to available for questions only wonderful thank you now the permits are
so adopted thank you and we'll move on to the consent calendar please and item
sick six is the consent calendar for all units and districts on the agenda today
Again, there's two items from Orange County.
We aren't aware of any controversy on these items, and the applicants are in agreement
with staff recommendations, so staff recommends approval of these matters on the consent calendar.
Thank you.
Are there any ex-partes on either of these matters?
Okay, none.
We'll move to public comment, please.
We have one available for questions only.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
comments or a motion? The consent calendar? Move to approve. Thank you. So that is a motion
by Commissioner Kelly and a second by Commissioner Presiado. Thank you. May we have a roll call
vote please? Commissioner O'Malley? Yes. Commissioner Hart? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Commissioner
Kelly I Kelly yes missioner Lopez yes Lopez yes missioner low and bird yes
Owen bird yes missioner not up I not up yes
I
yes mission or Wilson yes yes your harmony yes thank you the consent calendar is
adopted and now well madam chair can I ask a quick question please I know I did
have an ex parte and then we had some shifting in the consent this morning but
I don't believe that was on the list I just wanted to confirm that so these are
next one all right perfect thank you so these are for items that have been moved
from the regular calendar to consent thank you thank you so we do have three
items being recommended again item 11 a this is the city of Newport Beach's LCP
amendment on non-residential parking standards item 13 B the Thompson trust
and first American trust Newport Beach application and item 15 a the city of
Del Mar's short-term rentals LCP amendment time extension I do want to
note there's correspondence on and an addendum on item 11 a the correspondence
This identifies several inconsistencies between fast casual and fast food parking requirements
that staff didn't identify as raising a significant coastal resource issue.
There was also one error that the city corrected and is included in the addendum.
There's also an addendum on item 13B with corrections and correspondence on item 15A
in favor of the LCP time extension.
So we aren't aware of any continued objections to the Newport Beach amendment and we're recommending
that matter and the others be approved on consent pursuant to the staff recommendation.
Thank you.
And now time for ex parte's Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, so I'll share that I did have communication on the parking question as well as the difference
between fast food and fast casual.
It was very illuminating for my staff and I where it was a 15 minute communication that
focused on the contents of the report itself.
And so I just wanted to share that with the public since that did happen Monday.
So within the seven day window, is there anything else I need to share?
And I'm blanking on his name, but I'm looking at a miss about Don Schmidt and staff.
Thank you.
And I also had an ex parte on that item with Don Schmidt and Ben's debuff from Newport
Beach this morning at 8 30 right outside for five minutes.
And similarly we spoke about the parking item, the difference between fast food and fast
casual and they noted that a lot of work has gone into this and they are appreciative in
an agreement with staff's recommendation.
Any other expertes?
Seeing none, we'll move to public comment, please.
Okay, so we have Don Smiths on 11A, he's here attending and John Corn on 13A, who should
be attending in person as well.
Thank you, we have a motion for approval by Commissioner Lowenberg and a second by Commissioner
O'Malley.
will please. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson, yes. Commissioner Kelly. Aye. Kelly, yes. Commissioner Lopez. Aye. Lopez, yes. Commissioner Lowenberg. Yes. Lowenberg, yes. Commissioner Nottle. Aye. Nottle, yes. Commissioner Portiato. Aye. Portiato, yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson, yes. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes.
Amali, yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
The items are so approved.
And now we will move to energy ocean resources and federal consistency.
Mr. Toophold, to you.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
That brings us to item eight and the Deputy Director Report for the Energy Ocean Resources
and Federal Consistency Division.
We have three negative determinations to report.
One immaterial amendment and two waivers for the Commission's consideration.
These projects are for the San Diego Gas and Electric
to complete transmission line improvements
in San Diego County for the installation
of seasonal swim platforms for the public
slightly offshore of Santa Barbara
and for inspection and natural gas pipeline repair work
by Southern California Edison also in Santa Barbara County.
I believe we have two speakers sign up to speak
on these items and we then ask whether three
or more commissioners object to the immaterial amendment
and waivers in the DDR.
We have Holly Harris, who doesn't appear to be on Zoom,
but she's available for questions.
And then we have Steve Ray, who's attending in person.
Even here?
He's here.
This is on item eight.
You were so fast with the other two.
Yeah, well, Madam Chair, commissioners, staff.
I'm Steve Ray.
Wanted to address the issue relative
to the Point Loma cyber land that's being proposed
for the naval base issue.
I wanted to point out that first of all that I support
the staff's recommendation to not concur
with the negative determination.
I think this is a comment for the next item, 9A.
Oh, no?
No, I'm sorry, Commissioner.
This is one of the negative determinations
I want to support staff's recommendation but also want to mention that you know I fully
support the Navy's efforts to secure it for our security and their operationals commands
purposes and everything but while I support staff's non-concurrents there is a kind of
a gray area of the law regarding relationship
between the military and the commission
and the commission decisions.
And I wanted to say that there's a way around this,
and that is things like redesigning the lab, for instance.
There are ways to resolve this issue
without creating any additional conflicts
between the needs of the military
and the decisions of the commission.
So I encourage both parties to work hard
to find that solution.
I only have two minutes so I can't solve it for you.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object
to any of the items in the DD's report?
Okay, seeing none, the commission concurs.
Now we will move to item 9A, thank you.
Thank you, and with that,
I'd like to invite our environmental scientists,
Walt Deppi, to introduce our next item,
the consistency determination by the U.S. Navy
for its offshore training and testing program.
Good morning commissioners this next item is 9a. The U.S. Navy submitted a
consistency determination or CD for the California portion of their proposed
Hawaii California training and testing program. The proposed program would occur
over seven years and include a wide range of military activities across more
than 300,000 square miles of ocean offshore of California covering the area
on the right side of the map shown here. The current proposal is the fifth
multi-year training and testing program reviewed by the Commission since the
Navy began submitting CDs for them in 2006. In each prior case, the Commission's
review resulted in an objection due to conflicts with the Coastal Axe Marine
Resource Protection policies as summarized in the staff report. Next slide,
please. This slide shows the various range areas offshore of California where the
training and testing activities would occur. Most would be focused in open
ocean far from shore, but some would occur in near-shore areas off southern California
and at four new approach lanes for amphibious vehicles along the central coast.
As such, the proposed program would extend across state, federal, and international waters.
Proposed activities include various types of air, surface, and underwater warfare training
and testing that would affect coastal resources.
This would involve widespread operation of crude and uncrewed surface and submarine vessels
and aircraft, the use of high energy sonar, explosives and other munitions, high energy
lasers, air guns and the installation of subsea infrastructure as well as other activities.
Next slide please.
Although this is the fifth CD review of multi-year Navy offshore training and testing programs
by the Commission, the currently proposed version includes several notable differences.
Primarily, the area of operations is being expanded beyond the previous Southern California
range, shown on the left, to include extensive training areas and activities offshore of
Central and Northern California, shown on the right.
While the Commission reviewed and concurred with a more limited set of training and testing
activities in the Point-Negue Sea Range in 2020, many actions are now proposed in that
area, including use of in-water explosives and high-intensity sonar.
Other differences from earlier programs include new and expanded use of large uncrewed ships
and submarines, reductions in the size and number of seasonal avoidance areas for sensitive
marine mammal habitats off southern California, and significant increases in the number of
individual marine mammals estimated to be subject to disturbance and injury.
Next slide, please.
The standard of review for this CD is whether the project is consistent with the enforceable
policies of the California Coastal Management Program, which consists of the Chapter 3 policies
of the Coastal Act.
The project would result in significant adverse impacts to marine resources, in particular
to marine areas and species of special biological and economic significance, due to widespread
and intensive nature of the training and testing activities.
Given the extensive scope of the proposed project and the limited review time provided
under the CZMA, staff's review focused on the most sensitive coastal resources and activities
with the highest potential for adverse impacts.
Of particular concern are the proposed range expansions, which would introduce stressors
into new areas, impacts to sensitive marine species from widespread use of high-energy
sonar and explosives, including within marine sanctuaries, marine protected areas, and
biologically important areas, the limited effectiveness of the Navy's proposed minimization
and avoidance measures, and uncertainties in assessing population-level effects on marine
species.
The staff also has concerns about the potential for whale strikes by vessels operating at
high speeds and for impacts to seafloor habitats from expansion of subsea infrastructure.
The marine resources findings of the staff recommendation cover each of these primary
impacts but with in-depth analysis of the free proposed activities with the greatest
potential for adverse impacts.
First, the use of high energy mid-frequency sonar, which can adversely affect marine
mammal health, hearing, and behavior.
Second, detonations of explosives and other ordnance
that can injure and destroy marine wildlife and habitats.
And third, the widespread use of vessels,
including some at high speeds without crew,
that pose a mortality risk for whales due to collisions.
In this presentation, we provide a brief introduction
to the proposed use of sonar
and then summarize the potential impacts
to the marine mammals from sonar explosives
and ship strings.
Next slide, please.
High energy mid-frequency sonar,
which the Navy uses to detect and identify submarines,
generates impulse sounds that can travel dozens of miles
within the hearing and communication ranges
of a wide variety of marine mammals.
This type of sonar, whole mounted to the surface ships,
is referred to as MF1 and is acknowledged by the Navy
as the most powerful sonar proposed to be used
in their project areas.
The top graph here shows that the maximum annual sonar hours
for the proposed project are expected to increase
compared to the 2018 program reviewed by the Commission,
mostly due to the expansion of sonar use
outside of traditional areas
to point to the sea range and off of Central and Northern California.
The Commission has been consistent for over two decades in expressing concerns over the
effects of anthropogenic sounds on the marine environment, particularly on marine mammal
species which are known to be highly sensitive to sound, rely upon sound to navigate, find
food, locate mates, avoid predators, and communicate.
High Energy Center and the hearing ranges of marine mammals interferes with these critical
life functions and disrupts natural behaviors, can cause temporary or permanent hearing damage
or injury, in some cases is contributed to animal stranding and mortality.
While sonar impacts make up the majority of estimated marine mammal impacts, explosives
would also contribute to them and result in mortality.
Next slide.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act defines adverse impacts in several ways.
Level A harassment refers to acts with significant potential to injure marine mammals, while
level B harassment refers to acts likely to disturb marine mammals through significant
disruption of natural behavior patterns.
Those patterns include migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
In this application to the National Marine Fisheries Service for proposed activities
over the next seven years, the Navy has requested authorizations for level A and level B harassment
in marine mammals, including some mortalities, based on their models estimating effects of
acoustic and explosive sound sources on individual species.
These requests, as shown on this slide, represent significant increases in the number of individual
marine mammals, particularly whales, dolphins, and porpoises, estimated to be disturbed or
injured compared to the last Navy training and testing program reviewed by the Commission.
Maximum estimates total over all species off California include over 5.5 million level
B harassments, 4.4 thousand level A harassments, and 33 mortalities per year. Compared with
the 2018 review, those estimates are more than double the level B harassment and over
seven times the level A harassment.
The requested level B harassments also represent
100% of the estimated regional populations
for a majority of marine mammal species evaluated.
In fact, for two species of beaked whales,
the annual level B harassment requests
are over 30 times their total population sizes,
indicating that some individuals would be impacted repeatedly.
In addition to the substantial impacts to marine mammals
from sonar and explosives, I'd also
note that the Navy anticipates up to nine large marine mammal
takes involving serious injury or death from ship strikes over the next seven
years. Next slide please. To help address these anticipated impacts to marine
wildlife, the Navy's proposed program includes several types of activity based
and geographic mitigation measures. Here we focus on three proposed geographic
whale mitigation areas in which some limitations on sonar explosives are
proposed. This map compares the proposed mitigation areas outlined in red with
the overlapping core areas of noted designated biologically important areas, or BIAs, for
humpback blue and fin whales in green.
The core BIAs for these three species were updated in 2024 and are considered especially
important areas for key behaviors and life stages such as for feeding and migration.
This slide also shows the current national marine sanctuaries and state marine protected
areas with cross hatches.
In the three proposed seasonal whale mitigation areas designed for June through the end of
October of each year, MF1 sonar use would be limited to an annual maximum of 300 hours
over all three areas combined, excluding maintenance and system checks.
While the two areas of the northern and central coast are quite extensive, they are still
only a fraction of the combined area of the BIAs and marine sanctuaries.
I also want to reiterate that this type of sonar use was not previously authorized in
these northern areas. The Southern California Blue Whale mitigation area is
much smaller and sits just offshore of the southern San Diego. It is designed to
overlap with a core BIA segment for blue whales there and also includes a seasonal
limit on in-water explosives not proposed for the two larger areas. The key
observation here is that most of the core BIA is for blue humpback and fin
whales and virtually all the National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine Protected
Areas south of Pointe Conception around the Channel Islands are not covered by
by the mitigation areas currently proposed by the Navy.
Next slide, please.
The map on the left of this slide
shows the previous mitigation areas
from the 2018 Navy program outlined in yellow,
which were identified for certain marine protected areas
and older blue whale BIAs.
The map on the right shows the Navy's only proposed
seasonal mitigation area off Southern California in red.
The new blue whale mitigation area
is 478 square miles smaller than the 2018 mitigation areas
off Southern California,
It would leave the large majority of the core BIAs and marine protected areas in
Southern California by without any seasonal limits on sonar and explosives use.
Commission staff is concerned that the Navy's proposed mitigation areas for
this round of training and testing activities do not ensure meaningful limits
on sonar and in-water explosives in areas of special biological significance like
state and federally designated marine protected areas, national marine sanctuaries,
and NOAA designated BIAs.
Next slide, please.
The scale and scope of the anticipated and potential adverse impacts from this expanded
program pose a fundamental inconsistency with the Coastal and Marine Resources Protection
Policy of the California Coastal Management Program, Section 302-30.
To address this inconsistency, commission staff has identified a variety of alternative
measures that would help reduce and avoid the proposed projects anticipated and potential
adverse impacts.
These alternative measures include significant expansion and extension of proposed sonar
and explosive avoidance areas, including coverage of national marine sanctuaries, state designated
marine protected areas and core BIAs. Two, larger safety buffers for marine mammals during high
energy and mid-frequency sonar use. Three, reduction in sonar intensity under low visibility
conditions when safety zones cannot effectively be monitored. Four, limitations on vessel speeds
in sensitive areas to 10 knots unless higher speeds are critical.
Five, use of more effective marine mammal observers on all ships for MF1 sonar and explosives.
Six, support vessels with assigned lookouts for uncrewed surface vessels traveling faster
than 10 knots.
Seven, seasonal limits to amphibious vehicle operations in the surf zone for birds and
pinnipeds on shore.
Eight, an impact mitigation plan for subsea infrastructure installed in rocky reef and
hard substrate habitat.
And the full text of these measures can be found on page 54 of the staff report.
Commission staff share these proposed protective measures with the Navy staff, but as our understanding
that they've rejected them as infeasible or in conflict with its mission.
As such, the commission staff is recommending the commission object to the proposed continuation
and expansion of the Navy's offshore training and testing program.
I also want to note that an addendum of the staff report was posted on Tuesday afternoon
to address five comments from members of the public and three comment letters from organizations
received before the comment deadline, all of which were in support of the staff
recommendation. Through this addendum, two more protective measures were added to
specifically call out mitigation areas for beaked whales and establish limits
on the use of sonar devices deployed from helicopters. The addendum also
emphasizes that section 302.3.0 of the Coastal Act is not limited to a
consideration of population level effects during wildlife, while section
and 302-30 does require that uses of the marine environment maintain healthy populations
of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific,
and educational purposes. The policy also requires that the biological productivity
of coastal waters be maintained and that marine resources be maintained, enhanced, and where
feasible restored, and that special protection be given to areas and species of special and
in biological or economic significance.
In light of this policy,
staff's assessment of the adverse effects
of the current project is broader than the potential
for population levels.
Next slide.
As mentioned earlier, each of the Commission's previous
reviews of Navy multi-year offshore training
and testing programs have resulted in objections.
However, in each case, as allowed for
in the Coastal Zone Management Act's
federal consistency regulations,
the Navy has disagreed with the Commission,
provided notice of its conclusion
that its proposed activity is fully consistent
with the enforceable policies
of the state's coastal management program
and proceeded with implementation of its programs.
I want to acknowledge that despite those decisions
to proceed despite the commission's objection,
the Navy has also often worked to help address
the concerns raised by the commission
as a result of its review.
For example, following the commission's 2018 objection,
the Navy committed to avoiding certain harmful activities
within particularly sensitive areas,
including the beaked whale habitat,
at San Nicolas Basin I referred to earlier,
and some marine protected areas.
Commission staff is hopeful that the Navy will continue
to be open to discuss and pursue similar approaches
in the future, and that would allow it
to achieve its military training and readiness goals
in a manner that is more consistent with those plans.
With the potential for further collaboration in mind
and with knowledge of the Navy's ability
to proceed with its program,
staff recommends that the Commission object
to the Navy's consistency determination,
number CD000325, for lack of consistency
with the marine resources policies of the Coastal Act.
The motion and resolution can be found
starting on page six of the staff report.
This concludes staff's presentation.
We are available for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you for that excellent presentation.
Before I bring up a representative from the Navy,
I'd like to ask if there are any ex partes
to report on this matter.
Mr. Nodok.
Yes. I am on June 6 at 1150 a.m. I met with representatives of the Coastal
Protection Network and NRDC. Susan Jordan and Michael Jazney of my report on
that ex parte is in the package. Commissioner O'Malley. Likewise I had a
communication with Michael Jazney and I have submitted a document. I too had a meeting on Monday June 9th
last Monday at 1.30 p.m. with the same individuals, Michael Jazmyn, Susan Jordan,
and our conversation was reflected in the letter that NRDC submitted and is on
record. Okay, with that, I think the representative is here with us in person
today. Sorry Chair, excuse me, I have an ex parte. I don't see your hand. No, not at all.
All right, I don't see you at all.
No, not at all.
Thank you.
Yeah, I also had an ex parte with Mr. Jasmine, excuse me, Mr. Jasney and Susan Jordan and
my ex parte is on file.
Thank you.
Sorry Vice Chair Hart.
I don't know.
Okay.
Now we will move.
Good morning, sir.
How much time would you like today?
20 minutes if that's okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Alex Stone. I'm with the United States Navy. I'm
with the U.S. Pacific Fleet. I'll be giving a presentation today, but I also have with
the U.S. Pacific Fleet Chip Johnson, who is our lead scientist, who also is here to answer any
questions. And I do have a presentation, if you guys can pull that up. I know this is, you're
already into your second day of this meeting, but I guess I would like to say on behalf of the Navy,
Sorry sir, one second, we just want to make sure we get up the right presentation.
Okay.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, I'm not with NRDC.
Just give us a minute.
I'm with the Navy.
Yeah, but I'll start talking while, since I know I have limited time.
But on behalf of the Navy, welcome to San Diego.
If this is a great location for this meeting, because the training we're talking about is
right here in this area, right offshore of this hotel.
I noticed a couple of Navy ships passing by, and if you have a chance during a break,
I know we don't publicize for security reasons the locations of our ships, but there's a
high likelihood you'll see some Navy ships pass by if you get a chance over the next
couple days.
And you can see across the bay we have the Naval Air Station at North Island.
You can see just barely the sort of outline of the superstructure of two of our Nimitz
class aircraft carriers, the Teddy Roosevelt or as we call it in the Navy, the TR and the
USS Abraham Lincoln and that they're very applicable to what we're going to
be talking about right here so welcome to San Diego we're gonna go through the
brief I I talked about some of this in Santa Barbara so I know that some so I'm
gonna repeat a bit of that but I know there's some new commissioners so I'll
kind of cover that and Walt covered a lot of this really well so that'll that'll
help me get through this quickly so next slide please and also I'm doing better
I can see the screen and I remembered my glasses which in Santa Barbara I forgot my glasses and also can see the screen so
already
Already doing better
So just right up front that the Navy as I think Walt characterized correctly
We have went through the federal consistency process for similar activities
Numerous times and although we have not oh we've worked
Relegantly the Navy and the Commission staff and the commissioners to narrow our agreements. We have not always reached agreement
but we absolutely
Fully considered all of the recommended mitigation measures that Walt talked about and they're in their staff report
It is our position
Even though we are open to working with the Commission to further reduce the areas of disagreement that our activities are
consistent with the enforceable policies without the inclusion of those measures and I'll talk about that at the
I'm going to try and use most of my time to talk about that
but just yeah, thanks the next slide just to go through to start on the
Sorry one slide before
Yeah, the overview. So just what what are we talking about and to make sure I'm on the right side
Yeah, can we go back just to the introduction? I just want to say one more thing
Yeah, and I guess the very last bullet I want to emphasize that again
We do have value the relationship with the federal consistency staff going back many years through this project and all the projects up and down
the coast for our coastal installations obviously the Navy
is a big part of the state of California and we really do value that relationship and like as Walt said even if we
Don't always come to agreement on the on this particular topic of training and testing
We're open to continuing that relationship and working with the staff and the Commission
Now the next time
So what is the scope of what we're talking about as Walt mentioned?
This is in this consistency determination is all the Etsy training and testing that we do in California and Hawaii
Obviously the focus here is California
This doesn't address land areas like the training that's done in Saint Clemente Island,
or San Nicolas, or the Silver Strand area that we have here in Coronado.
This is really just looking at the ocean activities.
And realistic training and testing is absolutely critical
to supporting our readiness of our forces.
We rely heavily on training in classrooms and simulators,
But there's really no substitute for the complexity
that you get with doing real live training.
I think I used the analogy before.
If you flew here from somewhere else,
it might be great that your pilot read a book about flying
an airplane or maybe used a simulator.
But you're hoping that when he lands in San Diego,
he's actually done it before, and we're not
just using all simulation.
So the types of training we're talking about,
they're air surface, subsurface.
It's all the different warfare areas, like amphibious warfare, anti-submarine warfare,
defending ships from attacks by missiles.
Really, anything you can think about that the Navy is doing in the real world,
we're training for that mission here in Southern California.
As Walt mentioned, most of the larger activities, not all of them,
are done offshore, well outside of the coastal zone.
And that's especially true for activities with explosives and sonar, generally done.
quite far offshore. We use the whole area for different things but especially for larger more complex and events
they vary in their complexity from a single airplane or a small boat out there buying itself to a large-scale exercise where we might
have
10 ships out there our forces
practicing against an opposition force so they vary in complexity to short-term long-term
all of that is part of this
environmental study
The importance of the ranges what like why are we here? Well, this is really where this for the specific fleet
This is really where we do the pre-deployment training before we certify our strike groups for deployment
We want to make sure that when a strike group leaves
And goes forward to do real-world operations. They're as trained as they possibly can be we want that gold standard of training
So that when when anything they face they've they've already
reached, they've already went through that. They've seen it here in Southern California.
So there is no other place in the Pacific Fleet where we do that
pre-certification training that's done here in Southern California. And
because of that, over decades we've developed these kind of irreplaceable ranges, the combination of the natural geography and all of the
infrastructure we have here combined with the home forces here. So we minimize
Time away from home when the troops and sailors are actually here at their home points or not at home port
They're not having to go somewhere else
train
So now to drill a little bit more down to what what's this project as Walt mentioned
we've done the consistency review several times, but
We're operating right now. We did a consistency determination and all the other associated environmental planning in 2018 and
associated with that 2018
Environmental planning was a permit
from the National Marine Fishery Service
for a seven year period.
So that is what is really driving our doing this new EIS
and federal consistency is the permit
that we're operating under right now expires in 2025.
So in addition to updating the permit,
it gives us an opportunity to update our analysis
with the most recent Navy testing and training requirements.
And as well as bring in the latest science
So our analysis is constantly better.
We'll talk about the biologically important areas,
how those change.
So we've relooked at our mitigation measures
to make sure it's addressing most current science.
And also we reassessed the study area.
Walt did a great job talking about
how we looked at other areas
and should we combine the study area
to sort of do a better analysis
and to provide more flexibility for training and testing.
So all these things kind of roll into this.
And in addition to the federal consistency,
We're also doing, I think there's 11 separate regulatory processes with different agencies
that are all part of this, all plan to be completed by the end of this year, so we have
a continual environmental compliance for our ongoing training and testing.
And the vast majority, I know that kind of focuses on some of the differences and activities
in different areas, but fundamentally the activities are the same.
Even though there's always new technology, fundamentally the activities are the same
type of activities, the same locations as we've been using for many decades.
Next slide.
So with that said, what are the changes?
The study area and the map does a better job than I can verbally and I'll show the same
map I think that Walt showed to.
New agencies, the Coast Guard, Army and the Air Force, the training associated with those
forces.
In the past there was really the maritime environment was the Navy's area, Navy and
Marine Corps.
Now there's other services that also have activities in the maritime environment just
based on the threats that are out there in the world.
So more operations in the maritime activities, the Marine Corps always operated with the
Navy more and more activities.
So we've kind of broadened the scope of the action.
Range improvements that we'll talk a little bit more about those.
I have a list of those.
Those are part of the proposed action.
Some new activities and new locations.
An example is pile driving training in Port Wainime.
This is kind of an emerging area where in an expeditionary fashion we would want to
be able to repair a port in a time of crisis in a quick way.
So we do the training for that here in case it's needed in some area across the Pacific.
And more unmanned or uncrewed, no human systems in all areas, really you name it.
I mean, just you name a system, there's probably somebody
looking at can we do it autonomously,
whether it's underwater, surface, or air.
Next slide.
The major range modernization elements,
there's a new airspace.
I'll show you that better on the map.
Instrumented, this is kind of like,
expand the underwater instrumentation.
You can think of this as like radar for underwater,
so we can track things underwater.
We're going to extend the instrumentation
to new areas that are not instrumented now.
Mine warfare training, these are just kind of shapes
that we use to practice locating the shapes
with different systems.
And underwater platforms, which is like a connection point
for these unmanned undersea vessels.
Next slide.
Matt already, Hawaii and California, next one.
Walt did a great job on this one.
I'll just mention, yeah, the airspace proposals
far offshore. The area in the blue hatch does the current study area. Point Magoo was subject
of a separate consistency review prior, but we're consolidating that. The Northern California
areas, in brief, I give a whole talk about this, but really not used it that often historically
kind of goes back to when there was more of a Navy presence in the Bay Area. But is, we
are projecting to use for the same type of activities on a limited basis and it
made sense to include that in this study. Next slide. This slide just really shows
kind of what I was talking about is even though the study area might imply we're
doing all things in all areas that's really not the case the vast majority.
This looks at vessel traffic which is a proxy of overall activity but you could
look at other activities and share information about sonar and other
activities by area with the staff. But I guess the takeaway for this is most of the activities
is off of Southern California off of San Diego where we traditionally operate less so in
Point Mugu and much less so in that Northern California area. Next slide. So probably the
thing that someone like in my position is most proud of is our mitigation measures.
This is where we kind of take all of the activities that we do, look at them on a granular level,
look at how we can meet the mission requirements that we have and at the same time be protective
of marine species, marine environment, coastal resources.
So extensively documented in our consistency determination in all of our environmental
planning, we have kind of two broad categories, activity-based and geographic.
activity based is like when you're doing this activity establish a safety zone around an
activity that could be impactful like using sonar explosives and visually survey that
area if there's marine mammals don't do the activity.
And geographic I'll talk a little bit more about that on the next slide.
But each of these measures has kind of been developed over years and years of what actually
works in a real world.
This project is unlike maybe other projects that you used to like a development project
or something.
These measures have to kind of work on every day out there for the Navy to be able to implement.
So we've carefully kind of thought about it and because this is often where the discussion
is about are our mitigation measures adequate or why don't you think about this or why don't
you think about that.
We spend a considerable amount of time in the document and I'm happy to do it here
today to explain everything we considered and the thought process that led us to the
mitigation measures we have.
Why something is either not beneficial to the species or is impractical.
And I'll talk more about those when we go through the staff report recommendations.
Next slide.
So the geographic, well this is the same graphic that Walt had here kind of just
shows the areas and I think what Walt said and I'll say also is between 2018
and this current document is the biologically important areas that are
published by NIMS changed dramatically, which really made the prior geographic
mitigation measures no longer valid. They were they were kind of subsumed by
these larger areas. So we looked at all the biologically important areas that
were recently published and did that practicality and beneficial assessment.
And so yeah, I mean it's absolutely true that if you put all the BIAs, they
overlap a significant area of the main area that we do training and testing. So
we cannot have a geographic mitigation in our main areas we're
using every day. So this is kind of the outcome of that process of looking at
all of those, what's practical, and what's beneficial. Next slide. So in
addition to the mitigation, the monitoring that we do to mitigate impacts
during activities, we're also contribute to understanding marine science. If you
kind of, if you look at the chart on the right there, you can see the Navy is
second only to NOAA in terms of sponsoring marine mammal research, and we collect information
that we then feed back into our analysis and our mitigation.
So we have a lot of people may not know that we have a very robust investment in marine
science within the Navy and it's part of this process.
Next slide.
So now the next, I'd like to use the remaining of my time to talk briefly about why we are
not in agreement or we do not feel that the mitigation measures in the staff
report are necessary for this to be consistent and again it's full that all
the activity all the measures in the staff report are fully considered not
just by me but by Navy leadership both kind of at the deck plate level you know
the people that are actually doing this to Navy leadership so we've went through
and evaluated all all of these and I'll just kind of briefly touch on those so
So the first one I kind of already talked a bit about is the modification to the geographic
areas.
As I said, we reassessed all of the areas and the mitigation measures we are proposing
we think are based on the best science.
It is a larger area than the prior mitigation areas and one of the areas I guess I would
like to respond to is some of the areas where we don't have mitigate, we don't necessarily
mitigate for every area if we're not doing an activity, like we do have a
limited and very minimal amount of activity in a National Marine Sanctuary,
so we don't really identify that as a mitigation area, but we do in the
document explain them. We have a very limited amount of activity in this area,
so we only really call an area mitigation if it's an area that we
actually do things that we're choosing to do less to mitigate environmental
impacts. So we again to my point that we don't do everything in all areas.
Next slide. Try and get through this in my time here. Larger shutdown areas. This
one, the shutdown zones that we have are based on what we can practically
observe and are most protective of the most serious type of impacts. Just based
on the bridge height that a lookout is standing, you know, we can't commit to a
two kilometer zone we just cannot clear that area and obviously even these shutdown zones we have
are based we do the best we can but we feel comfortable with what we can commit to so
it's really a practicality issue on that one. Low visibility conditions, I mean the majority
of active sonar is usually done during daytime but you know just like we're going to encounter in
the real world we're going to operate around the clock and in low visibility if necessary so we're
We're going to train as we would actually
do it in the real world.
Vessel speed restrictions.
This one is a kind of maybe a longstanding issue
where we've had a disagreement.
We do agree that going slow is one of the things
that we would do.
And it's kind of written here that when we see marine mammals
we're going to avoid them.
But just as a policy, we're not going
to have a specific speed restriction,
like 10 knots or 5 knots.
We empower the commanding officer of the vessel
to operate the vessel safely, depending on the conditions.
And that may often involve slowing down,
but it's just we're against having kind of one speed limit.
Next slide.
NIMS certified marine mammal observers.
This is another one that we've and I probably won't finish
in one minute, but I promise I will do it in like two.
This is another one where it's kind of often suggested,
But it's just impractical.
We get this comment from others.
Instead of having our lookouts be trained
or having third party people on our ships,
what we've done instead is we've partnered with NIMPS
on a training certification program.
So all of our lookouts go through a NIMPS certified
training program.
But they are actually the organic sailors
that are actually lookouts.
They're looking for anything in the water,
including marine mammals.
And just impractical due to security, schedule, birthing,
everything to have third parties.
And also just the number of ships,
the number of employees that NOAA has.
It really is impossible for us to have NOAA observers,
or even NOAA certified observers on all of our ships.
Last couple of lookout crews.
Look out for uncrewed vessels at high speeds.
The first of all, we're doing more and more
with unmanned surface vessels, but they overall
are a small percentage of the Navy's vessel traffic
right now.
And there are missions when they go fast and when they go slow.
We just don't have a new technology.
But they are designed to operate by themselves.
So we want, there is no lookout on the unmanned system.
So sometime during the testing of these systems
as they're developed, there could be a vessel escorting them
that's looking out for it and testing it.
But the long-term plan of course is for the vessel
to be autonomous so that there is no lookout
and we acknowledge that for these type of new vessels.
And let's see, we just have two more.
Limiton surf zone, amphibious land use and sensitive species.
Walt covered this one.
This is where we have, through this EIS,
we're studying amphibious corridors
in the central coast.
And I think we agree with the staff recommendation.
They're likely the land aspect of using these beaches
is subject to a separate environmental planning
that will have to come through the commission
and other environmental processes, land use agreements.
I know there's discussions with California State Parks
about which of these.
So, I guess we're not against the idea
that there could be seasonal restrictions
on different beaches in that area.
It's just out of the scope of what we've covered here,
but we are committed to work with our partners,
the U.S. Marine Corps, to further do environmental planning
on this before it would be done.
Next slide.
Last slide, this one, or second to last slide,
rocky reef and hard substrate impacts.
We do do surveys before we install cables to avoid,
obviously we do not want to put our cables
on hard bottom habitat for the cable itself.
It's not our practice to go do surveys
after the cables are installed,
but we do everything we can to avoid hard bottom
or sensitive habitat through surveys prior.
And the measure, this maybe seems like it's not related,
but it is when you read the staff recommendation.
In terms of just debris in general,
we are proud of the debris removal program
that we have at all of our installations.
And we've talked to the staff
about how maybe we could partner with groups on the outside
because we realize that these community groups
don't have access to our installation.
So we're definitely proud of that program
would welcome opportunities for partnerships. Next slide. So just in
conclusion we definitely are committed to protecting coastal resources during
testing and training. We feel like we balance the requirements of doing the
mission at the same time also being protective. We have extensive mitigation
measures that are in place for all of our activities. The testing that we do is
absolutely critical. I think I talked about at the beginning that we have the
two Nimitz class aircraft carriers at North Island. They each of those when you
when you put the ship's crew and the embarked air wing that's close to 6,000
people on each of those ships. And the average age of those 6,000 people is
roughly 20 years old. So we absolutely take the training of those people very
very seriously. So with that, we are happy to answer more questions and
appreciate your attention and time to be able to talk to you this morning. Thank
you. Thank you very much, Mr. Stone. We really appreciate it. Okay, may I ask how
many public comments we have for this item? We have about 23 speakers and then
And we also have one speaker for whom which is NRDC.
I'm thinking should we limit general public comment
to one minute?
We would recommend maybe we keep it at two.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you very much.
We will do two minutes for public comment.
The speaker from NRDC will be allowed 10 minutes to speak.
Perfect.
Okay.
So Michael Jasney, I've already promoted you to panelists.
Do you unmute yourself?
Yes, thank you. Can you bring up the slide presentation, please?
Great, thanks. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Jasny.
I direct NRDC's Marie Mamel Project.
And I'm speaking today on behalf of NRDC
and the California Coastal Protection Network.
Our organizations have engaged on this issue for about
the same time as the Commission had.
So within two decades.
I want to thank you for the opportunity
to speak to this Consistency Review.
The expectation was very clear.
So I might not do it.
Next slide.
I want to start by observing what may seem obvious.
California is home to some extremely significant habitat
for the big animals.
It contains major seasonal feeding grounds
for three of the great elite whale species, new species.
Excuse me, Mr. Jasmine, can I ask
you to try to speak a little bit more closely and clearly
into the microphone?
We're having a little trouble understanding you.
Okay, please interrupt to go on.
Is that clear?
That's better, thank you very much.
Great, thank you.
California stands among the world's biodiversity hot spots,
deep whales, the deepest diving mammals on record,
and it provides both coastal and offshore migration route,
the iconic California grave hills
on their long end journeyed down to Aha.
Excellent.
The Navy also makes extensive use of California waters,
a greater concentration of training
and testing activities than in any other region.
Now, the Navy has an important mission,
and it's one that our group certainly support.
But it's also important to consider the effects
of those activities on California's marine life.
And the fact is that those activities are already extensive,
will significantly expand.
In the first case, the Navy plans to expand geographically,
and staff has already reported on this expansion
in this presentation, so we can move on.
next slide. And please go to the next slide. And the expansion isn't only
geographic. I believe Alex Stone described proposed activities over the
next seven years as fundamentally the same as those undertaken in the past, but
in fact there would be an increase in the scale of activity as well as an
introduction of new systems, new technologies into new areas. Again staff
is already reported on this in its presentation. Next slide. Given the increase in activities,
it's not surprising that the Navy's wildlife impacts would also increase substantially,
so what I'm going to do is describe those impacts using the Navy's estimates of the numbers that
would occur each year up California during the seven years of its proposed action.
First, hearing while it's an impairment. As with people, loud sounds can damage the hearing of
of whales and other marine mammals.
A hearing is even more important to marine mammals
than it is to most of us.
That's because the ocean is an acoustic world, the sound.
And marine mammals and many other species
depend on their ability to hear and to be heard,
foraging, for finding mates, for navigating,
in short, in order to survive and reproduce.
The Navy estimates that its active sonar
and explosives activities would cause
About 4,415 instances of permanent hearing loss
for a parent in dolphins, whales, sea lions, and seals
each year at its maximum expected operating temperature.
And as staff pointed out, that's a greater than 600% increase
over the current number.
There would also be more than 100,000 instances
of temporary hearing impairment each year as well.
Next slide.
The Navy's exercises are also expected
to disrupt important reemounted behaviors over large areas.
There's a robust literature on these impacts,
and maybe I'll just provide a few examples.
Naval sonar has been found to suppress foraging calls
in blue whales.
You can see this in the graph, how
those foraging calls, which are represented
by the tiny Ds on the x-axis, just stop as soon
as the sonar exercise begins.
The Scripps biologists who conducted that study
found that these effects were significant even
at low levels of exposure to the Navy's mid-frequency zone.
Next slide.
And here's another example.
Beaked whales represent one-fifth of all marine mountains.
They're also highly reactive to naval sonar,
as has been shown now in boomerous depths.
In this image, you can see a beaked whale
swimming in one direction, encountering a naval sonar
vessel, and then turning and swimming
tens of kilometers away.
Southern California naval sonar has been documented
to reduce bequail foraging from as far as 100 kilometers
from an active sonar source.
Next slide.
In the worst case, these sensitive bequails
respond catastrophic, altering their dive patterns
in a way that induces a syndrome resembling fans.
And you can see some of that pathology here,
including emboli in the liver and bleeding around brain.
We don't know all the circumstances at increased risk,
But introducing sonar exercises into new areas that happen to experience it as would occur
with the Navy's proposal is thought to be a factor.
Next slide.
Can you go into the next slide?
How much disruption would occur?
The Navy estimates that 5.5 billion instances of significant behavioral disruption would
occur each year under its maximum upgrade.
That's a doubling of estimated impacts from current activities.
individual animals such as from blue whale, beaked whale, bottomless dolphin
populations would repeatedly be exposed with cumulative effects on their fit.
Next slide. Finally, the Navy estimates that as many as 33 annual marine
alphabets were taken care of from in-water detonations of vessel strike, and this too
represents a significant increase from what was requested in 2018. Next slide.
The commission needs to consider all of this in the context of federal consistency review.
The Navy asserts that its proposed activities are consistent to the maximum extent of the
California's enforceable coastal policies because the Navy says it would not have population
level effects.
The status report makes clear, however, that the available evidence doesn't support this
conclusion and indeed the sheer scale of predicted impacts relative to the
size of marine mammal populations out of California suggests the opposite
conclusion. Even if that weren't the case, the Coastal Act sets forth two
requirements that the Navy has not met to the maximum extent correct from
section 30230. That marine resources shall be maintained, it has it more
feasible restored, and that special protection be given to areas and species with special
biological or economic significance. As staff has said, the Commission has recognized the
importance of these two requirements and its prior objections to the Navy's activities.
I want to just bring up a few of the many instances referenced in the staff report and
addendum where the Navy's protective measures are insufficient for consistency. For example,
Beeked Whales as I've said are particularly sensitive to the Navy's sonar training.
In the population of Beeked Whales off San Nicolas Island is particularly bleak.
A number of studies now show that the Navy's activities are continually interfering with
the ability of this population of whales to forage.
For that reason the Navy established two mitigation areas for the population in 2015 and maintained
them with some adjustment of boundaries over the last 10 years. But it has completely dropped
them from its current proposal without suggesting an alternative. Next slide. Another example.
Studies show that sonar deployed from aircraft, so-called dipping sonar, produced strong adverse
responses in marine animals that are out of proportion to the power of these systems.
Biologists believe that's likely because the systems dipping out in and out of the water
are unpredictable from the animal's perspective.
The Navy has limited the use of concern
in some areas off Hawaii, but it does not apply
or even consider such limits for California.
Next slide.
Just one last example, slowing vessels
and key habitat for green whales.
NOAA biologists and others have identified whale strikes
by all vessels as a major concern
for West Coast whale populations,
and slowdowns have been shown to significantly reduce
the risk of lethal strikes.
It's the most effective chosen to be taken.
Alex Stone said that the Navy is just against having speed.
In fact, the Navy has established targeted slowdown
area is off the east coast.
It has just established none for California.
And many other examples can be found in this desk.
Next slide.
So considering all this, NRDC and CCP asked first
that the commission adopt staff's recommendation
of attraction to the purpose of activity.
Second, we ask the commission adopt the findings
in both the staff report and this random,
which revised this report to address points
raised in our comment letter from members.
We also recommend the commission ensure
that the scientific papers cited the material we submitted,
which are supportive of the staff's recommendation,
be added to the right.
Finally, we suggest that the Commission emphasize
that it's willing to work with the Navy
to achieve the goal of maintaining, enhancing,
feasible, restoring, California's great species.
Military readiness and environmental protection
are important goals, and both can and should be achieved.
Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
All right, so we have on Zoom,
well, we have one in person, Steve Ray.
Oh, here's his question.
Okay, so we'll come back to Steve Ray,
so we'll go straight to Zoom for now.
So Nina Beatty, if you can,
we're gonna move you to panelists.
Go ahead and unmute yourself, Nina Beatty.
We're just gonna allow you to talk,
go ahead and unmute yourself.
Okay, so let's just go ahead and move on.
Let's go ahead to Marilyn, Garrett,
we're gonna move you to panelists.
We're gonna actually unmute you,
excuse me, allow you to talk.
I'd like you to go back to Nina Beattie in the future.
I know she prepared for this, and I want to excerpt a letter
she wrote to you.
And also, we should have two minutes as indicated.
I noticed the Navy person did not
stop when the bill continued.
I support the staff recommendation
of not consistent and ask for your concurrence
in that recommendation and extended
to fishing and recreation impacts.
Listening to the Navy's report sounds to me
like a sinister war on the Earth, the oceans, and all life.
We know the US military is the biggest polluter.
Of course, it was presented with a smiling face.
Here is some of the, this is very disturbing.
You speak of biologically important areas of the ocean.
It's one ocean, and it's very contaminated already.
over 200 dead zones in its massive pollution.
That's a Pentagon history of environmental damage,
minimizing, denying, covering up, failing to repair,
abandonment of personnel and the public,
including their communities, to toxins and Superfund sites,
Failure to pay for damage and health injuries
and continuing to pollute and damage
is the pattern and practice of the military services
as is this proposal.
We also hear a lot of climate change.
The Guardian just reported the Pentagon
emitted 48 megatons of CO2 in 2023,
more than some nations making it the largest
institutional greenhouse gas emitter globally.
In addition, the U.S. exempted military emissions
from international climate rules.
Dick.
Okay, thank you, Ms. Garrett.
Okay, so next we're gonna go ahead
and have Steve Ray come up, followed by Nita Beatty.
Nita Beatty, we are trying to promote you
to the panelists and you're declining it,
So if you can accept it, please.
So we can allow you to speak.
Followed by Tina Calderon, followed by Grace Nguyen,
and then Derek Nguyen.
Please be ready and see the panelists.
Move to participant.
Thank you so much.
Sorry for the delay, Madam Chair.
I'm Steve Ray.
I played sports all through high school and college.
I love playing.
I hated the practice and the training.
I didn't understand the importance of that
until I got in the Marine Corps.
I was a Marine Corps Special Forces officer.
We trained a lot and trained hard.
I even trained with the Navy SEALs.
I have great respect for them and all that they do.
But I support staff's recommendation here
in spite of the fact that I understand
the importance of training.
Training saved my life both in military
and in civilian life.
I was able to use what I learned in the Marine Corps.
So while I support the training,
I support staff's recommendation,
because in this case, this is one of those horrible cases
where pretty much everybody's right.
The Navy needs to train.
They're protecting our country.
The staff needs to protect the Coastal Act
and all of its provisions.
You are gonna have to make a tough decision here
because the public testimony you're hearing,
the public is right too.
We want to save the sea and the marine habitats
and all the marine sea life out there.
So everybody's right, how do we resolve this?
Well, we're going through the gray area
that I mentioned earlier of the law here
between the military and the Coastal Commission.
But I support staff's recommendation
for one primary reason.
Because if you do that,
it makes the conversation keep going.
And somewhere down the road,
we need to find a way to resolve
and find that sweet spot.
We may actually find the sweet spot that will resolve this,
but we need to keep trying.
And so I would urge you to go with the staff's
recommendation on this and save the marine life,
save the staff, and save all those brave sailors
out there, too.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Up next is Nina Beatty, followed by Tina Calderon,
followed by Grace Nguyen, followed by Derek Nguyen.
Neena Beatty, if you can unmute yourself.
Neena, if you can unmute yourself.
Okay, let's come back to her then.
Grace, no, excuse me, Teena Kateron,
if you can unmute yourself please.
Yes, I'm here, thank you.
Aku Commissioners, I'm Teena Calderon,
a Chumash and Tongba culture bearer
and the Director of Ocean Protectors Program
for Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, or SPI.
We would like to acknowledge and thank the Coastal Commission staff for their work in
preparing its report on CD-0003-25 for the Department of Navy.
Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples concurs with the report's findings and strongly
supports the staff's recommendation of objection.
We urge the Coastal Commission to object to the consistency determination for the proposed
seven-year Navy offshore training and testing program.
SPI submits this comment in strong opposition to the proposed activities outlined in the
Hawaii California Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement.
As an Indigenous-led organization dedicated to the protection of the sacred lands and
waters, we firmly oppose any military activities that threaten the health of the Pacific Ocean,
marine life, and the Indigenous communities that have stewarded these waters since time
and memorial.
The proposed activities represent a massive expansion of existing military
activities off California that will also increase the harm to California's sea
life. We are deeply concerned about the adverse impacts these activities will
have on California's marine resources and cultural heritage. The proposed
military training and testing activities such as the use of explosives,
sonar and vessel operations pose unacceptable risks to marine ecosystems
and indigenous cultural practices. The Pacific Ocean is not merely a military
training ground, it's a living sacred entity central to the spiritual cultural
and physical well-being of all indigenous peoples whose ancestral ties
to these waters predate any modern nation and state. SPI stands in solidarity
with all indigenous communities opposing the militarization and destruction of
water. We urge ladies to abandon this proposal and instead respect the wisdom of indigenous
peoples who have stewarded these lands and waters for countless times. Thank you for
the opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of the ocean and all her relatives.
Thank you. Next is Grace Nguyen. Good morning, members. My name is Grace, and I'm a law student
specializing in environmental law and policy at the University of New York. I'm currently
serving as a legal intern with the Fandome Hall, an organization that supports community-centered
legal and policy advocacy for animals and ecosystems. As a Canadian, I'm here to express
my deep concerns about the proposed expansion of military training activities and their impact on
marine life. In particular, I'm concerned about the lasting and devastatingly irreversible impact
of the activities on braille populations already facing mounting pressures across their land.
Michael has already excellently expressed what I'm concerned about, but I just want to express his points again.
Whales have complex migration routes that span international borders.
Endangered species like blue and gray whales travel and reside along the coast of both California and British Columbia.
In addition to physical injury and death, the proposed activities will disrupt these whales' seasonal movements and migratory paths,
and pose waves that are not fully assessed or addressed in the report.
This is especially concerning given that the HCT-T study area is recognized as a biologically
important area for these whales. Moreover, the impact of these explosives and sonar are simply
unmitigable. Pollution from explosives will permanently alter the ocean habitat that these
species rely on and disrupt their lives in profound ways. The active sonar will maim and kill marine
life by damaging internal organs, rupturing membranes, causing embolisms and strandins.
The navy promises to reduce decibels to 180 when a whale is spotted, but Sonar will still harm or
kill many species at this level. At this level, these species and the ecosystem they depend on
cannot withstand added stress, particularly when existing protections are already financial.
I urge the commission to follow staff's recommendation and subject to the names
proposed. Thank you for your time and
consideration. I would also like to ask to speak on
behalf of Derek Nguyen as he is unable to present at the moment
or ask if it's possible. We can go back to him.
Okay. Okay so uh Derek Nguyen if you're there
he was here. I think she just said he can't speak right now so why don't we
just put him at the end of the list and we'll come back.
Next is Brian Rosen.
I've allowed you to speak.
Go ahead and unmute yourself.
Hi.
Brian Rosen here.
I just hope you do the maximum to protect our ecosystem and coast.
We need to take care of this earth.
That's our duty.
We're stewards of the land and I just hope that God, that they don't go overboard.
I remember Benjamin Franklin said,
those who are willing to surrender liberty for security
don't deserve liberty or security.
Well, the price is pretty high for this thing, too.
And I think we have probably a good enough defense system.
We have to make some concessions for the animals out there,
the scuba divers, and all the people swimming in the sea,
the snorkelers, and the whales.
And we need to just respect the Earth and do the right thing.
And we can acknowledge the good intentions
of some of the military people.
But I just hope that this will be turned down completely.
And I believe the staff recommendation
is to be supported, that this is very inconsistent
with marine protection.
So if you'll please just don't support this horrible program.
It's not a good idea.
It's not necessary.
We already have too much sonar and too much destructive energy
out there too much explosive.
We don't need to go to this extreme.
And thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next is Lorna Moffitt, followed by William Trung,
followed by Noah Baudrillard, followed by Anne Kuchel,
followed by Anna Kristensen.
Lorna Moffitt, I've unmuted you.
Yes.
Thank you, commissioners.
We have to tell the Navy that they
must take their training to the least harmful places
on the planet, because allowing this terrible funar technology
to disrupt 5.5 million marine species
is catastrophic and unacceptable.
The Navy will downplay the harm their project proposes,
but if they have such advanced technology,
they need to couple that with technology
that is least harmful, and they're not doing that.
Are you saying go back to the drawing board
and find a place where you can do the least amount of harm.
They will have to do just that.
I remember when this sono technology came to our oceans,
the Navy never mentioned it harmed its decimated Marines.
It was dedicated Marine scientists that sounded the LR.
So they come to you again
with their soft-spoken environmental untruths.
We cannot trust these studies because it is biased.
Their motivation is to protect our nation
over marine life at all costs.
That's understandable.
However, they have left out a large piece of that technology,
safety to all other species that dwell in our oceans.
Please tell the Navy they need to find the technology that
is safe to use their and test their war weapons.
Thank you.
Thank you, up next is William Chong.
Hello, commissioners.
My name is William Chong and I am a law student
at the University of San Diego.
I am also currently serving as a legal intern
with Defenda Mall, an organization
that uses community advocacy, education and legal guidance
to secure a better future for animals and their habitats.
As a California native, I am deeply concerned
about the need to uphold expansion
of military training activities along the California coast.
And I respectfully urge this commission
object to this plan. The proposed activities would have a harmful impact on protecting marine
wildlife and their habitats. The use of sonar, munitions, and the widespread operation of vessels
would lead to extensive noise, chemical contamination, and increased ship traffic.
In particular, the use of sonar could potentially deafen, injure, and kill marine wildlife. Mammals
like whales and dolphins are highly sensitive to sound, and noises from sonar have been known to
to eat the mass drownings and deaths.
These species and the ecosystem that they rely on cannot withstand the added stressors
that would result from this plan.
As such, the anticipated impacts of this proposal are inconsistent with the Coastal and Marine
Resources Protection Policy in Section 30230 of the Coastal Management Program.
Therefore, I urge this Commission to follow staff's recommendation and object to this
proposal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
I'm here today to respectfully urge the Commission to object to the Navy's proposed expansion
of military training activities along the Pacific coast and share my perspective as
Canadian and resident of British Columbia. Numerous species make seasonal movements across
Canadian and US coastal waters, highlighting the cross-border significance of this proposal.
For example, the gray whale migrates over 10,000 miles every year between Baja California and
Alaska. Along that journey, which is one of the longest migrations of any species in the world,
gray whales spend much of their time off the coast of California and British Columbia.
The population of gray whales that pass along the California coast are often described as a
success story in wildlife conservation. During a high period of commercial whaling,
the Great Whale population declined from over 30,000 to just 3,000 in the 1950s.
Thanks to coordinated conservation efforts, population has rebounded tremendously.
It would be a shame to see this inspiring and important work lost as a result of the proposed
military activities on the Pacific Coast. The proposed expansion of naval activities along
the California coast will in dramatically increase ship traffic, noise pollution,
and sonar of use along critical migratory routes for Great Whales.
Simulation studies show that current noise pollution levels are already causing 20% delays
in migration times for whales, and increases could have even more detrimental effects.
It's estimated that increases in noise pollution may prevent whales from reaching their migratory
destinations at all, since it limits their ability to detect environmental cues and may
cause them to avoid loud noises blocking their routes.
This is in addition to the known harms caused by high-decibel sonar, with the proposed backed-off
target of 180 decibels being 1,000 times higher than the non-lethal decibel levels.
The harmlessness military expansion will be irreparable, and the current mitigation measures
proposed are woefully insufficient.
I urge the Commission to follow staff's recommendation and object to this proposal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Next is Anken Trail.
Anken Trail Sierra Club.
In 2006, when Sierra Club objected to the first of these training programs, we carried
The whales are crying signs.
We agree with staff that the Commission must
reject this proposed program, which
includes several notable differences
from previous ones, including extensive training
areas offshore in central and northern California,
expanded use of large uncrewed vessels,
reduction in the amount of area designated
for seasonal avoidance of sensitive marine mammals
and habitats, and significant increases
in the number of mammals to be subjected
to disturbance and injury.
Maximum estimates over the seven-year program
are 38,629,540 disturbances, 30,905 injuries,
and 231 mortalities.
The whales will not only be crying, but dying.
The Navy identifies the following adverse effects
to marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds, fish,
and invertebrates, acoustic from sonar, air guns,
pile driving, vessel, aircraft, and weapons noise,
explosions in air and water, electromagnetic devices,
physical disturbances, strikes, and pile diving,
Entanglement, wires, cables, parachutes, ingestion of munitions and other objects impacts density
habitats including kelp, grass and hard bottom from explosion and physical disturbance.
The Navy has rejected alternative measures offered by staff to reduce anticipated…
Okay thank you up next is Anna Kristoffson followed by Nancy Okada
followed by Susan Kirk. We have about 13 speakers left and five of them are
unknown right now. So we don't see them yet. Anna Kristoffson go ahead and speak. Anna are you are
Are you muted?
We can't hear you.
There might be an issue on her and you're unmuted on the R-N.
Can you speak so we can hear you?
Anna let us come back to you okay.
Next is Nancy.
Next is Nancy.
I'm going to unmute you Nancy, Nancy Okada.
Good afternoon commissioners.
I hope you can hear me.
I'm with the Sierra Club, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the entire Sierra Club,
the entire membership nationwide.
And we submitted a comment regarding this.
We support the recommendation of the Coastal Commission staff regarding this matter, and
we urge the Coastal Commission to object to the consistency determination for the proposed
sublinear Navy offshore training and testing program.
And we'd like to say that all our members are really deeply
concerned about the environment.
And as the coastal staff recommendation details,
this proposed Navy training and testing program
represents a departure from prior years
by expanding the area considerably.
The Sierra Club is concerned about the impact
of this proposed program on fish and marine mammals,
as well as its impact on shorebirds
and on the inadequacy of the Navy's evaluation
of such impact.
Sierra Club is also concerned about the effects
of the proposed programs in combination
with the impacts from other spreaders,
such as impacts from bycatch, entanglement,
commercial vessel traffic, ocean pollution, and coastal zone
development, actions that exacerbate the ongoing extinction
crisis by harming wildlife and their habitat,
must be evaluated with care, to ensure that the protections
required by the law are fully provided.
In final, the Sierra Club thanks the Coastal Commission staff
for its detailed assessment of the significant adverse impact
of the proposed Navy program.
And we ask the Commission to oppose this consistency
determination.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
Next is Susan Kirk, followed by, oh,
Let me try real quick Susan Kirks.
Let me try Anna Kristensen.
Anna Kristensen, I have a mini Jew.
Can you try to talk Anna Kristensen?
OK, we can't hear her, so we're going to go ahead and move on.
We're going to go ahead and go to Susan Kirks.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon, commissioners, and staff.
I'm Susan Kirks, speaking as a conservationist
in Northern California with many years of experience
in our coastal environment, our oceans and our wildlife.
I'd like to thank the speakers
who are supporting the staff recommendation today
and also want to uplift the comments that were submitted
by NRDC, the Center for Biological Diversity,
the California Sierra Club and Nancy Okada's comments today
and especially the letters that were so carefully prepared
and submitted to you by Mary McAllister, Nina Beatty,
and especially Nancy Okada and Leslie Purcell.
All of us as conservationists are deeply troubled
by this proposed program.
And as one of your speakers earlier representing
the indigenous peoples of the Chumash
said the oceans are living is the ocean is a living entity the creatures in the ocean are part
of all of our lives and I would like to thank the staff for recommending that you object to this
federal consistency it cannot meet anything near upholding the coastal act requirements the marine
Memel program requirements and honestly I am just so deeply troubled personally
by this it's actually difficult to speak so I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to give my comment today and urge you to make direct comments and
encourage the Navy to train their officers and their enlisted personnel in
environmental issues as well because it is so valuable. Thank you. Thank you. We have five more
speakers left and we have four that we're hoping to find. Sahar Zaidi followed by Jasmine Lalas
followed by Leslie Purcell followed by Brooke Applegate followed by Victoria Stackville.
Sahar Zaidi, if you can unmute yourself please. Hello Queshers. Allow me to reintroduce myself. My
My name is Sarah Zadie and I'm a Canadian law student at the University of Windsor specializing
in international and environmental law and policy.
I'm also currently a legal intern with Defend Them All.
I'm here today to respectfully urge the Commission to object the Navy's proposed expansion of
military training activities along the Pacific coast.
The proposed activities would drastically increase noise pollution, vessel traffic, and high-intensity
sonar use across hundreds of thousands of square miles including ecologically sensitive areas
that are home to protected whales, dolphins, sea lions, sea birds, and essential fish habitats.
The Navy itself has estimated over 38 million disturbances and hundreds of
injuries and deaths to marine mammals over the life of the project, and in light of these impacts
and the global significance of the California current ecosystem, the Navy's refusal to adopt
common sense mitigation measures recommended by Commission staff is especially troubling.
Expanding protected zones, reducing sonar intensity, and limiting vessel speeds in
sensitive areas may not fully shield already imperiled species from the harms of the project
this expansive. However, they are critical steps to reduce avoidable suffering and ecological
damage. These species and the ecosystems they depend on cannot withstand further stress,
especially when current protections are already inadequate. I urge the Commission
to follow staff's recommendations and object to this proposal. Your decision sends a powerful
message about California's leadership in coastal protection and the importance of science-based
environmental governance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next is Jasmine
and Wallace, followed by Leslie Purcell,
followed by Brooke Applegate,
followed by Victoria Stackdale.
Jasmine Wallace, please unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Jasmine Wallace, and I'm a law student
attending the University of San Diego
studying environmental law and policy.
I'm currently also serving as the legal intern
with Defend them All, a nonprofit organization
works for community center legal and policy
advocacy for both animals and ecosystems.
I respectfully urge the commission
to object to the Navy's proposal
for the Hawaii California Testing and Training Project.
This project includes high levels
of noise pollution, ship traffic,
and the use of similar technology
in ecologically sensitive areas,
impacting the marine species.
Some of the anticipated decibel wellness
from this project are lethal and pose a clear danger.
Furthermore, the debris left behind
from testing is harmful to birds and animals,
animals, stewed of marine life, especially marine jet sea.
The debris should meet the danger
to marine systems along the coast is clear,
and the magnitude of specific crimes posed by the project
have not yet been fully addressed.
The areas impacted by the predator
are home to protected animals, sea birds, and fish,
including the California least turn
and the short-tailed albatross.
Additionally, candidate species such as the sunflower sea
star or the topeshark are also at risk.
But these species and ecosystems that they depend on
cannot withstand the stress imposed by this prophet.
For the more existing protections for these species
are limited, and any expansion of these birds
to be underlined by this project.
I urge the Commission to follow staff's recommendation
and agenda's proposal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Next is Leslie Purcell.
You'll mute yourself.
Good afternoon, Commission.
I would like to support the staff's recommendation
and the alternative measures that they have proposed
as being more protective of our environment
and the inhabitants therein.
We have a concern for cumulative environmental impact,
and this really needs to be considered,
both near and offshore.
There's air and water pollution in greenhouse gas increases.
These are climate effects that I don't think
are properly addressed in the Navy's proposal.
And there's also an additional factor
that has not been mentioned,
But the Coastal Commission is aware that Vandenberg
is asking for proposing a 100-a-year launch
by SpaceX of rockets in the coming year.
And this is going to be another environmental effect
that will be happening along our coastal areas
and over our ocean.
I'd like the Navy to be taking that
into account if possible as well.
There are significant impacts, as has been discussed,
marine mammals, deeper habitat, including health forests,
which are significant for carbon sequestration.
So I think that climate change and sea level rise
have to be more seriously considered.
They're already causing habitat deterioration
and changes in marine life and mortality.
We could see habitat destroyed
for the threatened southern sea otter and other marine species.
We have a marine mammal protection act
to protect against harassment and take a marine mammal.
We have chaff in the environment.
They will be dumping these millions
of small thin glass fibers coated with aluminum into the air.
Also, the UN Oceans Conference is happening
as we speak about international waters.
We have signed along with feet.
Thank you, next is Brooke Applegate, followed by Victoria Sackville, followed by Rebecca
Lee.
Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Brooke Applegate, and I'm a law student in specialized studies in coastal
environmental science, and I'm currently a legal intern within the moment.
I'm also a certified protected species observer and have worked as a wildlife rehabilitation
specialist.
These experiences have given me a profound respect for the intricate balance of marine
ecosystems, and how easily that balance can be disrupted by human activity.
I am here today to oppose the Navy's proposal to extend and expand military readiness
activities along Pacific Coast. This is not a limited expansion, it is an unprecedented
escalation in both scale and intensity. I'm especially concerned about the topeshark,
a species currently recognized by NOAA Fisheries as a candidate for protection
under the Endangered Species Act.
Oak sharks are vital to the marine food web and pose no threat to humans.
Juveniles rely on their mothers for survival during the first two years of life.
Furthermore, these sharks segregate by sex, meaning that if military activity were to
disproportionately impact female populations in a specific area, the consequences could
be devastating for the species.
The loss of even one female aggregation, a group essential for reproduction, could collapse
future generations. This species absence from project documents raises serious
concerns about the adequacy and thoroughness of the environmental review
that was done. Grudging cable-laying and seafloor installation risks destroying
vital habitats including the breeding and feeding grounds that have taken
centuries to form and cannot simply regenerate. The ocean floor is not just
sediment it is a living landscape home to nurseries, bulging ground, and the
foundation of countless biological processes. Disrupting it will cause
irreparable harm to benthic habitats, many of which take decades or even
centuries to recover if they recover at all. The California coast is a migratory
superhighway. It is a sheared space and national defense should not come at the
cost of ecological collapse. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Couple more
people that we found. So we have Victoria Sackville followed by Rebecca Lee followed
about Teresa Brady.
Victoria Sackville, you can unmute yourself.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Hello.
I have been listening.
Hello.
Am I unmuted?
Good.
I'm very impressed by the quality of the speakers.
I even wish there were more.
With respect to the coastal commissioners,
I have attended meetings where certain commissioners appeared
to have been influenced by things other than their sworn
duties to protect our coast and our offshore habitat.
That saddens me greatly.
I hope that will not happen here.
The Navy is a proud military service for our country.
However, in current days, if the staff is not
supported in this, the Navy has to be very secretive
because of their strategic importance to our country.
But the use of further sonar impacts the environment
to such an extent that it could even, in the future,
lead to technologies being used within that seven years that
are beyond the scope of what is being discussed today.
And that will be secret because of the strategic importance.
This is an important decision to be made here
because of that alone, because the norms are being wrenched.
And who is to say where we are going?
I will also draw the commissioner's attention
to the fact that the very ably PR person that
is representing Navy or doesn't make decisions about this
in the future, by the way, spoke to the Marines being involved.
And I draw you to put your attention,
the Marines are already here in California.
Please keep that in mind as you make your decision.
Thank you, Alexis.
Rebecca Lee, followed by Teresa Brady,
followed by Derek Nguyen.
Rebecca Lee, if you'll unmute yourself.
Yes, thank you so much.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
I also object to this proposed expansion.
I swim in the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary,
and I know from the creatures I observe
and the groups who work so hard to protect them,
how desperately those creatures need our protection.
I lived in San Diego in the 80s and 90s,
And I participated in the discussions
then where the military denied then
that sonar tests negatively impacted dolphins and whales.
So we've really come a long way in this discussion,
but the argument sounds the same.
The military has a job to do.
They want to do it well.
They don't want to fail or displease their boss
or fail at the ideal of protecting the American people
as their number one concern.
what have the opposition view got?
Well, we have love in our hearts
for all living creatures in the planet.
We believe in the right for other non-human beings
to a right to live and deserving of help
since they don't have voices
to protect their rights to live.
And most recently we have science
that's so eloquently been expressed by the other speakers
that these creatures are participants
in the vast ocean ecosystem
literally scientifically support all life on earth including ours and that
they are harmed by these military practices. The irony is that the military
is trying to bone up to protect human life but it's undermining their own
goals by harming and killing what keeps us all alive. It's necessary to object
to these practices to keep what balance is possible and not give them carte
launched to destroy our ocean in the name of their drills. It's fantastical a
little bit to read the restrictions being subjected in this proposal because
to enforce them is really nearly impossible. I would like to see you stress that the
increase in the number of observers included. Thank you so much. Thank you.
next is Theresa Brady followed by Derek Newin. Theresa Brady, if you can unmute
yourself. All right we'll come back to Theresa. Next we're going to do Derek
Newin. Good morning commissioners. My name is Derek and I am a Canadian law
student at the University of Toronto interested in environmental law. I hold a
Bachelor of Science degree and I am a legal intern with the Fender Mall, a non-profit
organization supporting legal and policy advocacy efforts for animal
environmental protection. I'm here today to object to the Navy's proposed expansion of military
training across the Pacific coast. This expansion poses serious risks to millions of seabirds that
rely on the study area for feeding, nesting, and resting including more than 100 species of
migratory birds, many of which are already threatened with extinction. The environmental
impact statement suggests that individual stresses may be temporary or not resolved in
population level consequences but this narrow framing overlooks the cumulative impacts of
sonar use, explosives, noise pollution, energy disturbances, and habitat disruption and these
combined stressors contribute to the long-term degradation of the environment.
That is an explosion may not directly injure a bird but alongside the other stressors it can
disrupt critical prey populations, shift migratory path, and destabilize food chains resulting in
significant ecological harm that is downplayed in project documents and given these risks the
mitigation measures described in table 3.9 to 4 of the environmental impact statement of mostly
visual observations are insufficient. The mitigation zones of only a maximum of 2100 yards are inadequate
and they fail to address the cumulative effects of not only the explosives but also the numerous
other stressors on birds and the species they interact with and there will be lasting impacts
on all parts of the ecosystem. The millions of birds and dozens of endangered species in this
region cannot withstand the added strain from these activities, and I urge the Commission to
follow this past recommendation and object to the proposal. And thank you for your time and
consideration. Thank you. Next we're going to try one more time. Anna Christiston, I've allowed you
to speak if you can just unmute yourself on the phone. All right, Anna, we tried.
Thank you, thank you to the public, thank you Ramon, okay, I'll turn it back to staff, I believe they have a brief response.
Thank you.
So staff continues to believe that each of the recommended alternative measures would be necessary to achieve consistency with our marine resources policy.
Really briefly, I want to highlight the importance of expanding the geographic mitigation areas.
In our view, this is the single most important way of reducing impacts to marine mammals from sonar and explosives.
The larger seasonal mitigation areas proposed for central and northern California are a
positive step.
And we do understand and acknowledge the practical and operational constraints that the Navy
is operating under.
With this in mind, our recommended expansion of the mitigation areas focuses on the most
biologically significant areas, marine sanctuaries, MPAs, and the core biologically important
areas that are most critical for marine mammals, especially in Southern California where the
proposed mitigation areas are very limited.
I'm going to pause here, but we are happy to address the other recommended measures
and any questions the Commission may have.
And I'll pass it on to Mr. Toifel to close out our comments.
Thank you, Mr. Street.
I just wanted to quickly reiterate Mr. Stone's comments regarding the working relationship
between Commission and Navy staff.
What we don't always see eye-to-eye as I probably is apparent through our staff recommendation
We deeply appreciate the professionalism diligence and responsiveness. They bring to this federal consistency review process
We presented them with dozens of questions and requests for clarification over the past couple months
And they have always provided prompt responses and shared with us the information they're able to
Given the scale and significance of potential impacts to coastal and marine resources involved with the proposed program
Its review always presents us with a major challenge particularly under the limited time frame provided under our federal consistency review review process
We really wouldn't be able to do our job without a high level of cooperation and coordination with Navy staff
So appreciate their continued engagement with us and hope to continue a productive dialogue about the alternative measures. We identified and
potential opportunities for implementation
Thank you very much. Well, I know everyone has been been waiting quite a while, but I think if you don't mind
we are going to break for lunch and we'll make it quick we could all be back at
2 p.m. Please and I'll ask my colleagues to please not discuss this item and for the public not to speak to any
Commissioners about this item during the lunch break. We will be back and we'll reconvene right at 2 p.m. Thank you
Okay, thank you everyone for your patience, we'll reconvene and bring it back to the commission as a place to start.
So comments, questions, we'd like to begin.
Okay, Commissioner Lowenberg.
Mr. Stone, could I ask you a question?
Is it, and obviously take this in the spirit that it's coming from, I'm not a scientist, I'm just a commissioner sitting up here who loves land use and all that kind of that, I love the state of California.
And I do appreciate the collaborative.
I really do.
Is there a way to, without telling the world
when you're doing all this, because I'm
sure it's sort of top secret when you do this,
is there a way to do it when the whales are not down here
migrating, since they do move?
Is there a way to, you know, I'm just
trying to come up with some little things that
could help with timing.
Is there a way, you may not be able to commit to that,
but if you could certainly strive for it,
It would be certainly helpful.
Yeah.
If you have questions, that's effective,
but also if you have a mission.
So we did consider that.
Our training is not seasonal.
Our training is year round, and our deployment schedules
are driven by real-world requirements.
Very complicated about deployments.
And also, like I think it's been pointed out by many people,
This area where we train is an important area
that we acknowledge for many marine mammal species.
And when you look at the different species
and the seasonality of their presence, it's...
You're going to bump into one...
It's kind of year-round.
It's kind of year-round, so.
Well, I just want to say, even if I vote for
the staff recommendation, I am doing so with the expectation
in hopes that it will keep you at the table.
So, and I know that you can move forward even without that.
But I would like the staff to go over that one more time
so that we're all very clear on what a vote means to go
with the staff recommendation, what the implications are,
and what the implications would be if we disagreed with staff.
But understand that for me, I'll always speak for myself,
I do appreciate what the Navy's trying to accomplish
and having people well trained is in everyone's best interest.
But we're under, but it's not about my feelings.
It's about a note that I took to the Coastal Act.
So with those parameters, I need to stay within that,
regardless of what my personal feelings might be.
So I hope you all, even if we vote maybe in a way you don't,
would like us not to vote but that you can appreciate that in some respects our
hands are tied to the fact that we did take enough to uphold the Coastal Act.
I understand. Well thank you for your understanding. I appreciate it. I would like you at some
point either before or after everybody's questions to go back over what a yes,
what a no, implications, up-down. We're all in the record and everybody's on the same
But again, I do appreciate the cooperative spirit that you all work within and I know
it makes staff life a lot easier, so.
Why don't we go over what the votes mean now and then that's a great idea, thank you.
Thank you very much.
I just think it's important that everybody understand what the implications are, yes,
no, and upside down.
Yeah thank you Commissioner that was an excellent question.
So I'll touch on the history a little bit because as we indicated, this is the fifth
time we've reviewed this similar type of a program.
Go ahead.
And can you tell us the five times what other committees.
Exactly.
And use that as an example of the different types of outcomes.
And so the initial, I believe, two consistency determination reviews were for a shorter
period I think it was a two-year program at that time and the Commission I
believe both times went with a conditional concurrence and so
essentially put forward a variety of conditions not too dissimilar from the
alternative measures that we that we put forward today but structured it
differently so it essentially said the Navy should commit to these and if they
do this would be a concurrence. The Navy declined to commit to them and so they
essentially rejected those conditions of approval and the result of that was an
objection. And so that was the first couple times we went through this
program. After that it was a straight objection and the Navy as is their
discretion and as they're allowed under the federal consistency regulations as
we kind of laid out during our presentation, they're allowed to determine that their activity
is consistent and proceed with it, just simply with giving us notification.
There was litigation that was triggered by that decision.
And that litigation went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Navy was successful and proceeded with their activity based on that.
I don't know all the ins and outs and details
of that litigation, what it was structured around.
But it was not triggered just by the vote correct.
But I.
The commission at that time chose to pursue that.
And I, yeah, and I bring that up because that is one
of the potential outcomes.
If the commission were to object,
there's three ways that can go.
One is the Navy, as I said, can determine
that they are consistent and give us notification and proceed with the
activity. The other is that they do that and we request mediation so that can be
either formal or informal where we're brought together at a table through with
a mediator to engage in an effort to try to bridge the gap so to speak. And then
the third potential outcome is litigation. So the 2013 in 2013 the
commission also objected and there was litigation there and there was a
settlement agreement reached. As part of that settlement agreement there were a
variety of additional commitments mitigation measures that were developed
and that the Navy committed to implementing. And so and then in 2018 the
staff recommendation then was conditional concurrence. We kind of went
back to revisit that option. The commission ended up going against the
recommendation and just plainly objecting. If the Commission you ask you
know if the Commission were to concur what would that look like? If the
Commission were to concur staff would be obligated to come back with revised
findings essentially kind of squaring that circle explaining how the activity
is indeed consistent with these policies particularly Section 30230 which
applies to marine resource production. You're saying if we vote against staff?
Correct. Because currently the staff recommendation says it's inconsistent so
we would have to come back to you with an explanation why it indeed is
consistent. So if the Commission were to go that route we would really be looking
for some guidance from you all explaining in your minds, your
discretion, why you feel it is indeed consistent. So hopefully that gives a
a little bit more clarity.
Could you describe for a moment,
you said in 2013, there was a settlement agreement reached.
Are any of the things in that settlement agreement
applicable to a potential today?
Yeah, there are some specific things
that we've, from that settlement agreement,
that we've carried over into our alternative measures.
For example, Walt kind of walked through a little bit
of the Southern California training and testing area,
offshore here of San Diego and part of the settlement agreement was establishment of
mitigation areas around marine protected areas and an area of particular importance for beaked
whales and so there were, that was the I think 600 odd square miles of additional area protection
geographic mitigation areas. The Navy has stepped those back in this latest proposal
essentially those are no longer they're no longer required to do those the term
of the settlement agreement has lapsed but they you know and then they saw
that as giving them an opportunity to no longer implement those area
protections. Can I through the chair through the chair can I ask Mr. Stone one
more question please would you give any consideration to looking at those
mitigation measures that you once were obligated to do, that maybe you could re-
obligate, which is not a word.
Yeah, as part of the process that we went through of developing the geographic
mitigation measures, we did consider all of those already. We look back at all the
prior areas that were the outcome of that settlement agreement and other areas
suggested through the NEPA process and other regulatory processes. So we have
considered all of those and the latest science that has changed since then to
to develop the mitigation measures the geographic areas that we have right now.
So I guess I would say we have looked at those but maybe just two things in
closing. Obviously whatever decision is made today you know the Navy not just me
would look at this before we would make any decisions you know I'm not here
today to say what we would or wouldn't do with the Commission's decision today
and also regardless of that we would continue to work together with the staff
to try and continue to discuss these issues narrow gap share information so
we're we're you know we're willing to continue to work together on all of
these issues. I would just hope that if you could if you had lived with them at
at one point, and if they're still applicable,
you could try to live with them again, for what it's worth.
I understand, yeah, yeah, we did reassess of us.
If they're not applicable, they're not applicable.
I get that.
Right.
But if they are, and if you once were
able to do what you needed to do to train everybody adequately
and could live within those parameters, at one point,
I would hope that you could really make an effort to try
to live with them again.
Because I think it would go a long way, especially
with the public.
Not just with my colleagues potentially, but with the public.
Thank you.
Commissioner Hart, Vice Chair Hart, excuse me.
Thanks so much.
I just want to align myself with the comments of Commissioner
Loewenberg with regard to the importance of the Navy
and our regard for the Navy.
Saying that, we have an obligation under,
particularly under Coastal Act section 302.30
to maintain, enhance, and where feasible,
restore marine resources and provide special protection
excuse me, to species of special biological
or economic significance.
And so I think it's very challenging for the commission
to align our role under the Coastal Act,
our mandate under the Coastal Act
with the activities that have been described
and that have been conducted.
But I do have a few questions for you, Mr. Stone, if you could come back.
Yes ma'am, absolutely.
Thank you very much.
I know it's weird coming from Zoom, coming from-
No, I got to.
Thanks so much.
I want to start by asking you a question about the impacts.
Up here, I live up here in Sonoma County, and as I'm sure you're, the San Francisco
Bay area and the North Coast is seeing an extreme number of strandings, particularly
recently, even yesterday, a gray whale
was found stranded at Land's End,
making it the 18th stranding this year.
And when you look at what the information is
as to why the strandings are occurring,
there always seems to be a giant gap of information,
this giant unknown.
So could you talk about how you get to the numbers you get to?
Do you follow the strandings?
Do you have a team that looks at the marine mammals that
have stranded?
I think you see where I'm going with this.
And if you could respond.
How these numbers are formulated on the damage to marine mammals
from the Navy activities.
Do you want to talk about that, Chip?
I can start off.
Chip Johnson is here.
He's our science person.
But I'll start off with that.
We do use the best available science
on density and abundance of marine mammals
that goes into our marine calculations.
They are conservative, our modeling is conservative.
It doesn't reduce the amount of predicted impacts
based on the effectiveness of the mitigation
that I talked about earlier.
So we do think the mitigation is highly effective,
especially for the more serious types of impacts
that you heard kind of mentioned
of the numbers of injuries and mortalities.
Those are obviously close to where the activity is occurring,
like for explosives or sonar, where we feel much better
about our ability of our lookouts to observe those.
And for sonar, the real issue with sonar
is behavioral modification.
The vast, vast majority of the exposures for sonar
are changes in behavior, not physiological or injurious.
And for explosives, yeah, those numbers
that you've seen that talk about mortality
are close to the explosive source where we do think
we can highly reduce those numbers through our mitigation,
but our raw numbers don't include that.
And we do, I should have mentioned this earlier,
all the mitigations and the numbers,
the impact determinations are,
we work closely with the National Marine Fishery Service.
So all of this is codified through a Marine Mammal
Protection Act permitting and regulatory process.
So like to the sort of your question about like, how does this fit into larger issues with these marine species that's happening across California. That's definitely something that nymphs looks at in their issuance of the permit and for species that are protected by the federal endangered species act through their issuance of a biological opinion.
Right, but nymphs has not issued a permit for this expanded activity as of this time, right?
Correct, right.
And so would it be correct to say that from the Navy's perspective,
well you're depending on national marine fisheries, that your data is based on looking
at the density of the species in the array you're operating.
So it's almost sort of a statistical estimate.
You don't do anything to look at stranded marine mammals or determine if your activities,
for example, sonar, whether they have lost their hearing, none of that is happening, right?
you know? Oh, no, absolutely. We have a stranding response plan. So we're aware of any
stranding and if there's and that's built into the regulatory process with NIMS. If there's a
stranding that's an unusual stranding event, like you're kind of describing in Northern California,
if we're operating in that area, we have a requirement to do an assessment of what activities
and investigate that with NIMS. If it's determined by NIMS, that's what's called an unusual
stranding event in USC and that's codified in a plan that is joint between
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Navy. Would it be possible to get a
report on that what what NIMS has determined for many of these
strandings that have happened in the areas that the Navy has been conducting
exercises if they found links? I just feel very insecure about your numbers no
no offense at all. But I just, I mean it's such a broad number. And I just, I'm
having a hard time wrapping my head around a statistical analysis of that.
Because sonar can have such widespread impacts that beyond, I mean it seems it's
actually been pretty well documented the significant impacts. But so that's one
problem I'm having as I address this. The second problem I'm having, you know, I
I used to operate the marina as part of my region.
I had a job up here on the North Coast,
and I operated the marina.
And Bodega Bay marina is one of the crabbing centers
of the North Coast.
And of course, Dungeness crab is a huge business, right?
Currently, crabbing has basically
been put on hold because of entanglements.
Are you familiar with that issue at all?
Generally, yes.
It has a huge impact on the economy that, you know,
spreads through the economy.
And this is to protect whales.
And in addition to that, there's so much that has been done,
so much money that has been spent, so much time and effort,
for example, to establish national marine sanctuaries
and the MPAs in California.
I have to ask you, and I know you're not in a position
to change the, you're not here to alter
the position of the Navy.
But when I look at the measures and the pushback
on what's being requested by the commission.
The most obvious one is to avoid these areas
that are so critical for the survival
of these species and all of the species.
And as a result, there's significant restriction
in those areas.
I just can't understand why that isn't something
that the Navy is willing to,
why it's so critical to be operating in the MPAs
and the Marine Sanctuaries.
Could you just go into that a little bit more?
I mean, is that just not happening no matter what,
no matter how much we negotiate, or what's the situation?
Yeah, thanks for the question.
Yeah, I would say it depends on the sanctuary or the MPA.
A lot of the National Marine Sanctuaries,
we have very little activity, especially
with sonar or explosives.
So it depends on the sanctuary.
But for instance, we might transit through there
with a vessel or aircraft, but we're not
doing the activities that are more potentially impactful.
And that's certainly true in a lot of the National Marine
Sanctuaries and in the state MPAs.
And in our environmental planning,
we walk through each of the state MPAs
and the National Marine Sanctuaries
and talk about which activities.
But in general, there's very little activities.
I can talk about like Channel Islands or Monterey Bay.
There's no explosive activities in those areas.
And that's explained in the EIS.
There's very little activity in the National Marine Sanctuary.
Except around San Nicolas, now that area has been removed.
This is one of the Channel Islands.
The area around San Nicolas Island
is not part of a National Marine Sanctuary.
But is part of the Channel Islands.
And it was detected before.
And just, and especially in light of your answer,
I can't believe that there's not a basis for negotiation.
If the activities are so limited,
that we could take each of the marine sanctuaries or MPAs
that are impacted and work with you
to determine what activities are allowed,
what you absolutely need in those areas,
I would really strongly support our staff
working with the Navy to the extent possible
and ideally, completely protect and exclude
the National Marine Sanctuaries and the MPAs
from any of the activities that have been described here.
And you know, there's a new marine sanctuary
right off the central California coast, the Chumash.
And I know the tribes are very concerned about the activities
as well, I mean, based on what I've been reading in some areas.
So I just would really strongly recommend that discussion.
I would certainly feel a lot better
about what you're doing to protect us.
I understand that completely,
but we have to try to look at the entire world of creatures
and particularly as a coastal commissioner.
I was looking at the other alternative measures.
Another thing that is bothering me quite a bit
is the unmanned vehicle, the unscrewed.
It's an interesting word.
I hadn't heard that before.
So we're asking that you limit.
autocorrect, I think, because getting you there on that one, yeah.
Oh, uncrewed! So you noticed that, too. I'm like, what is uncrewed? It kept appearing
in the talk. Okay. We're talking uncrewed. Good. That'll be, uh, straighten that out
right now. Okay. So we have these uncrewed vessels. And they're big, right? How big are
Some of them are very big, right?
They, the size, there's a variety of sizes everywhere from like, you know, the size of
this podium to, you know, small, small ship.
Yeah like 300 feet I think.
The small ships are, there's not too many of those but there are some larger uncrewed
surfaces.
Okay, so I mean I think in the report I read that up to 300 feet, I mean a large
ship that is uncrewed, that is cruising along unlike everybody else out there, or
most most vessels have agreed to limit speed, you know, in areas where there
could be whale impacts or marine mammal impacts, but your position right now is
There's no limitation on speed of the uncrewed vessels.
That's correct, yeah.
I mean, they don't always go at fast speeds,
but it depends on the mission they're doing.
So I mean, some missions require a higher speed.
So yeah, the vessel speeds vary, I guess.
And so it seems to me, and this is another problem I have,
that those are going to be entering
into marine protected areas and sanctuaries
where there's a much, hopefully, ideally,
high density of species without any speed limit
when we know from the strandings,
at least the ones that we can tell what happened,
are caused often by these kind of impacts of ships
or maybe uncrewed vessels with whales.
But that's another area that I would strongly recommend
that we work with you.
Even if it's limited to the MPAs in the National Marine
Sanctuaries, I feel that when an uncrewed vessel enters
into these areas, at the very least,
there has to be a speed limit, a lower speed limit.
And then I know sometimes there's lookouts,
sometimes there aren't.
So that's another area that I think really is a lot
could be done.
I share Commissioner Lohlenberg's position
on to work with you and the commission staff
work with you on if we had agreements before we're hoping that we can continue
with those agreements. I just want to see if I have any other so I mean you know I
agree with the staff at this time. I think we really need to engage at a
deeper level and see if we can resolve some of these issues. Some of the things
that NRDC brought up, for example I think they brought up the dipping sonar
where marine mammals can think their way. They think the sonar is sonar
apparently more rising but and then you know it's sort of coming and going um
you just see in my notes have any other major I guess that my final comment is
just again to reiterate the costs of protecting the California coast the
The economic costs to preserve our coast today
have been so huge and they continue to be huge
and limit fishermen, limit recreation.
There's so many limits as a result of our decision
to protect these marine mammals.
And it seems to me this just cuts right through
the middle of that.
And I know that we all live on this planet.
We all want the same things.
And so I really strongly recommend that we find common ground
on some of these key issues.
So thank you very much, Mr. Stone.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Lomberg and Vice Chair Hart for much more
eloquently stating my concerns.
I share their concerns.
I also want to point out one.
I think I might have a question for you,
but I want to point out one thing that you mentioned.
You sort of seemed like you were differentiating
physical harm, maybe explosions, with behavioral harm changes.
But I know enough about marine mammals,
And based on the NRDC and other behavioral changes
can be just as injurious if they're
affecting mating behavior, foraging behavior,
or overall fitness of the animal.
So I think one could be just as bad as the other.
The only specific question I have,
you mentioned on your slide that the number of Navy vessel
strikes is, quote, infrequent.
I wonder if you have any numbers on that.
But perhaps maybe you have any percentage comparison
of that feature for commercial.
So what do you see?
Did you say it in frequency?
What do you mention?
Yeah, it's a good question.
I think over the last 10 years, we've
had about three vessel strikes with collisions in the study
area.
And we went a long time before that with no vessel strikes.
So it was kind of just, all of a sudden,
we've had three over the last few years.
And the comparison versus a commercial one
is a great question.
I mean, when a Navy vessel hits a marine mammal,
we report it immediately, and it's immediately known.
We have people on the ships at all times
looking around the water, unlike commercial ships.
The commercial ship might just say, I'm headed to China,
and there's nobody looking at the water.
They don't even know if they hit marine mammals.
And if they do, the reporting is they're
We're supposed to report them to the National Marine Fishery Service, but there's a lot
of papers that have documented how the reporting is way undercounting the number of vessel
strikes that occur there.
So even comparing the known numbers to our numbers, I would still say infrequent is true.
I mean, our numbers are, we report them all, and even with the ones that are reported by
the commercial shipping industry where, you know, I don't know the exact number, but it's
It's a small fraction of the commercial vessel price.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
Can you just let me know what those three strikes were?
Were there whales, specifically?
Yeah, there were whales.
Yeah, there were whales.
I mean, we investigate each of those.
They're really just kind of wrong place, wrong time.
It wasn't, I don't think any of them
have attributed it to the speed of the vessel or anything.
About it, it was just sometimes the first time
the vessel was aware of it was after the whale was hit.
It wasn't like they were seen and tried
to avoid the marine mammals.
Commissioner Nada.
Thank you.
And I think it's fitting that we're here in San Diego,
but the Navy's here.
And we also write near Scripps, where
I think it was 30 years ago with acoustic thermometry testing
kind of brought to light the impact of underwater noise
and to marine life.
And so I just want to acknowledge
that the Navy's come a long way in 30 years.
And when you look at what the Navy's proposing now
and compare that to what the commission staff is
recommending to more align the Navy proposal
with the California Coastal Management Program.
I think we're closer, you know, you can see
that we've made a lot of progress.
There's a couple of specific things I've been,
I'm concerned that this proposal is going a little bit
in the wrong direction in terms of more intensity.
So there's things that I would like, what I would
like to see the Navy continue to work
with our staff on is to reduce the intensity in low visibility areas to expand some of
the avoidance areas as Commissioner Hart has discussed.
I don't really understand why there were mitigation areas that were previously established and
now they don't exist, they're not in this current proposal.
So those are the kind of mitigation measures that it seems like they're coming into alignment
is within view if we continue to work on those things and I do appreciate the good working
relationship that's developed between the Navy and the Coastal Commission and I hope
that will continue.
But given those concerns with this current proposal, I would support the staff recommendation.
Thank you.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a couple questions for you, Mr. Stone.
But before I do, I just want to go to staff.
I'm the new guy here, so just to make sure.
And I'm an Army guy, so we're not as smart as you sailors.
So we are smarter than the Marines, so noted, noted.
So if I understand this correctly, every few years the Navy has come to the commission
and said we want to do X, Y, and Z. The commission has gone back and says we can give a little
bit but here are the conditions in which we'd like you to operate.
The Navy then says, we appreciate your consideration,
but federal preemption, whatever it's called,
means we can do what we want to do.
And that's typically the exercise
we've done over the last few years.
I'm a simple-minded guy, so is that basically what it is?
Yeah, broadly, you've got it.
So at the end of the day, regardless
of how we vote today, the Navy can say,
as they've done in the past, thank you very little,
Thank you very much.
We're going to train.
Okay, I got that, thank you.
Thank you for your service, Mr. Stone.
I love to see the civilians representing the services.
A lot of people tend to recognize the folks in uniform.
Thank you for your service, sir.
But a lot of great civilians doing great work
for our military, so thank you for your service.
Thank you for the rest of your team for being here.
You know, the Navy's come a long way in California
since the 20s when they arrived.
And what we've learned about the environmental impact
and has come a long way as well.
And those two have intersected and have come to juggernaut,
come to a head.
I'm curious because this isn't what
you're doing in California isn't unique to California.
As your mission has expanded, your global force for good
has expanded.
You've got bases in Norfolk.
You've got bases in Italy.
You've got bases in Bahrain, all with similar concerns.
How is the Navy addressing those concerns?
Yeah, well, I'm glad you asked the question.
Yeah, I want to go back, but just to answer your first
question is that is one of the considerations when we evaluate
mitigation measures, that there is some consistency
across the Navy for the mitigation measures,
so that a sailor operating off of Norfolk versus San Diego
has kind of the similar same sort of measures.
So like when we talk about the shutdown zones,
the areas for sonar that we're asking our lookouts
to observe marine mammals is consistent across the Navy.
So that's part of the reason why we will not necessarily
agree to like a larger shutdown zone,
because it is part of a larger Navy policy
to establish lookout zones that we think are effective
and the Navy leadership thinks is effective.
So we do look at Navy training across the globe
when we think about these mitigation measures.
Are we doing the same thing off the coast of Italy,
coast of Hawaii, Bahrain?
Yes.
Yep, the mitigation measures are standard
and we have a tool that we use for ships
that are gonna, you're gonna go train
And I want to do training in this area,
and it tells you the rules, and it's required.
There's an accountability process that we implement.
No, I appreciate that.
I understand.
But different jurisdictions also have different rules, right?
We may be able to do things off the coast of Norfolk
or California or Hawaii that we're not
doing off the coast of Italy, or say somewhere else where
we've got our sailor station.
Right, correct?
Yeah.
OK.
This is tough.
as I said before, the ask from the Navy,
I guess sort of like the defense budget,
is never going to be reduced.
Every year the Navy has asked for more
because they're doing more.
You're doing more than you were 100 years ago
when we were up to coast of California.
So the ask is never going to be less.
So with that in mind, as my colleagues have said,
It would be nice if we can have a deliberate, thoughtful,
in-depth discussion as to how we're
going to meet these future asks.
Because there's no doubt, for those who've been around,
they've done this a few times, this dance.
We're going to be, if I'm still around,
I'll hear you guys in a couple of years,
where your ask is going to be more, more unmanned, more
training, more of this.
But then we're going to know more about the impact
on our coastline.
So that position, as our Marine friend said,
both sides are right.
The Navy is being asked to do more.
We're being asked to do more to protect our coastline.
And we're at this juggernaut.
And that's unfortunate.
So the only way we're ever going to really reach,
I love the fact that we're collaborating,
that we work hand in glove with each other.
And that's important.
That collaboration is imperative.
And we had a caller who said she didn't trust the Navy.
And I took exception of that, because I
think the Navy is trying to do the right thing.
There's no doubt in my mind.
I know the Navy was ahead of everybody else
when it came to global impacts and sea
rise on our Navy bases worldwide.
I saw that firsthand when I was at the Pentagon.
So the Navy does care about this stuff.
But what you're being asked to do
is just inconsistent with what we are being asked to do.
You're going to come back.
As you have the last, is this the fourth or fifth time?
This is fifth?
As the previous four times, you're
going to be asking for more.
There's going to be more impact on our coastline.
Who knows how the vote is going to go?
But then, at the end of the day, you'll
be able to say, thank you very much.
But in the interest of national security,
we need to do our training.
And I understand, train like your fight.
But at some point, we've got to come to that realization
that the Navy can't be all things, all the time,
whenever it wants off our coastline.
So that's the challenge.
And so while I certainly appreciate what you are doing,
what the Navy is doing, the Army beat Navy,
you know, this is, our task is to protect
our precious coastline.
And what the Navy is doing this year and every subsequent year
is going to further erode our ability to do that.
And there are significant consequences.
So that's all I have for now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Any others?
Commissioner Love.
Yeah, no questions, just comments.
In appreciation for the report or the collaboration
this point I understand the history and having read the report thoroughly I
largely agree with the comments as made by Commissioner Jackson I think the
challenge that we have ahead of us is how we continue to coexist in a world
where the power is right something that is unequal at this point and as we move
forward we know that I'll share at home I've got two installations that make up
part of my district I've got four hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts both key
training areas given the fact that they're unique in their landscape and
and unique in their lack of light pollution
for different types of terrestrial training.
For that purpose, it's a place that folks come from
all over the country to train.
I know that there's gonna be unique circumstances
which draw people to this particular region
to do the same thing off the coast
and it's the reason these sites have been decided,
I'm sure, or chosen to be part of the type of training
that's being undertaken.
Given the role that we play on the national scale
and the fact that we have to train our young men and women
be prepared when they go off the battle, train like you fight.
I understand that.
But we're given a very key, very specific function.
I don't think that today we're going
to be able to get through the point that we reached.
And so as we move forward, I just
hope that the nature of collaboration
continues to be at the core of the relationship,
understanding that we know where we stand
and we understand the struggle that will continue to exist.
But given that, as we try to find a path forward,
the collaboration is where we can make good things happen
both for the environment and for the young men and women
that we are training to do what we ask of them
every single day as a nation.
So thank you for being here today
and for the clear communication about your position.
Thank you very much.
Okay, well, that leaves it to me.
And I will start, I just have one question
and this is for staff, thank you, Mr. Stone.
And then I'll just some very brief comments.
It was mentioned that within the bucket
around objection, so there's objection,
and then option two is this mediation, collaboration option.
And I think what I'm hearing from all of my colleagues
is this real desire to continue the conversation
and gratitude for the willingness to engage in it
in a very substantive, meaningful way.
So can you tell me a little bit more
about what that option is?
Is it a requirement, have we stated our desire to do it?
Is it something more than that?
What does that look like?
Thank you, Chair. So there's a couple ways that can play out. One is a couple flavors of a formal
mediation where we either request it from the Secretary of Commerce or request it from NOAA
to be kind of involved as the mediator. And then there's the more informal version which
staff engage with the Navy and subsequent to the 2018 objection. And that did result in some
meaningful outcomes, some additional geographic mitigation areas. It's really
just continuing the dialogue that we've been engaged with for the past month or
so once we kind of had identified a variety of alternative measures, things
that we thought would be necessary to get closer to consistency. The Navy has
obviously identified some constraints and challenges with implementation of
those, but I do think that there's still some room to continue that discussion
and understand, okay, where are the constraints,
where are the practicality limitations
with fully implementing what we're asking?
Where can we find a way around it?
So that is an option for us,
and that's something we would absolutely pursue
if it was the Commission's will.
I just wanted to add, as Cassie pointed out,
the two options that's really at the Commission's discretion,
how that works, I think, as staff,
we would recommend that we continue
down the informal collaboration that we have.
We have worked really hard to work through these issues
and develop this relationship.
And I think it has been productive in the past.
And I think it could be fruitful going forward.
So our recommendation, I think, would
be to give us some leap to pursue that.
We can bring back any progress or information that
comes out of that to you.
It's always at your discretion to take a different path
at a different time with new information.
but just wanted to be clear on that point, too.
Thank you very much, Director.
Yes, that is certainly my preference
to continue down the informal path.
And I have to say, this is a very challenging item.
All of the commissioners here have articulated,
particularly Commissioner Jackson,
that fundamental tension that we're facing here
between our understanding of the needs of the Navy
and the very real, very important, very critical
national security work that they are doing.
And our obligations here at this dais
to uphold the Coastal Act.
But I'm really gratified by the demonstration
of the relationship that's been built between the Navy
and our staff.
And I want to add my voice to the chorus that says,
thank you, because this is how we find that path forward
in what is a very sort of challenging set of circumstances
to reconcile.
So while I will be agreeing with staff recommendation today,
the scale and the scope of what has come before us,
I simply don't see a way to reconcile with our obligations
under the Coastal Act.
But I share the optimism that I'm hearing from staff
that there is some room to move closer together.
And I would strongly encourage that we
continue that dialogue and just, again,
appreciate my, express my appreciation
that we've gotten to this point and that that room,
that there's possibility to move.
So with that, unless there are any additional comments,
Commissioner Baird to make a motion.
Commissioner Nada.
All right.
Commissioner Wilson had his hand up, just wanted to know.
I'm sorry, I don't see your hand, Commissioner Wilson.
That's okay.
wanted to say that I agree with staff's recommendation, I just couldn't find any, I couldn't make
any findings that disagreed with the findings that staff has made under section 30230 of
the Coastal Act. I want to associate myself with really all of the comments of the commissioners
today that very well thought out and very reasoned and just very well considered about
all the issues. Thank you so much.
Commissioner Natto.
All right, so I move that the Commission concur with consistency determination CD-0003-25
on the grounds that the project described therein would be fully consistent and thus
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the California
Coastal Management Program CCMP and I am recommending a no vote. Second. Seconded
by Commissioner O'Malley. Would either the maker or the seconder like to speak to
their motion? I would just only echo that doing so with the understanding that the
informal discussions continue to happen and if there is some sort of you guys
hit a wall somewhere who would be nice to kind of understand then at the time. Thank
Thank you, and we have a roll call vote please Mr. Miller.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson.
Just want to be clear that the maker's requesting a no,
but you can vote yes just.
It was yes for the no.
Yes for a no.
But you want a no for the no.
No for the no.
If that's your will.
I stand corrected.
No for the no.
Jackson, no.
Where are we going?
Commissioner Kelly.
No Kelly no missioner no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
no no no thank you the commission has objected I want to thank again the Navy
mr. stone very much appreciate your engagement today and through this whole
process yeah thank you very much to all the to the chairman and all the
commissioners. I appreciate it. Thank you. Hey Director Hull Hucklebridge we
need to take a minute or we okay let's take a five-minute break. Thank you. Thank
you. Okay now we're ready to reconvene. I think we've okay perfect. Thanks guys.
All right that brings us to item 10. South Coast Deputy Directors report Mr.
Thank you so with item 10 in this packet we're reporting a number of things.
First is the City of Dana points adoption of the Commission's suggested modifications
for their Victoria Boulevard specific plan.
The executive directors determine the city's action is legally adequate complete certification
process.
I do want to note though that after business hours yesterday staff received a letter from
an attorney representing the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters.
The comments were focused on the merits of the Victoria Boulevard Amendment and were
addressed in the Commission's prior action to approve the amendment in February.
Comments don't address the adequacy of the city's action to adopt the Commission's recommended
modifications and they aren't relevant to the matter being reported today.
So the report does contain five waivers for projects in Seal Beach, Laguna Beach and San
Clemente.
There's no known opposition and we're asking whether three or more commissioners object
to any of the waivers in the report.
Thank you.
Are there any speakers?
No speakers.
We have one but we cannot find them.
Okay.
Thank you.
Can you check for ex partes too?
Are there any ex parte's on any of the items on the report?
None?
Okay, do three or more commissioners object
to any of the items on the CD report?
Seeing none, the commission concurs.
So that moves us to item 13A, I believe.
Yes, that's correct.
Thank you.
So we have item 13A, that's application 52310,
the Carver application in San Clemente.
And Emily Greer with our Long Beach office
is going to do the staff presentation.
So Emily, as soon as you're ready, please begin.
And we do have a staff PowerPoint where it is.
Great.
Thanks, Carl.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Item 13A is a coastal development permit application
to remove an existing mobile home
and replace it with a new mobile home on a beachfront mobile home
space.
The applicants are Clara and Kevin Carver.
Next slide please. The project site, Unit 19, is located within the Capistrano Shores mobile home park in the City of San Clemente.
The park is located between the first public road, El Camino Real, in the railroad tracks and the sea.
The park is also located directly seaward of the Commission-approved public trails and recreational parks along the coastal bluffs of the Marblehead Coastal Site.
The park is a legal nonconforming use on a stretch of perch beach developed with a single
row of 90 mobile homes parallel to the shoreline.
The law is zoned privately owned open space and is designated as open space in the city
of San Clemente certified land use plan.
Next slide please.
Here is a close up aerial of the subject mobile home space.
Next slide please.
The applicants are proposing to remove an existing one story 12 and a half foot tall
approximately 1500 square foot mobile home and replace it with a new two-story 25-foot tall
approximately 3,000 square foot mobile home on a beachfront mobile home space at unit 19.
Minor landscaping and drainage improvements are also proposed.
A pre-coastal act rock revetment and bulkhead protects the park property from direct wave
attack. No improvements are proposed to the existing revetment as a part of this application.
The primary issues raised by the subject application concerns consistency with the Visual Resource
Policies of the Coastal Act with regard to the proposed height of 25 feet and whether
it preserves scenic resources and public coastal views. The Commission has consistently analyzed
visual resource impacts resulting from development in this location and on a case-by-case basis.
In this case, scenic coastal vistas are available from El Camino Royale,
Avenue to Pico, and adjacent surrounding public recreational areas, including the public trails
and open space system on the uplands associated with the Marblehead Coastal Site. As shown on
this slide, in past Commission actions indicated in the blue box, the Commission has concluded that
for all sites down coast of the site starting at Unit 12, and a majority of sites up coast of the
site from Unit 22 to Unit 76, the height of 16 feet or less was found to be perspective of visual
resources in the area. Significantly further up-coast in five instances, units 80, 81, 85, 86, and 90,
sites that were greater than 16 feet were found to not have a significant adverse impact on the
ocean view shed from public areas along the Marblehead Trails. However, these were site-specific
determinations that considered the impacts based on many factors, including, but not limited to,
the distance between the vantage point and the structure, the height and angle from which the
viewer sees the structure and the vista beyond it, the presence of other development and vegetation
in the foreground and surrounding area, and the bulk and scale of the structure. Next slide, please.
So in the left photo on this slide is the existing 12 and a half foot tall mobile home at unit 19.
In the second photo from the left you can see a rendering of the proposed 25 foot tall replacement
mobile home. Staff reviewed the applicant's visual impact study and concluded that at the
proposed development height of 25 feet. There's a significant blue water view obstruction by the
proposed structure's elevation as viewed from the Coastal Love Trails at the Marblehead site.
The applicant provided an updated visual analysis to evaluate the impacts that a 16-foot tall step
back design, 16 feet high on the street side, and 12.5 feet high on the ocean side, may have on
public views of the ocean. As shown in the right photo on this slide, the visual analysis demonstrated
that a 16-foot-tall step-back mobile home is sufficiently protective of visual resources.
After informing the applicants of commission staff's likely recommendation of the 16-foot-tall
step-back design, the applicants submitted an additional visual analysis to evaluate the
impacts of an 18-foot-tall mobile home and an 18-foot-tall step-back mobile home, 18 feet
high on the street side and 15 feet 8 inches high on the ocean side. The applicants informed staff
that a 16-foot-tall mobile home would create a substantial reduction in functional living space
compared to an 18-foot-tall mobile home. The applicants also voiced concerns to staff regarding
privacy issues that the 16-foot-tall step-back design would create, as this design would allow
the neighboring residents to look directly into their home, specifically their master bedroom.
The applicants stated that they felt these alternatives were a good compromise from their
original proposal of a 25-foot-tall mobile home. However, the analysis displayed here
in the middle and the second photo to the right on this slide shows that the 18 foot tall and 18
foot tall step back designs would result in significant impacts to visual resources,
including obstruction of blue water views as compared to the existing conditions on site.
Next slide please. This slide shows a comparison of all alternatives as seen from a different
viewpoint of the Marblehead Trails. Next slide please. In conclusion staff reviewed the applicant's
various visual impact studies and concluded that the 16-foot tall step-back design is
most protective of coastal resources, including public views. As was shown in the previous
slides with the 16-foot high step-back mobile home, the visual impact substantially lessens.
Thus, staff recommends imposing special condition 1, which would require the applicant to submit
revised final plans for a 16-foot tall step-back mobile home. With regard to potential hazards
on site, conditions are included that require the applicants to acknowledge that the mobile
home has no future automatic right to a shoreline protective device and to require removal of
the mobile home if the structure becomes unsafe for use. Therefore, staff is recommending
approval of the subject application with 10 special conditions. Motion and resolution
can be found on page 5 of the staff report. Since publication of the staff report, Commission
staff received a letter from the applicant's representative. The letter reiterates the applicant's
opposition to staff's recommendation of the 16-foot tall step-back design and states that
their preference is the 18-foot tall step-back alternative. The letter also raises concerns
with multiple special conditions. There is an addendum to this item responding to the
correspondence received from the applicants, which was posted with this item on the Commission's
website. Staff's recommendation of approval with 10 special conditions remains unchanged.
to staff presentation and staff is available for questions. Thank you Ms.
Greer. Okay are there any expertise to report? None? Okay we'll open the public
hearing and if I could ask the applicant how much time they'd like. Eight minutes
it is. And I do have a presentation we can bring that up. Okay well good
afternoon Chair Harmon and honorable commissioners thank you for giving us
opportunity to make our presentation. We've worked well with staff and with
Ms. Greer. She's been very professional and nice to work with. This application
started out as a 25, as a request for a 25 foot mobile home which would be a
comfortable two stories. Speaking with with Ms. Greer, we try to work on a
compromise and we literally got within 24 inches of an agreement and I
thought we could get there but we didn't quite get there. So that's really what
this is about we're here today not to ask you for the 25-foot structure that
Clara and Kevin have asked for, but the 18-foot structure that was referenced
in Ms. Greer's report. There's a your staff, they believe that the 16-foot
height will is required if we go any higher than that it's going to cause a
material disruption to coastal views from the Sea Summit or Marblehead
trails. And they what they showed you on the staff report was actually pictures
from our multiple view studies. We did it and we did it a couple of times trying
to you know trying to reach the compromise that I referenced a second ago
but we didn't get there. The problem with the 16 foot is that it leaves the
carvers with seven to seven and a half foot ceilings in their home which would
be you know very very low ceilings. This is probably 10 feet. I think the the
the absolute minimum that we see in houses at eight feet.
So at 16 feet, that's what we're looking at
is ceilings that were seven and a half feet
and it's really not very workable.
That problem is solved with just another 24 inches
of building height to get up to 18 feet
from the street level.
And from our assessment of what we can see
from the view impacts is that it's negligible
to no difference in what the view would be.
And part of that is because the substantial viewpoints here
are not right at the house.
They're between 300 and 700 feet away horizontally,
and they're from 30 feet to 100 feet above it.
So even at the lowest viewpoint that we've looked at,
you're looking well over the roof of the house.
The other reason why 18 feet works
is because the primary view is actually
to the north of Unit 19, looking to the southwest.
And on the south side of the carver's home
is a 25-foot house, and so making them come down to 16,
all you're doing is viewers at the trails
are only going to see more of the house next to it.
They're not necessarily going to see more ocean.
And I'm going to try to demonstrate that to you
with this PowerPoint that we have up on the screen.
Is there a clicker to change?
OK.
That'd be fine if you could do it.
That'd be fine if you could call the public.
So I created an exhibit that shows,
Well, I don't know if that timer is on your screen.
The timer is blocking one of the viewpoints
that's on the screen there.
Can you minimize that?
There we go.
So there's a number of viewpoints that I looked at,
but I picked this just because I knew we'd have limited time.
I picked the three that I thought were most substantial.
And so it's viewpoint one, viewpoint two, and viewpoint three,
and they're all up in the Marblehead Trail system.
And those are the ones that look out
over the mobile home park, including the Carver unit,
which is depicted on this slide.
I have, for each viewpoint, I have two slides.
And I apologize, it's a little bit hard to see,
but that's because what we're looking at here
is I'm going to toggle between 16 and 18 feet,
but looking at it in this case
from a horizontal distance of 456 feet away,
which is where that viewpoint is.
This viewpoint was also in staff's presentation.
So what you're looking at here,
and the red arrow points to it,
is what the Carver's house would look like
and what you would see from viewpoint number one
at 16 feet.
and I have a laser pointer,
but it probably doesn't work on the screens you're looking at.
If I toggle over to the next slide, there's 18 feet.
And from my viewpoint,
you're not seeing any material difference in view.
You still have horizon, sunset, blue water, and white water.
But if we take it down to 16 feet,
you're doing at the expense of functional ceiling heights.
So that's why we believe that the extra two feet
makes a big difference.
So that's viewpoint one and I'll just go back and forth again.
That's 16 feet.
That's 18 feet.
16 feet, 18 feet.
Here we have viewpoint number two,
which is about not quite as far away.
It's a little bit lower.
It's 70 feet above it.
And it's 363 feet away horizontal.
That's the view.
This is a rendering of what it would be at 16 feet.
And the next slide as I toggle to it,
That's 18 feet.
And so there's a little bit taken out of blue water,
but there's still a tremendous blue water view from there.
And the same logic applies to our next view.
Here's viewpoint number three.
This is the lowest one, and I picked a low one on purpose.
It's only 39 feet above the grade at the Carver's House,
but it's 700 feet away.
This is in the Marblehead section
where there's a bridge over a small arroyo.
And it's not really the part of the trail where people go,
I don't think, to take in the view.
It's on the way to the view.
The first two, especially the first one,
those were the view.
This is on the way to the view.
But I put it there anyways,
and that's what 16 feet looks like.
Then if I toggle, that's what 18 feet looks like.
So the additional 24 inches doesn't,
it takes out a little bit of blue, but not very much.
And it comes out of the expense of seven foot,
or seven and a half foot ceilings
versus eight foot ceilings.
and that's what our plea is to you today.
And then, so what we ask then is that you approve
the Carver's House at 18.
We understand that coastal staff would like a step back.
I think a step back, as long as it was reasonable,
would still work, and we could work out with staff
what the details of that would be.
But what we're talking about is for the primary section
of the house, it would be 18,
And it's only the extra two feet
to get them eight foot ceilings.
And this little bit of a gratuitous slide,
it's kind of like when you buy something on the internet
and it tells you what you get,
depending on what level of service you buy.
Between 16 feet and 18 feet,
you get sunset, horizon, blue water, white water views.
So to us, anyways, there's very little difference
between the two in terms of views to the public,
but a huge improvement for the carvers
who have already compromised from 25 down to 18.
And I just having been having been on those trails
many times myself and looked across,
I can just tell you on a personal level,
I don't think anyone's ever gonna walk up there
and curse the Coastal Commission
for allowing an 18 foot house
because to them it's not gonna make a difference
whether it's what it is today or 16 or 18.
There's still gonna be this spectacular view
and no one's ever gonna fault you
as someone who's going up there to take a view to say,
hey, why did the Coastal Commission allow this?
This is wrong.
They'll never notice it.
It'll always be exactly beautiful the way it is today.
That's all I have.
Thank you very much, sir.
And you have 30 seconds left, which
we can save for rebuttal if so necessary.
I'll turn this mic off, I guess.
Thank you.
Are there any public comments?
None.
Thank you very much.
I'll turn it back to staff.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So one of the concerns that we try
to address in this community is the cumulative impact of the height of all these structures.
So as Emily laid out in our initial comments in this part of the park, the commission has
fairly consistently approved structures that are no higher than 16 feet.
So that is the genesis of our recommendation here.
We are looking at the impact from this individual project but also cumulatively across this
portion of the mobile home park.
So the other things I want to point out and it's hard to overlook are the 25-foot structures
that are right next door to this particular site.
And there are, I think, about 11 of those structures in the community that were anywhere
from 20 to 25 feet tall.
Those exist because as a result of litigation over these mobile home units that were the
work was undertaken without coastal development permits.
And the litigation history there, I mean, is a little bit complicated.
But in the end, the court finding was that these mobile home units had been approved
by operation of law.
So the Coastal Act was not applied to those 25-foot units, but they were allowed to remain.
So we don't, you know, we obviously can't ignore those but nonetheless we do want to
look at the long term and what this community is going to look like over the long haul.
And we're trying to apply some consistency in terms of heights and impacts.
Thank you.
Any final thoughts from the applicant?
30 seconds left.
Thank you.
because the other homes we're referring to are relevant here only because it does have
to be site specific.
And I think, you know, choosing 16 feet based on previous decisions kind of belies that,
right?
We're not doing site specific if we're just trying to be like the other ones.
I feel that we've demonstrated here that 18 feet versus 16 feet has no material impact
on coastal views, and so we ask that you approve it that way.
Thank you.
Thank you.
be clear, the staff is making a site-specific determination here by looking cumulatively
at this part of the park.
It's not entirely an accurate description of the staff.
Thank you for that clarification.
With that, I will close the hearing and bring it back to the commission.
Commissioner Preschiato.
Actually the deputy director responded to what I was going to look at.
I saw structures that are way above, and I was trying to understand where, what our basis
was for the individual determination.
I'm trying to get a better understanding from the perspective of our staff, and I believe
it's our staff in the Zoom.
Ms. Greer?
Yes, Ms. Greer.
Ms. Greer.
in his career, how do you, I see the applicant presented points of view that show almost
no discernible difference, at least from his artifacts, the 16 versus the 18 feet, how
do, what is the process that we undertake to make the determination that 16 feet is
the appropriate level?
I'm interested in the methodology.
Emily, do you want to respond just briefly
about what our process is for the visual impact assessment?
And then we can add in after you're done.
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
So one thing I would note is we do analyze these projects
and compare them to the existing conditions on site.
So when we're looking at the various alternatives,
we're comparing them to the existing and not necessarily
each alternative.
So we want to make sure that whichever alternative we select
is the most protective alternative.
And in this case, we need to determine
that it was the 16th most setback alternative
compared to the existing conditions on site.
Carl, feel free to add any questions.
I guess just to reiterate, I'm wondering
what's the difference between 16 and 16 and 1-1-1-2.
So I'm trying to get you to tell me technically
why 16 feet was chosen.
Well again we were looking at heights across this particular site but also across the community
in this area and you know our objective here is to minimize the impact to coastal resources
and minimize the coastal view impact as much as possible but still allow for some reasonable
amount of development on the property so you know the difference between 16 and
you know perhaps 16 and a half feet I can understand there's there's some
subjectivity there and that's that's something you certainly can consider but
from staff's perspective we thought the 16-foot was the most appropriate
related to the step backs.
Can you show us and discuss the step backs?
I'm sorry, the question was about the step backs.
Is it step backs or step backs?
Step backs.
Step backs, yes.
Can you comment on those?
Sure.
So when we're looking at these structures, a lot of time,
as you can see from those viewpoints,
we're looking at them from an angle.
And we're looking at whether it's
possible to allow for a significant portion
of the structure to be at one height.
But where it projects out closest to the water,
we're looking to try to minimize, again, that impact.
So by stepping the structure, the height, the roof height
down at the point where it's closest to the water,
you're able to capture more of the whitewater and ocean view.
And that's something that applicants
have proposed to us in the past.
That was something that project applicants came up with
and convinced us that that was a good way of allowing
both some additional height on the back of the property
while still, you know, maintaining the,
or lowering the view impact, as much as possible.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate the opportunity to ask the questions.
I may speak when the motions are made.
Thank you.
Could I also just add that the prevailing height,
generally, in the mobile home park is 13 to 14 feet,
and the commission has approved other homes
in the 15 to 16 foot range that were constructed.
So, not that it's infeasible to construct a home.
I am inclined to agree with the project sponsor and allow the 18 feet.
I think actually from a visual, if you go from 25 to 18 and then the other one is down,
I'm perfectly fine with it.
I did not see a huge difference in the whole thing.
And I'm not agreeing to the step back.
I think go with the 18, make it a functionable home, and we all move on.
So how do I make that motion?
So you can put the base motion, so make the motion
as proposed in the staff recommendation in a second.
And then you can make an amending motion
to go up to 16 feet for that special position.
Sorry, it's 18 feet.
That's the amending motion.
So you can put the original motion on the floor,
even if you're unwilling to ultimately vote yes on that,
if your amending motion fails.
But there's nothing about you putting the original motion
That means you have to vote yes if the amount of motion fails.
While we do that there's a few more comments so maybe we'll go to Commissioner Jackson.
Sure, thank you, thank you staff.
Thank you for being here, certainly appreciate your your ask here.
So just real quick and I understand this is project specific, but the non-conforming the
The 25-foot buildings, those were built without approval.
Went to court, judge says, too bad, too sad.
Operation of law, they're built
and nothing we can do, is that?
Yeah, I can give a sort of very brief.
There were a number, there were, I believe, 13 homes
where they had built second stories without a permit.
And so we brought all 13 to the commission for action,
recommending denial of the second story that was unpermitted.
The first one went forward, the commission denied it.
The other 12, we believed withdrew their applications,
and the commission moved on.
So they were all built basically at the same time?
They were all, I don't know exactly when, but I think
the enforcement unit found out about them,
and we took them forward all at the same time.
And the litigation commenced, and the applicants
for those other 12 said that they didn't actually
withdraw their applications.
So they were approved under the Permit Streamlining Act
because the commission didn't act within the 60 days.
That's how that happened.
Interesting.
Okay, thank you.
The applicant mentioned seven and a half foot ceilings.
So if we went to 17 feet and they could have
an eight foot ceiling,
if there were a splitting of the difference there.
I suppose that's possible,
but I wasn't personally aware of this problem
but the ceilings, it's not an issue that I have heard
in the past with 16 foot structures.
And we've, and 16 is the max that this commission
has approved in the past.
16 feet is what the commission has approved
in this part of the park.
Right, okay.
There are some structures that were approved taller
up to 18 feet at the very northern end of the park
where the views were very distant
and the impacts were, you know, indiscernible.
So higher on one end, higher on the end where they are,
and they're sort of stuck in the middle?
Actually, it's higher on the very far end
and sort of progressively lowers
as you get progressed to the south.
So 16 feet, sort of roughly in the middle
as you get to the very southern part of the park
where it's very view sensitive.
We have projects that were limited to even 12 feet.
Oh, OK.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley has a question.
Just very quickly, the foliage that's actually
on the train side, is that the railroad's responsibility?
Who actually monitors the height of that?
Because some of these views that could change depending
on how big those trees are.
So I don't know if you know that answer.
Offhand, I'm not certain.
But you do have the railroad right of way.
That does extend, I think, beyond the fence.
So I think some of that vegetation
is in the railroad right of way.
Some of it may be actually on the Capistrano Shores
mobile home parks property.
I don't think, at least the majority of it,
is on the parcels that are controlled
by these individual applicants.
Commissioner Hart, Vice Chair Hart.
So personally, I'm supporting staff.
We've had a number of these come before us.
And I'm looking, as staff mentioned,
at the cumulative impact of creating
sort of a wall of these mobile homes that
would have a significant impact.
So I, you know, I just feel very strongly replaced that notation.
You know, Louise, are you like, you want to say something?
No. I'll continue to, in that case, hard on Zoom.
So in any event, I'm prepared to make the motion.
And it sounds like there might be an amending motion.
And then we'll just go from there.
So let me make a motion.
I move the Commission to approve coastal development permit application number 5-23-0010.
I know soon to the staff recommendation I'm asking for yes vote and I'd like to
with all due respect to staff I don't like to disagree with staff but I'd like
to amend the motion to provide for 18 feet I'll second the amendment would
either the maker or seconder the amending motion like to speak to it no
just that I feel like you know having eight foot ceilings is seven foot
ceilings to me is not particularly livable and 18 feet and I also kind of
like the idea of having 25 you know the 25s they are next door having it step
down I think is visually I didn't see that. Thank you. Commissioner Portiato. In the
artifacts that were presented by the applicant I didn't see a discernible
impact on the cultural resource from the trails that went from the 16 feet to the 18 feet.
I appreciate staff's due diligence, but I also didn't get a good sense of how we come
up with the 16 versus 16 and a half.
So I'm interested in working with staff and understanding these things better moving forward.
For this particular individual property, I was convinced I'm hoping my colleagues will
join me in a yes vote on the amendment.
Thank you.
Commissioner Jackson.
Just one comment.
I correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the staff said that 16 is what we have permitted
historically.
That wasn't a number we just pulled out of the past.
Is that correct?
correct, and I just want to also add in the prior litigation the Commission did
Commission the home for which the Commission denied the second story
They also sued and the Commission did prevail in that litigation. That was part of that story that I should have included
I think it was a requirement that the second story be removed off the top of my head
I don't recall how how many feet tall it was after the second story was removed
But Commissioner Jackson is correct that the commission has approved tones in the 15 to 16 foot range in this area
None, okay, I'll say for my part I do share the concerns about cumulative impacts
I mean that is it is an important part of
our
sort of set of
considerations that said I do think looking specifically at this site and
and the impacts are very, very low, minimal.
And I do agree that the livability of the seven feet
is challenging.
And there's something to be said for the sort
of organic sloping from 25 down to 18.
So while I think there are good arguments on both sides,
on balance for me, I will be with respect to the good work
that our staff has done.
Trying to resolve this issue, I will be voting yes
the amended motion as well. With that, Ms. Miller, if we could have a roll call vote please.
Commissioner Kelly. To confirm this is a vote on the amending motion. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Lopez. Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes.
Yes.
Commissioner Notall?
No.
Notall?
No.
Commissioner others?
Yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
Commissioner Hart?
No.
No.
Commissioner Jackson?
No.
Commissioner Herman?
Yes.
The vote is adjourned.
Yes.
The vote is adjourned.
Yes.
The vote is adjourned.
The vote is adjourned.
The vote is adjourned.
No.
Yes, the vote is seconded.
Thank you, Ms. Miller.
The application has been approved as amended.
No, no, no, no, no, the main motion is to decide
whether to approve an 18-foot call.
And now we will take the main motion incorporating
the amendments that we just voted on.
Thank you.
May we have a roll call vote, Ms. Miller?
Commissioner Lopez.
Commissioner Lopez.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lohanburg?
Yes.
Lohanburg, yes.
Commissioner Nada?
Yes.
Nada, yes.
Commissioner Presiado?
Yes.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Hart?
Hart, no.
Commissioner Jackson?
Yes.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly?
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
Now the application is approved thank you okay thank you very much now we'll
move on to item 14 the San Diego coast district deputy directors report thank
you so in this report we're reporting the completion of the LCP amendment
certification for two amendments by the City of Del Mar and two amendments by
the City of Carlsbad. In each of these cases the executive director has
determined the city's actions are legally adequate. Also reporting on an
emergency CDP for upper bluff stabilization at 212 Fifth Street in
Encinitas. This work was deemed necessary following bluff erosion that occurred
following a magnitude 5.2 earthquake in eastern San Diego County on April 14th, 2025.
And the follow-up permit for that matter will come from the City of Encinitas.
We're also reporting seven waivers, one CDP amendment, and one CDP extension
for projects in San Diego, Del Mar, and Encinitas.
No known opposition, so we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to the waivers,
the amendment or the extension thank you mr. Schwing are there any ex partes on
any of the matters in the DD report none I'll ask if there are any members of the
public that wish to speak on any of the items in the report you have to on zoom
but they're only available for question wonderful thank you okay are there are
three or more commissioners who object to any item in the report seeing none
the Commission concurs. Thank you. And the next item I believe is our final
item today and that's item 16b. Thank you and Lindsay Kane with our San Diego
Coast District Office is going to do the staff presentation on that item. So let's
Let's pull up the staff PowerPoint and thank you, Carl.
Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners.
Item 16B is a CDP application from Craig and Terry
Rubinstein to demolish an existing duplex
and build a new duplex.
Staff is recommending approval of the project with revisions
requiring the home be raised approximately 6.5 feet
above grade because of the risk to life and property from wave overtopping and flooding
on this site.
The applicant opposes this requirement.
There is an addendum to this item responding to a public comment opposing the recommendation
and to another addressing parking requirements.
Next slide, please.
The project is located in South Mission Beach in the city of San Diego adjacent to the public
boardwalk known as Ocean Front Walk.
There's no commission permit history for this site and the existing structure was built
in 1975.
The site is located within the commission's permit jurisdiction where Chapter III of
the Coastal Act is the standard of review.
The City of San Diego Land Development Code and the Mission Beach planned district ordinance
are used as guidance.
Next slide please.
Mission Beach is a low-lying area on a narrow peninsula situated between the Pacific Ocean
to the west and Mission Bay to the east.
The proposed project meets most of the City's certified LCP standards, including parking,
height, landscaping, and lot coverage.
The existing structure encroaches into the required setback from Ocean Front Walk, but
the new one will be set back the required distance, improving public access and views.
However, the project does not comply with the construction standards in the City's LCP
that requires protection from sea level rise hazards, or with the Chapter 3 policies requiring
that new development minimizes risk to life and property in areas of high geologic flood
and fire hazard.
Next slide please.
The applicant argues that the site is not at risk from sea level rise and thus should
not be required to raise the home to the standards required in the LCP, again that is by 6.5
feet.
Alternatively, the applicant suggests that raising the home by two feet, similar to
what the Commission recently required from the nearby Mission Beach home, would
be sufficient. However, there is substantial evidence that this subject
site is currently at risk and will be at increasing risk in the future. The
neighborhood currently experiences periodic flooding that will likely
increase with sea level rise. Even under current sea levels, waves periodically
overtop the public boardwalk and cause flooding.
The photo on this slide is from February 2024
and shows high sea levels and waves overtopping the seawall,
which protects the public boardwalk
and crashing into private properties
on the left side of the photo.
Next slide, please.
In response to these overtopping events
and the evolving understanding of sea level rise,
the City of San Diego updated its LCP in recent years
to require that new development be cited and designed
to minimize flood hazards and establish construction standards for development in areas of future
sea level rise. The City's LCP contains detailed and specific construction standards for development
located in a special flood hazard area, but the key point in contention with this project
is the requirement of the development be raised on piles at least two feet above the nearest
space flood elevation of 18 feet NAVD 88 for the site that will result in the structure
being raised approximately 6.5 feet above grade.
Next slide please.
The areas of future sea level rise refer to areas shown in the sea level rise prediction
model COSMOS, which I will go over in the next few slides.
The FEMA special flood hazard zones for the southern portion of Mission Beach are shown
on this slide with the subject site pointed to with the red marker.
Zooming in from the image on the previous slide, we see that a portion of the subject
site is within a current FEMA Coastal High Hazard Area or VE zone, meaning the development
has to comply with the previously mentioned LCP policies.
Additionally, the City of San Diego reviewed this proposal and confirmed that these LCP
policies apply at this site.
In addition to elevation, the LCP requires additional construction standards, all of
which are required in special condition number one.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows an image from Cosmos.
The arrows show the expected location of wave run-up on a normal, non-storm day in Mission
Beach with no sea level rise.
The applicant asserts that the site is not and will not be impacted by sea level rise
over the project lifespan.
However, commissioned staff disagrees.
During FEMA mapping, COSMOS projections of wave run-up and visual evidence, it is clear
the site is impacted by wave overtopping that will only get worse as sea levels continue
to rise.
Additionally, the entire Mission Beach community is about 2 miles long, meaning there is no
significant difference between the most northern and southern Mission Beach sites, or specific
projections in COSMOS to conclude that these areas of the same community should be treated
differently when implementing adaptation measures.
This slide shows projected wave run-up during an annual storm with no sea level rise.
Note that the red arrows have moved inland from the previous slide.
During an annual storm, the wave run-up is projected to be past the boardwalk in some
areas, including past the site on Dealport.
This slide shows wave run-up during a 100-year storm, again with no sea level rise.
how the red arrows have moved across the Mission Beach Peninsula all the way to
Mariner's Point. During an extreme storm the wave run-up is projected to be well
beyond all the structures in Mission Beach, meaning that wave action along
with sustained inundation, which will be shown on the next slide, will render the
entirety of Mission Beach in danger of significant impacts. Typically when
using the Cosmos program, Commission staff input 4.9 feet of sea level rise
and a 100 year storm scenario which is consistent with the Commission's
sea level rise guidance. On the slide we see this projection 4.9 feet at 100
year storm on the right and a scenario with less sea level rise 4.1 feet on the
left. The existing structure at 2865 ocean front walk is outlined in red. The blue
on the map represents areas of sustained inundation and shows serious
flooding concerns for the Mission Beach Peninsula. While there are a few areas
along ocean front walk not covered by blue, these areas are seaward of the
projected wave run-up, meaning that they would be subject to significant
periodic flooding from fast-moving waves during a large storm and not safe for
people or structures not designed for wave attack. Next slide please. This slide
shows additional evidence of wave overtopping at the site, which is
outlined in red. In the aerial image from December 2022, waves overtalked ocean front
walk shown through the darker shade of the boardwalk and evidence that sand has built
up on the public path. Additionally, the beach shows signs of wet sand and debris such as
seaweed near the boardwalk. Next slide please. Zooming out slightly in the same Google aerial
imagery from 2022, it is clear to see areas where the waves shaped the sand and where
and the waves did not reach and left dry sand.
This further demonstrates that wave overtopping
has occurred at this site
and even further south of the site.
Next slide, please.
The requirements placed on this permit
are the same as those placed on the Sliderman Permit
approved earlier this year.
That is that the structure be elevated to height necessary
to accommodate flooding per the FEMA flood zone
in closest proximity to the subject site.
As shown on the slide with the yellow star
showing the subject site and the red star
showing the Slitterman site.
In this case, that would require raising the structure
approximately 6.5 feet.
While the applicant's proposal for a three-story structure
would not comply with the LCP policies,
a two-story structure with garage and storage area
below the first floor can be accommodated at this site.
Finally, commission staff note that regional adaptation
measures are needed to keep the entirety of Mission Beach safe.
While the city of San Diego has begun efforts to address this growing issue, the mission
staff continue to encourage the city to work with us on finding solutions to the growing
issue of sea level rise and in particular for the Mission Beach community.
The city's efforts to certify policies to protect structures and hazardous areas is
a great first step but more needs to be done to reach regional resilience.
Next slide please.
In conclusion, as conditioned, the project will be consistent with the sea level rise
policies of the Mission Beach PDO, the land development code, and of chapter
three of the Coastal Act. Therefore, commission staff recommends that the
commission approve coastal development permit application 6240375 as
conditioned. The motion is on page five. This concludes staff's presentation and we
are available for any questions. Thank you very much. Are there any ex parte's on
this item? Thanks. Being none, we will open the public hearing and I'll ask the
applicant how much I misneeded and a
microphone at the base congratulations
commissioner I'm Steve Kaufman for the
applicants Greg and Terry Rubenstein I
would respectfully request 15 minutes
because of the technicality involved in this and if that would include any brief
rebuttal but I don't think there's going to be any. Okay, 15 minutes. Thank you so much, I
appreciate it. And I have a PowerPoint to share with quite a number of slides and
I hope you keep up with me because I want to go through them quickly. So first slide, next slide, next slide please.
This is the existing and proposed duplex in South Mission Beach. The footprint, number of
stories, height, and number of units. Next slide. Context on this one matters. They have
uncritically painted Mission Beach with just too broad a brush. South Mission Beach in
this area is different from North Mission Beach. The duplex site fronts a beach about
four times as wide as the beach in North Mission Beach. The sweep of the coast differs, the
jetty stops sand transport from north to south and the result is the beach is very wide in
south and waves break further out. It's very narrow in the north and as you could see waves
break far closer to the ocean front structure as illustrated by the photo that you saw which
is from North Mission Beach. You haven't seen anything from South Mission Beach. North of that line
enter a place cited in the staff report and the San Juan place which was shown in a letter from
and lastly so litterman which you required be elevated by just two feet
two months ago and we're asking you to do the same today. Next slide. The
standard of review here for you is not the LCP. A lot of discussion about the
LCP. The standard of review is the Coastal Act in section 30253 which says
new development shall minimize risk, delight, and property. The
And contradicted evidence is that as proposed or with the finished floor elevation raised
by two feet, which we've requested, the duplex will minimize risk of life and property as
you found in Salittarman.
The LCP is what we call non-binding guidance, not the standard, but most importantly, simply
not applicable.
Next slide.
The sole basis for staff's recommendation to raise a duplex six and a half feet is this
Section 132.0404A of the LCP, which by its terms is not applicable because the duplex
in this area won't be subject to sea level rise during a 75-year design life as demonstrated
by all current sea level rise vulnerability maps.
So there's no legal basis to require the duplex to be raised six and a half feet.
And to be fair, the project should be treated the same as the litter map.
A catfric mendation is effectively a denial.
It's not an approval.
It will kill this project because there's
no reason to replace a three-story duplex with a two
story one elevated on pile.
So we're asking you to approve this application
with just two changes.
Delete the reference to the LCP section cited in special
condition one because they don't apply.
The duplex won't be subject to sea level rise
during its 75-year design life.
and I'll show you for many years after that,
and modify special conditions 1A and B
to require the finished floor elevation
and the duplex to be raised by two feet.
And I've provided you with a handout
because I think it's easier for you
to visualize what I'm asking for.
Next slide.
This table is from the Ocean Protection Council's
2024 update you adopted last November.
It shows sea level rise scenarios applicable
to Mission Beach near 2100,
The most likely sea level rise, 1.6 feet.
And least likely, 4.8 feet, which is what we will use.
Next slide.
The staff report says it relies on Cosmos,
but every vulnerability map, including Cosmos,
demonstrates that in this area,
sea level rise won't reach the site.
So the first is 4.1 feet of sea level rise in about 2092.
It doesn't reach the site.
Next slide.
Sea level rise at 4.9 feet, just over the 4.8 feet.
in about 2101, the low rise doesn't reach the site.
Next slide.
Even with sea level rise at 6.6 feet,
Cosmos shows you that in about 2122,
it doesn't reach the site.
Next slide.
Other models.
This is NOAA, five feet of sea level rise in about 2102,
doesn't reach the site.
And the last one on this issue.
Coastal Resilience, next slide please.
Coastal Resilience, that's the Nature Conservancy.
sea level rise at five feet in 2102 doesn't reach the site.
So commissioners, the uncontradicted evidence
demonstrates that the LCP sections cited
in special condition one and staff recommendation
to elevate by six and a half feet
don't apply because the duplex simply
isn't in an area of sea level rise
within the 75 year horizon or even beyond.
There's no legal or scientific basis
to raise the structure that high.
Next slide.
Turning to flooding, which is a separate issue,
Cosmos shows that in this area, flooding, if any,
would come not from the ocean, but from the bay.
And the duplex, as proposed, wouldn't
be at risk from sea level rise plus 100-year storm event.
This site is notable, because the duplex has no FEMA base
flood elevation at all.
It's in the FEMA firm zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard.
Zone X here means an area with a 0.02% annual chance of flooding where the average depth
is less than one foot.
And consistent with FEMA, the duplex would be over one foot above any unlikely surface
water up from the bay, and it's at an acknowledged high point where all surface water would
flow downhill.
There will feed towards the bay.
Next slide.
This shows two scenarios, sea level rise at 4.1 feet plus 100-year storm around 2092.
water doesn't reach the site. On the right sea level rise 4.9 feet plus a
hundred year storm event where surface water from the bay would reach the site
after the 75 year horizon and about 2101. Next slide. Again FEMA explains that a
hundred year storm event in zone X means just a 0.02% annual chance of
flooding where the average depth is less than a foot. The duplex as proposed would
be more than one foot above any 100-year storm event and at the end of the 75-year period
and safe from any flood threat. But, clearly, it would be safe from flooding if, as we now
propose, the finish floor elevation of the duplex is raised another two feet. That's
three feet total. Next slide. The duplex also is not at risk from wave run-up or overtopping.
I have several points to make on that. First, daily engineering to the 17-page site-specific
coastal hazards analysis in June 2024,
specifically calculated wave run-up and overtopping,
applying ACEs, a respected Army Corps program,
using then six feet of sea level rise
higher than the OPC later 2024 update.
He calculated wave run-up would be well short of the site,
contrary to the addendum,
he used the highest historical water level
and accounted for infagravity,
wave setup, and El Nino.
In contrast, the staff has provided
no report, no analysis, and no site-specific calculation.
Next slide.
Second, a close-up of that boundary
between firm zone X, less than 1 foot,
and firm zone VE elevation 18, which starts way out
of the ocean and eventually terminates at the duplex site.
The shade on the left is to distinguish the two sites.
That's not water.
At the point that it ends, the wave bore has dissipated to zero, or nearly zero.
If it was more than that, FEMA would have extended that line further inland, but didn't.
It's the same with zone X, but at a point where surface flow from the bay would have
thinned and dissipated to zero.
The whole point of, that's the whole point of the FEMA firm designation, to identify
where a structure will be safe, and it says here the structure will be safe from wave
run-up.
Next slide.
Third, your staff hyperbolically asserts that waves would crash into the duplex.
That's wrong.
This is not North Mission Beach.
And the FEMA table, I've shown you here, shows overtopping in Zone X where the duplex
step back from Ocean Front Walk is located.
And converting that figure in the table, the volume of water you see per second per foot
of beach is one one hundredth of an inch of water.
Almost nothing.
Nonanalyzed by staff and there's never been flooding, run-up or overtopping at this duplex.
Fourth, staff relies incorrectly on Cosmos, which has a disclaimer.
The USGS and our coast, our future, both explain Cosmos as a model is appropriate for regional
planning like LCPs, but is specifically not intended for site-specific use.
And the disclaimer specifically states, the tool and its data aren't to be used for permitting.
And indeed, the disclaimer requires the user, including your staff, to actually agree that
it's not to be used for permitting, because if you don't hit the agree button, and change
the slide, please, if you don't hit that agree button down in the right-hand corner, the
program doesn't let you use the model.
It doesn't work.
But staff used it anyway, and unfortunately, did so incorrectly.
So next slide.
If the duplex is at Ocean Front Walk and Deal Court, which slopes down several feet to the
Using zero feet of sea level rise at an annual storm,
staff erroneously points to a dot on the Cosmos model
to argue that run-up and overtopping extends beyond the duplex
by two blocks down the deal court,
and even across the bay to Meritor's Point,
which is physically impossible.
Next slide. This slide shows sea level rise at deal court at zero feet,
1.6 feet, and 3.1 feet, but with no storm.
I show you this only for one reason. This is what we all know. Wave run-up
dots are where you'd expect the run-up to end uniformly on the beach, not
downhill on deal accord. Next slide. I want to compare apples to apples. While
staff showed you a dot at zero feet sea level rise in an annual storm, this shows
sea level rise higher at 1.6 feet and an annual storm. You can see the dot
still on the beach, not on Deal Court. So why is that? Next slide. Because Cosmos
shows you that the staff's dot isn't related to the ocean at all. It's related
to maximum flooding from the Cosmos model. It comes from the bay and max flooding at
zero feet, annual flooding ends at the location of the dot two blocks down Deal Court.
Next slide. And staff also showed you this. This is exhibit 10 to the staff
report a December 2022 Google aerial and they claim that it shows overtopping.
That's wrong again. It shows exactly the opposite. The city seawall has evenly
spaced weep holes and they're quite large at its bottom and in the lower
image you can see that run up that day reached the seawall where the water
passed through the weep holes at the bottom of the seawall along with evenly
spaced riblets of sand onto the boardwalk. And this exhibit really shows
you that unlike North Mission Beach where the beach is narrow and the waves
are far closer the impact here is different. Where the beach is very wide
the waves break much further out. Next slide. Finally the staff report I think
here today creates a misimpression that city staff somehow supports Dick
Verstaff's position but that's not what city and what staff asked. It's not how
the city responded and I've included the email exchange as the last exhibit
accompanying my letter to you. Staff presented its question in terms of an
assumption that the site is in an area subject to sea level rise. City staff
wasn't asked about sea level rise, didn't analyze, review, or address it.
City staff merely confirmed your staff's interpretation that if this duplex is
subject to sea level rise, which as shown is clearly not, the LCP requires elevating
by 6.5 feet. And before I conclude, next slide, you know, I want to make it really
clear. The LCP provision the staff is relying upon speaks to sea level rise. Sea level rise
is permanent, it's vertical, it's long-term, it's not like wave run-up, horizontal and
temporal. It's not like overtopping. Same thing, temporal, it's, there are two different,
three different things frankly. I've provided you with the handout with the
edits for requesting a special condition one. Please delete the LCP references
cited because they don't apply. The site won't be subject to sea level rise
within the 75 year design life of the structure. And second, modify special
conditions 1a and b by requiring the lowest finish floor including any
basement to be raised two feet. Although I think I've shown you that this site is
not at risk from flooding, wave run-up, or overtopping. In April you did approve
Salitterman in North Mission Beach to raise his finish floor elevation by two
feet and despite the photograph you saw there, you found it to be
safe and in fairness we'll do the same thing. So we agreed to the rest of the
conditions and the requirements of special condition one. We can't agree to
raise this six and a half feet. We've skinnied it by adding those two feet
more? Eight feet. Eight feet ceilings. One foot separation between the the floors
and it comes to 30 feet and that's the height limit. I don't know how you get to
16 feet with these ceilings but you got to have something between them. I would
like to reserve any remaining time if it's necessary. Thank you very much. Thank you
Mr. Kauffman. Are there any members of the public wish to speak on this item?
We have Larry Webb. Thank you commissioners. My wife and I have owned the property
adjacent to the Rubenstein project for 33 years on Ocean Front Walk. I can count
of one hand the number of times that ocean water has came through the wheat
poles at the base of the seawall and maybe twice that waves that hit the
seawall and splashed over but there has been no direct overlapping I guess is a
correct term sorry if my terms are correct over the seawall ever in that
area that I know of in the last 33 years. The picture that staff showed from North
Mission Beach is a completely different animal than South
Mission Beach, period. That really is an inflammatory picture, I'm surprised
it's being shown because it's just a completely different picture on that
part of it. I'm on the Mission Beach precise planning board and building a
building on six and a half foot pillars would be a complete albatross and
completely out of character the entire Mission Beach community it would just
it's almost absurd how it would look in comparison to the rest of the
community I would also have a concern that if pillars were required the
vibration required to put those pillars into the ground far enough to hold up a
six and a half foot height would damage not only the seawall but adjacent
properties to it as well that I fully have to go along with them on saying the
two foot is more than sufficient my building is 60 was built in the 60s it's
built on a two-foot foundation I've seen where it is and I fully support that I
don't know them other than having met them since twice since they owned the
property but I've lived in Mission Beach before the years.
The recommendations of staff just don't work. Thank you. There are no other speakers.
Thank you very much. Mr. Kaufman you have 40 seconds remaining if you'd like to
have any final thoughts. Thank you. As a matter of law, matter of fact,
Berenice and just agreed to raise the finish floor elevation by two feet. It
really makes no sense to require Saliderman with a narrow beach far
closer to wave action to raise his finish floor elevation by two feet. Because the
sea level rise section of the LCP doesn't apply here. You have discretion to make a
different. You said that's okay and safe. It doesn't make any sense anyway to
require that we raise this. So I'm twisted my clients to go two feet
because we don't really believe we should have to but at this point we're
asking you to amend the made motion on page 6 of the staff as we request. I
appreciate your. Thank you. With that I'll close the public hearing and turn it back
to staff for their response. Thank you, Chair Harmon. So the arguments that the applicant
has made in response to the staff recommendation, we did cover each one of those points extensively
in our staff report addendum, but I do want to point out a few things. And also bring
our staff engineer on who is joining us remotely to speak to some of the points that Mr. Kauffman
made.
So Mr. Kauffman points out that the LCP here is not the standard of review.
And, you know, because this is an area of retained jurisdiction, that's generally correct.
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act is the standard overview here.
However, I want to point out that the current LCP policies that we're referencing were recently
certified by the commission last year and became effective in February of this year.
And those policies that we're drawing on were specifically to implement a Chapter 3 policy,
Section 30253 of the Coastal Act, which says that new development shall do all of the following,
including minimizing risks to life and property in areas of high geologic flood and fire hazard.
And the policies that we're referencing in the City's LCP were implemented in order
to do that.
So with that, I do want to ask Jeremy if he's available to, oh, there we are.
Jeremy, if you would speak to some of the points that Mr. Kaufmann made about, you know,
the technical comments that he made and our staff responses.
Yeah, thank you, Carl. Thank you, chair and commissioners. So Mr. Kauffman raised many
points that we addressed in the addendum. I'll try to start somewhat sequentially in
the points that were raised so that the question of whether the site is in an area that's subject
to sea level rise and as staff interprets that subject to hazards as worsened by sea
over the course of 75 years. The current FEMA flood zone, which ends almost directly at
the existing seaward wall of the current duplex, it ends right at the duplex. Now,
that's accounting for no sea level rise at all. It's current conditions, 100-year storm
conditions. With sea level rise, we expect that wave overtopping to worsen and it's going to worsen
non-linearly as in every one foot of sea level rise we're going to see
wave energy increase even worse the closer we get to shore. So just on that alone we think that's
enough evidence to say that the site is subject to hazards over its design life. But on the points
of the COSMOS mapping. COSMOS maps, they're done statewide, gets pretty complicated into
the weeds of how the scenarios are all done and how all the different factors are coming to play.
But one important piece of information to take when you're looking at those blue areas on a map
are that those blue areas are areas that are going to be underwater for minutes and minutes
at a time. And it's kind of misleading and it's hard to interpret on those, OCOF, that
our coastal future maps wave hazards. And that's because waves are something that comes
periodically. You'll get a rush of a wave overtopping. It moves very quickly. It can
be very damaging. It's not necessarily represented in those blue areas on the map. And so a lot
of those maps that Mr. Kaufman showed were not accounting for any sort of storm activity,
which is where we see those waves.
That's why in the maps shown by Mr. Kaufman,
that showed all the blue,
the green dots right at the shoreline,
were no storm maps.
To the other issues around
the Skelly Engineering Wave Run-Up Report for the site,
the wave run-up estimated by Mr. Skelly
with six feet of seal rise,
which is a very large amount of seal rise,
similar to the wavefront evaluations estimated by FEMA today with no seal of rise.
So in our mind, clearly something is missing there.
And on top of that, we have mentioned at staff all of the observations we know we were topping
as an issue along oceanfront walk and mission of the beach.
And yes, the beach does get wider as you approach the jetty in the south, but the beach is still
relatively narrow and can narrow during those El Niño winters where we see repeated storm
Lastly, to the question of the LCP policy around elevation, the LCP policies are essentially
about applying nationwide floodproofing standards and building design standards in areas we
know are going to be subject to flooding but are not currently in FEMA flood zones.
And so this is just how engineering in general, how we approach coastal flooding is.
we elevate homes on piles because the forces that can come from those overtopping waves
can be very large and potentially damaging to structures, not to mention, you know, any
sort of harm to life from people that might be in the way of those fast moving waves.
So this is just sort of a standard approach as staff sees it too, addressing the coastal
hazards at this site.
Hopefully I've covered anything, but I'm here for questions certainly for any of the
commissioners.
And before we send this back to the Commission, I did want to point out one other thing.
The applicant was suggesting that we're doing something different here from what the Commission
did with the Selitter-Mitt application.
And we are absolutely not doing anything different here.
We are applying the same process.
The result is different because the base flood elevation is different.
But that is the only difference, and that comes from the reference materials that we've
used here today.
So that concludes my comment.
Thank you very much.
Much appreciated.
Okay, we'll return to the Commission for comments, questions.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you presenters.
Just a question, because I'm glad you mentioned the Salomon case, because that's where my
question was.
So explain to me the base flood difference that you mentioned just for clarification.
The standard being the same but the base flood distinction.
And I know that we saw a photo I think from 24.
The applicant had a photo from 22.
The 24 photo I guess was from the North Beach.
The 22 photo was from the South Beach.
I'm assuming there was no 24 South Beach photo your first question I'd like to turn it over
to Jeremy Smith to talk about the difference in the base for the base flood elevation more
his realm.
Thank you.
Yes Commissioner so the Salirman case the as the LCP policy is written and we were trying
to stick by the LCP policy because we think it's a relatively objective standard that
we can apply with a level of certainty.
So in that case, the nearest base flood elevation was a VE zone directly adjacent to the site,
which I believe was either 14 or 15 feet NAVD, which is essentially just a point above the
water.
It's about two and a half feet below VNC level.
In this case, the nearest VFE base flood elevation is the adjacent VE zone, which is 18 feet.
Now in the Saliderman case, there are actually two VE zones and the VE zone closer to the
residents stepped down from the further seaward base flood elevation of 18 feet down to that
14 or 15 feet NEVD.
And in this case, we don't have that shown on the FEMA maps.
We've got what appears to be a difference in experts.
The commission is using the Commission's experts you being one of them says this is what we are
Planning for over the next 75 years and
the applicants
information
contradicts that
I
Think so. I would welcome
Gator Carl to speak on this but I think in this case we're trying to apply the LCP policy
which is just using the nearest space for elevation and the applicant thinks
that the LCP policy is not relevant correct yeah in another context we might
you know have expert to expert arguments around what an appropriate amount of
elevation was but in this case we were trying to apply that the LCP policy
thank you I would like to just clarify on that LCP piece we do agree that the
The COSLAC is the standard of review here so Section 30253 is the relevant COSLAC standard.
But the LCP policies were certified to implement that standard and so while the LCP is only
used for guidance here, it is very useful guidance in this particular case to figure
out what is consistent with the hazard policies of the COSLAC.
Commissioner Nada.
First off, I wanted to acknowledge that it's the good faith effort of the applicant to,
you know, it's good to replace two units with two units.
So thank you.
We want to keep the density of housing in the coastal zones and increase where we can.
So if I, and the way I understand the benefit of applying or the desirability of applying
this LCP, it was most recently developed for the city of San Diego in this specific area.
So it's not an irrelevant, and I think the suggestion that sea level rise is separate
from wave action, I mean wave action and surges
are interact with sea level rise
and sea level rise has already been observed
to exacerbate a wave action.
So I understand how the staff is coming at that one.
I wanted to check on the numbers here.
Am I correct to say, so the applicant's asking
for 13.54 feet VD 80 number.
Now the staff recommendation is to raise it at 6.5 feet.
Does that translate to 18 feet then?
So we have a difference of opinion here of 4, almost 5 feet.
Is that about, is, I thought I heard you say that it translates to 18.
Yes.
So the base flood elevation is 18 feet, NABD 88.
The existing grade at the site is 13.5 feet, NABD 88.
So we're saying that they need to raise it 6.5 feet to be 20 feet, which is 2 feet over
the base foot elevation.
And they are recommending 2 feet above their current grade, which would be about 15.5 feet,
NABD 88.
So it is about 5 feet.
I appreciate explaining how the same process yielded
a different elevation recommendation
from North Mission Beach and South Mission Beach.
And I think, given what we're seeing up and down the coast,
building directly on the beachfront,
we're seeing I think in trying to protect going forward that this seems
like the reason okay of course Commissioner amount thank you so maybe
this is a question for you born getting to the issue of whether he level rise
methodology the commission I guess my question is has the staff's methodology
or determining whether it's applicable or not been challenged successfully in
in any legal arena?
I don't know if I'm making my question.
I think you are, and this particular LCP policy
has not been challenged in any kind of litigation.
You feel pretty confident in some methodology.
So I think that our expert has looked at this really
carefully, and I think that Jeremy's making.
I know I want to call him Dr. Smith has looked at this
really carefully and as he noted the we're kind of unclear on the report that
was submitted by the applicants expert shows with six feet of sea level rise
the same wave overtopping I believe as the current FEMA map show for today so
there he really we don't know exactly what went on with that study but it
doesn't appear to reflect reality as we understand it so they've taken a very
deep dive into all of this looked at the FEMA maps and are using the FEMA
maps again to help inform how to apply 30253.
So there is this LCP policy.
We do think it applies, but even if it didn't,
then putting together the FEMA map with our requirement
to comply with 30253 would land us in the same.
If I could add through the chair real quick,
just one point to make too about the LCP policy
is part of the benefit of doing these LCP policies
is that we provide, you know, that we worked really hard
with the city to, this is a joint effort
to come up with these policies,
but then it provides some guidance to folks in this area
about what to expect moving forward.
And so, you know, that's part of the point
about getting specific about how you,
how we want to address the level rise
in this area moving forward.
So just, I mean, that's kind of the point
of spelling out how we're gonna do the analysis ahead of time.
And just want to point out, too,
the challenges that we have here in Mission Beach.
I mean, as you can see, it's a really vulnerable area
across the board, and we've been talking, I think,
as Lindsay mentioned in her presentation,
with the city about just, and just talking about how
to address this entire region moving forward,
because there is flooding now,
the flooding will get worse in the future,
wave run up is happening,
it's going to get worse in the future,
and so there's a lot of concerns,
and there are community-wide concerns,
but this is how we still have projects
that come in front of you
that we need to make decisions on now.
And so from our perspective, this
is why these protective policies that the city has
incorporated in their LCP that you approved
make a lot of sense.
Because it's a direction to get there
as we're figuring out also some broader things
that will need to happen community-wide.
I just wanted to make that.
Thank you, Director.
Commissioner Preciado.
I have a question that may be from left field.
So as we worked on the LCP and created a report in standard,
and guide developers to their project,
one thing that I noted in the presentation
is that there's a height limit still of 30 feet.
And so as you ask people to go up,
it really feels like it's the thinking if we don't increase
the height limit in that new development expectation.
And so I'm just wondering if you considered that, I realize it's not part of your presentation,
but it was commented by the applicant associated with the height limits.
I'm just wondering if the LCT contemplated what would happen to existing structures
if the replacement structures still had to observe a height limit but were required
to reduce development in a way that potentially loses
the floor or something.
So you do not have a reasonable investment-backed expectation,
that's the standard for takings, to zoning remaining the same.
So if the city were to rezone this entire area
to have a 20-foot height limit instead of a 30-foot height
limit, that would not be a take.
That's a rezone of the entire area.
So keeping the height limit at 30,
but saying that you have to raise the floor by enough
that you end up with a 20-foot tall structure instead
of a 30-foot tall structure, in my view,
that does not constitute a take, because you
don't have an expectation to be able to build always
in this, like, every setback that a city changed
would then theoretically be a taking,
and that's not the way the law works.
And I apologize for using the word take
if it had legal implications.
My intention was to try to be, from an outsider's point of view,
now that I'm an insider, but an outsider's point of view.
How does this all work?
And how does it pencil out so that it's reasonable?
I appreciate very much.
Again, I apologize for using the word.
That's OK.
My antenna go up when I hear the word take.
I'm a lawyer.
But we do think they could enclose the lower floor
and have a garage.
They could have storage space.
They could have a gym, I think.
It's not habitable space, correct or not.
It's just garage and storage, so they aren't correcting them.
So there are ways you could still use that lower floor.
It's just not livable space.
Does that answer your question?
No, it does.
And I turn back to the project we
that was reported by the enforcement team in Laguna Beach yesterday, right, where the wall came down and then the first floor was reconfigured so that it lived with the potential impact of sea level rise in under hospitals.
So I see that there is a consistency, at least, from how we approach remediating existing structures so that they can contribute.
Just wanted to also talk more broadly about the 30-foot height limit policy that's been
a long-standing policy in the city of San Diego.
We've raised the same issue with the staff and I think, you know, so I think there's
been discussion about whether that height limit might want to increase over time or
some different thing.
I think it's, that said, that would be a, it would be an uphill battle is my understanding
in the city of San Diego.
spend lots of, I don't know, the public is weighed in over time several times about wanting
to keep that height, so I don't want to make it sound like it's an easy fix.
The city has so far not been willing to change it, but maybe that would be something they
would need to consider in the future or would want to consider in the future.
Just briefly for my own comments, I want to just align myself with the comments of Commissioner
they're not off I recognize the complexity of the analyses here but I think for the very
reason that that complexity exists we have the certified LCP and so I personally believe
our staff got it right here and I will be supporting their recommendation so if someone
would like Commissioner O'Malley.
Yeah thank you first thanks to the staff for their exhaustive analysis really appreciate
I move that the Commission approve positive development permit six twenty five zero seven five pursuing staff representation
Again
Thank you. That was moved by Commissioner O'Malley seconded by Commissioner Kelly would either like to speak further to the motion
We're ready for a roll call vote. Please miss another
Commissioner Kelly
Yes, Kelly
Commissioner Lopez, yes
Commissioner lowenberg
Bloomberg yes, mr. Nada. I not all yes, mr. Cressy Otto
Yes, the Seattle yes
Commissioner O'Malley. Yes, O'Malley. Yes, mr. Hart
Yes
Yes, mr. Jackson. Hi Jackson. Yes
You're harming. Yes
Thank you. The application is so approved and I believe that that takes us through our agenda for today
So we are adjourned until tomorrow. Thank you