Good morning everyone and welcome to the July 2025 meeting of the Coastal
Commission. We're very happy to be here in Pismo Beach. So we will begin with a
roll call. Oh, that'll be me today. We don't have Vanessa this hearing. Thank you Chris.
Commissioner Bocco. Commissioner Dumlao. Commissioner Eckerle. Here. Commissioner
esclante. Commissioner Hart, Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner
Lowenberg, Commissioner not off here. Commissioner presciado. Commissioner Turnbull Sanders, Commissioner
Chair Williams?
Here.
Commissioner Wilson?
And Chair Harman?
Here.
Thank you very much.
Now we will move to the virtual meeting procedures.
And good morning, Chair Harman and Commissioner.
I will now go over the changes to the agenda today.
Item 10.1a is moved to consent.
One second, Steve.
Give us a second.
through virtual hearing procedures first so hang tight for one sec good
morning this is online at Cal-Ban.org if you have internet access and wish to
watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak on an item we recommend you
use the Cal-Ban website those who wish to address the Commission today can do
do so in person through the Zoom platform or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found
on the commission's webpage, paper forms,
and a scannable QR code or paperless submittals
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 agenda webpage,
which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comments
You may be given up the two minutes to speak 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.
Though speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comments are typically
allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access, 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's
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 you to participate and provide testimony
by phone. We will ask speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address a commission, the organizer will invite you to turn on your
video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Madam Chair, we'll get it to you.
Ms. Warren, we'll get it.
Thank you so much, no longer quasi-desk.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
With that, we will move to general public comment.
Actually, we'll do agenda changes if that's okay.
Yes, certainly okay.
Thank you.
And good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners, I will now go over the changes to the agenda.
We have three items. First item 10.1a consent that's the Ventura County Harbor Department.
Channel Island Harbor Public Works plan amendment.
I'm extension.
And that's for the Carl's village.
Item 11 B is that's the carpentry winter firm application by the city of
Carpinteria. And finally item 13 B that's the application by Caltrans for the
Tang Gabriel River Highway 1 bridge. That concludes our changes to today's
agenda so that does bring us to item 4 general public comment and with that I'll turn the
mic back over to you Madam Chair. Thank You Mr. Hudson. Okay indeed now we are
turning to general public comment, and if we could please begin with the speakers in
the room, and I think we have an elected official here.
Good morning, good morning.
Nice to see everyone.
Honorable Madam Chair, Harmon, and commissioners, my name is Dawn Ortiz-Leg.
I am the third district supervisor for San Luis Obispo County.
I'm here to warmly welcome you
on behalf of the entire Board of Supervisors.
This year I'm the chair,
and I get to go see all different people
and things like that, and it's really great to have you.
And particularly, I want to note that
what an honor it is to have two of our own
Central Coast electeds on this commission right now.
And for you, Madam Chair, to become the chair,
I know you've been serving,
and we're really proud of your work
and continuing on now in this leadership role,
and then adding Commissioner Chris Lopez,
who is not only a fellow supervisor of a third district
in the next county up, but also my,
my brother and the Latino caucus of California counties.
And together we really look for that equity lens,
and together we look for ways to improve
the quality of life for our constituents.
On behalf of the county, I just wanna say that,
You know, you're right here in the heart of our county
in the sense of the coast.
And while you were in Morro Bay last time,
the fact is, is that this coast,
we're only 280,000 people,
but we host over seven and a half million visitors a year.
And so much of it is because of the coastline.
And we value the beauty,
the continual, pristine nature of our coastline.
and we think that we all together have been doing a good job.
I just want to note that also in the third district,
this is home to Diablo Canyon right around the corner.
And as the county, we are the lead CEQA agency,
and we look forward to working with you
for continued operations.
And so far, we've had 40 years of really excellent outcomes.
And together, working hand in hand,
we can see a future of clean energy.
And more than ever in today's world,
we know how important that 2.2 gigawatts of clean energy is,
so I just want to say on behalf of the county, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Legg.
Okay, general public comment procedures.
For members of the public,
I will be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers
and invite you to speak when it is your turn.
Each speaker will be allowed two minutes
during general public comments
at the discretion of the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom,
we will be bringing you in as a panelist.
As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload.
This may take a moment to speed up this process.
We will bring several people in at a time,
but please remain muted and keep your video off
until we ask you to speak.
After your time is up,
you will be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public's present in the room,
I will call your names in the order
that they appear on our sign up list.
We will hear your name, speak,
please line up behind the podium
and introduce yourself when you approach to speak.
There is a raised hand function
that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio,
you can use your hand by dialing star nine.
If you are participating by Zoom,
you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item
and are able to do so, please raise your hand now.
When it is your time to speak,
we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
First up, we have Heidi Harmon,
Marie Ellenberger, followed by Bonnie Ernst.
Heidi Harmon.
Hi, good morning commissioners.
My name is Maureen Ellenberger
as chair of the Sierra Club Santa Barbara Ventura Chapter.
I'm here today representing over 5,000 members
of the Sierra Club Chapter, as well as I'm a member
of the Society of Preferals Grandmothers of Santa Barbara.
Our members are residents of California's Central Coast
who are deeply committed to protecting
our precious coastal resources.
I wanna begin today by welcoming
the three new commissioners, Commissioner Jackson,
Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Preciado and I also want to give a big
shout out to Santa Barbara's own Megan Harmon for her new position as
chair of the Commission. All of us so appreciate your willingness to serve and
we look forward to working with you all on protecting California's coast. In May
we marked 10 years since the Rafofio oil spill on May 19th, 2015. On that very
same day Sable Offshore announced that oil production and pumping had restarted.
It was a difficult day for so many of us who have been working hard to stop the restart
and the use of the old corroded pipeline.
But since that day, there have been some judgments and investigations which all bring us a small
glimmer of optimism to our efforts.
However, we can't relax nor let down our vigilance.
With that, we'd like to strongly urge you to require all activities in the coastal
zone to be subject to a new coastal development permit, including any restart of the pipeline.
This comprehensive approach is essential to ensure proper oversight and protection of
our coastal resources.
Thank you so much for your time today and for the important work that you do to safeguard
California's coastline, as we always know that we stand here ready to support you in
your efforts to protect this invaluable, precious resource.
Thank you again.
Welcome, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Bonnie Ernst and I'm a long time resident of Oceano and an advocate for a vehicle-free
beach.
My message today is simple, you are so close, please take the time to visit Oceano.
It's just six miles away and there should be a slideshow but you're not watching that
so you will have to go.
First a little history, in 2019 the Commission's environmental justice team visited Oceano.
Later, Executive Director Ainsworth followed up with another visit.
Out of those visits, this commission twice revised the CDP.
The first was stalled for two plus years by state parks.
The second was tragically struck down by the courts on a narrow jurisdictional ruling.
This ruling was truly a gut punch to those who had experienced Oceano Beach and
with no vehicle traffic during the seventh month COVID closure.
From this hotel, you can see Oceano, but I assure you it in no way looks like
Pismo Beach or any other beach town on the coast. I ask again that you
schedule a CDP review. There are many things that can be done to lessen the
effects and the injustices to our community. You are charged with
protecting the coast. You are charged with making it accessible to everyone.
You have the power. Please stay strong, please take action, and thank you so much for being
here and giving us the time to speak.
Next is Izzy Sistek, followed by Lucia Casilen Nuevo, followed by Niki Tallabi, followed
by Rachel Totti.
Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Izzy Sistek, and I'm a UCSB student.
be student representing the Environmental Affairs Board. Thank you so much for all
your recent enforcement actions on Sable Offshore's unpermitted pipeline repairs.
That said, I am absolutely astounded by Sable Offshore's blatant lies and
disregard for both the law and public safety. Never could I have imagined a
company would proceed with repairs after receiving two cease and desist orders
and an $18 million fine, misleading the public on their press release, and
restarting activities without necessary regulatory approvals. It won't be the
Sable executives who bear the consequences
of an inevitable spill.
Our beautiful marine ecosystems will be devastated
and our community will be forced to deal
with the fallout for generations.
Haven't we learned our lesson enough times?
We can't cede our home and futures to reckless corporations.
I urge you to continue protecting our coast
from outside threats like Sable offshore.
Please require all activities in the coastal zone,
including the pipeline restart
to be subject to a new coastal development permit.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Lucieka Salinoaba, Oceano Beach Community Association.
Good morning.
The 2021 Coastal Commission, that is most of you,
unanimously banned driving on Oceano Beach and Dunes
to protect our communities, the wildlife and the ocean.
Thank you.
But the off-roaders sued, and you lost.
You appealed, and you lost again.
Your decision will then be revoked,
And the injustice that you acknowledged and try to stop will remain.
But the ethical impact and the validity of that decision, the strength,
courage and sense of justice you exercised still stand and will stand forever.
Thank you again.
Nobody will take it away unless you yourself kill it by resigning to
the court's rulings and don't keep up the fight for what is right.
Keep fighting for what you decided was best for our communities and the planet.
This is not the time to give in on any front.
This is the time to resist, to press on, to stand with what is right.
So what can you do next?
Apparently, you do not have the authority to stop driving on the beach and do something.
Then appeal to those who do have that authority, our county and the legislation.
You have a few options.
One, the courts deliberated that you should submit recommendations to the county that
our LCP be modified to conform with the coastal act.
And if necessary, that you should appeal to the legislation or simply require that the
county enforces the existing LCP and impose an interim moratorium on driving on Machado
beach and dunes while long range planning is completed because public health, safety,
community values are jeopardized.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Nikki Tollebi, followed by Rachel Toti, followed by Jeff Hiller, followed by
Penny Delapelli.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Nikki Tollebi, and I'm a member of UCSB's Environmental Affairs Board.
I appreciate your dedication to the issue with Sable Offshore.
I want to let you know as you can see here today that we have not given up on fighting
for the protection of our coast against this dangerous pipeline.
As a student of UC Santa Barbara, I have been lucky to experience this vital coastline.
We know that it is standard for projects like this to be held to regulatory agency standards
and somehow the Sable Pipeline Project has cruised past most of the necessary permitting
with no environmental review.
In order to protect this coastline, we ask you to please require all activities in the
coastal zone to be subject to a new coastal development permit, including restart of the
pipeline.
You have all been solid protectors of our coast, and we appreciate your support, that
now ask you to hold strong and follow through by requiring ample protection and review of
this project.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
Michelle Todi, I'm a Nipomo Mesa resident and also co-founder of Concerned Citizens
for Clean Air, which has sent you a letter last week thanking you for your protection
of the dunes environment.
Whoever said you can't go home again wasn't a western snowy plover.
These threatened little birds return each year to the beach they were hatched on.
Look for a mate and start a family.
Some stay year round in the dunes.
They face many hurdles, predators, lack of food, rain, wind, and off-road vehicles.
Since the Coastal Commission approved the nesting enclosure as a year round and approved
the fordoon projects, they have more space.
Numbers are going up.
Thank you.
Now it is time to reiterate your commitment to protect these birds by re-issuing the direction
to keep the California lease turn and western snow plover enclosure in place year-round.
There is talk of changing it back to seasonal instead to allow more OHV riding.
Along the same lines there is talk of reviving the public works plan and pursuing a southern
entrance.
This would not be a good idea.
Perhaps the commission should reissue the CDP conditions pertaining to night riding,
reducing vehicles and protecting the nesting habitat.
It is time to conduct the annual review also which is four years past due.
Determine if the intensity of use is protecting the natural habitat.
The commission has the ability to adjust the number of vehicles
according to the carrying capacity of acres being used.
Lastly, I urge the commission to make recommendations to the county of San
Elizabeth's boat to align the LCP with the Coastal Act. This beautiful area will
not truly be protected until the Coastal Act is being followed.
Environmentally sensitive habitat area shall be protected. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Jeff Heeler followed by Penny Delappelli followed by Charles Barney.
Good morning commissioners and staff. For whatever reason you have all chosen
and very hot seats in my opinion and I congratulate you for that. They've always been hot seats
and they probably will continue to be so over time. I am Jeff Heller, I am a third generation
San Diego currently living in Morrill Bay. I served on the city council from 2018 to 2022
which was an honor of my lifetime to be frank and I'm here to thank you for all the work that you've
done. Growing up on the beaches of California my entire life I can't
imagine what it would have looked like now if it were not for this Commission.
The activities, the pressure you've been under from both sides, many sides, is
remarkable and again I thank you for stepping up and serving the state in
this way. In general I am against industrial projects on the coast but
there's one project that I fully support and that's Diablo Canyon. Generating
17% of our renewable energy for this state. It's remarkable industrial operation that's operated
safely for many many years and I hope you support its extension over the 20-plus years as long as
it continues to operate as it has in the past. Super important to the economy here as well.
Thank you again for your time and your devotion to the coast of California.
Hello commissioners, I'm Penny Delapella, a lifelong Central Coast resident and today I
I represent the Santa Lucia chapter of the Sierra Club
and our over 4,000 members and supporters here
in San Luis Obispo County.
We thank you for requiring Sable Offshore
to comply with the Coastal Act
and cease unpermitted work on the pipeline
that caused the Refugio oil spill.
We now urge you to require a new coastal development permit
for all coastal activities,
including Sable's pipeline restart.
We've previously expressed the frustration
San Luis Obispo County residents in having no say on the resurrection of lines 901 and 903.
Their point of origin is within Santa Barbara County, but the impacts of their potential failure
reach far beyond, threatening the ecological health and economic stability of Slough County,
where tourism is the second largest economic driver. Our local Sierra Club members cherish
our ocean for recreation, spirituality, fishing, local economies, and much more.
There has been no environmental review of the proposed pipeline restart, and there won't be
unless it comes from the Coastal Commission. As you've noted, Sable has violated the Coastal Act
by ignoring repeated directives and cease and desist orders. A law firm is now conducting a
shareholder investigation into potential violations of federal security laws and whether Sable
misled its investors. Do we really want a company that is so consistently dishonest stewarding a
pipeline with an ever increasing likelihood of catastrophic failure.
Thank you Chair Harmon for stating that what we have seen on the ground is not
repair, it's replacement. Their 40 year old permit is not sufficient.
Sables activities need a new CDP. Thank you for all you do. Charles Barney
followed by Gianna Patchen followed by Paul Schneider followed by David Wiseman.
I have a graphic to go along with mine. This is a picture of Oceano in 2020 if it
comes up. Good morning. I'm Charles Varney, Oceano resident for 25 years, past
president of the Oceano Advisory Council and the Oceano Community Services
District. More than 40 years ago the Coastal Commission and San Luis Obispo
County granted state parks a temporary permit to use peer avenue in Oceano
and the Oceano Beach as an access road to the SVRA. An implicit promise was made
that within a few short years a southern entrance would be developed. That never
happened and today for the first time in history there's a real possibility that
that promise is finally going to be kept. State Parks wants to buy the Phillips 66
refinery property in Napoma Mesa which contains an existing road and offer to
dedicate to the SVRA. State Parks is proposing to develop new campgrounds,
basically centralize all of their operations there, SVR staging area,
concession facilities, and additional possibilities. The new entrance would
eliminate the need for an SVRA vehicle access to Oceano Beach on Pier Avenue.
This would be transformative for my community of Oceano, which is 47% Latino.
We gain a 2.2 mile stretch of vehicle free beach and enjoy the recreational and economic benefits of our most valuable natural asset.
Pier Avenue and Oceano become a revitalized tourist mecca with a climate change, resilient beachfront plaza, restaurants, cafes, live music, tourist facilities, safe beach walking and sunset viewing, plus many new jobs for local citizens.
The oceanado dunes preserve would now include the entire beachfront returning it to a natural setting and enhanced wildlife
protection onshore and in the waters. Our community would qualify for a multi-million dollar coastal resilience and sea level rise
protection grants from state and federal resources.
This picture, this is what is a long overdue
environmental and economic justice looks like for oceanado.
Please be please be aware of our situation and we invite you to come and see it firsthand. Thank you
Good morning commissioners. My name is Gianna Patchen and I'm the coordinator for the Santa Lucia chapter of the Sierra Club
Representing over 4,000 people and members and supporters in San Luis Obispo County
I'm here to reiterate the community concern regarding Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants coastal impacts
Thank you for keeping to act keeping asking questions and pursuing further information
Particularly as Diablo may be on your agenda in the near future
Diablo's date of compliance with the state requirement to end the once through cooling practice has been delayed time and time again
Now that PG&E is applying for a 20-year license renewal from the nuclear regulatory commission
We urge that any consistency determination stipulate a 2030 license termination
Per Coastal Commission staff, PG&E's payments into the state's Once Through Cooling Mitigation
Fund does not necessarily constitute adequate mitigation.
The payments do not address the need for biological resource mitigation for the proposed 20-year
license extension period.
PG&E has stated that Diablo's entrainment of marine life does not adversely affect coastal
resources because it doesn't have population-level effects.
However, this standard for entrainment's effects on coastal resources is based on
loss or reduction of marine life productivity. Entrainment entails 100% morbidity for all the
larva and plankton impacted, with even greater damage done to the marine environment by the
heated outflow earning the plant its coastal commission subricate as California's largest
marine predator. It is becoming difficult to take the state at its word on Diablo Canyon's
closure and cooling system. Requiring a 2030 license termination within a
consistency determination may give the people of California some measure of
certainty that the state won't change its mind again five years hence. Thank
you for your attention on this matter. Up next is Paul Schneider followed by
David Wiseman followed by Harvey Packer followed by Tricia Bowes. Okay so let's
go ahead and move forward, Rachel Whalen, oh, oh, here he is.
I was waiting for Paul Schneider.
I was giving him some air reading room.
Sorry about that.
Good morning, commissioners, David Weissman,
executive director of the Alliance
for Nuclear Responsibility.
And at some point in this future,
you will be considering whether to grant
PG&E, the Coastal Zone Management Act certificate,
for the 20-year license renewal for the Diablo Canyon plant.
I say 20 years, despite the current state law
that limits operations until 2030, because the NRC license would allow it to run until
2045, and thus that is the timeframe of the permit decision before you.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its final supplemental environmental
impact statement on license renewal.
On page 146 of the document, the NRC concludes, quote, the NRC staff finds that the impacts
of impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms resulting from the proposed
license renewal of Diablo Canyon would be small, in all caps."
But as we've just recently heard here, I urge the Commission to contrast those words
with the words of your Commission's now-retired Senior Scientist Tom Luster, delivered to
the State Water Resource Control Board in November of 2014, and he said,
Your Board and the Coastal Commission have similar responsibilities for protecting marine
life, including a shared requirement to minimize entrainment to the extent feasible.
You've heard comments today regarding the 1.5 billion larva that are entrained every
year at Diablo Canyon, and depending on how you measure it, this level of entrainment
represents a loss of ocean productivity equal to several hundred or several thousand acres
of rocky and nearshore reef habitat.
It would be fair to categorize Diablo Canyon as California's largest marine predator.
And quote, and those were the words of your senior scientist, I'd call that food for
thought if you'll excuse the euphemism and thank you for placing this under your future
consideration.
Okay, so Harvey Packer followed by Trisha Boas, followed by Rachel Whalen, followed
by Maureen Zawalak, Zawalak, sorry.
Good morning, commission.
My name is Harvey Packard.
I am a senior engineer at the Central Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Our office is in San Luis Obispo
and I'm taking advantage of your local meeting
to let you and anyone else who's interested
know about our upcoming regulatory actions
regarding Diablo Canyon.
Until 2022, the Central Coast Water Board
working with PG&E on decommissioning plans. However, now the plant will be operational
through 2030 at least due to the state's energy needs. We are planning two regulatory actions
to permit continued operation of the plant. The first is a federal Clean Water Act Section
401 certification of the new federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission license. The second
is a reissuance of our existing discharge permit, called a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit.
We've scheduled both actions for adoption in February 2026.
The NPDES permit will be updated to reflect changes in regulations and water quality standards
for protection of water quality and marine life.
The Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification will reference the requirements of the updated
and PDS permit to certify federal compliance with state water quality standards.
We plan on having drafts available for public review in November 2025.
We also are planning a public workshop in November 2025.
We're committed to transparency in our permitting processes and want to make sure all interested
people, agencies are aware of our process and know how to provide input and we're looking
forward to continued close coordination with your Coastal Commission staff as we
move through this regulatory process. Thank you very much. Good morning, my
name is Rachel Whelan and I'm the Governmental Affairs Coordinator at the
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, which is the largest and oldest business
organization on the Central Coast. Thank you for coming to the Central Coast
for this week's meetings. We appreciate your time and presence in our community.
We are here today to express our support for the continued operation of Diablo
Canyon. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently found the plant safe to operate
and fully compliant with environmental standards for another 20 years. That
confirmation reinforces what we already know, that Diablo Canyon is a vital part
of our energy and economic future. As the voice of local business we know that a
stable electric grid is essential. Diablo Canyon provides nearly 10% of
California's power, and does so without emitting carbon. Losing that source would threaten grid
reliability and hinder the state's ability to meet climate goals. The California Energy Commission
has found no existing clean energy resources that can fully replace Diablo's output yet.
While renewable energy is critical to our long-term strategy, it currently can't meet
full demand due to its variability. Solar and wind fluctuate with the time of day and weather.
Until large scale battery storage is in place, something we're still years away from,
we cannot depend on renewables alone to keep the grid stable.
Nuclear energy by contrast is both carbon free and consistent.
Diablo Canyon also plays a critical role in our local economy.
It supports over 1,300 highly skilled jobs and stands as the largest private employer
in San Luis Obispo County.
The plant and its workforce are central to the health and vibrancy of our regional economy.
Thank you for your time and commitment to California's energy future.
Next is Maureen Zawalik, Irene Cook, Parker Kalin, Jenna McGovern.
Good morning. Hello, my name is Maureen Zawalik. That's okay, I get it all the time.
I'm the Vice President of Diablo Canyon Power Plant for PG&E with overall responsibility
for our environmental and regulatory programs, including license renewal that you've heard about.
and our land stewardship programs that includes our public trail system.
I want to welcome you to our community and give you a brief update on our progress for the
re-licensing activities at Diablo Canyon that was by the direction of the state of California.
As you know in 2022 the governor and legislature pushed to extend Diablo Canyon's operational time frame
to meet the increasing electrical demands on behalf of all of Californians.
What you may not know is that Senate Bill 846 also changed the mission of
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, changed it to serve all of California. That means
serving over 40 load-serving entities to make up for the shortfalls in the
electrical generation in a carbon-free manner. There to, you know, re-license the
plant, you've heard about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission some of the
previous presenters, there's two-track process and that two-track process has
been completed so that's a very extensive safety review to ensure the
plant continues to safely operate for another 20 years and a comprehensive
environmental review. I'm pleased to share with you that in June last month
that they did approve that Nuclear Regulatory Commission did approve those
reviews and they are publicly available. The NRC concluded in its public process
that the plant is indeed safe for future decades. On the environmental side of the
process the NRC concluded that there are no major impacts based on existing and
continued operations and has approved that portion as well. The remaining two
actions are on the state process. We just heard from the Regional Water Board on
those actions that are coming forward and some of those opportunities to
coordinate and participate and also the Coastal Zone Management Act but thank
you very much. I welcome you out to visit some of you have already and please come
again. Thank you. Good morning Irene Cook on behalf of the Society of Fearless
Grandmother Santa Barbara. The grandmothers are back again the gray
haired ladies in tennis shoes and purple vests have spoken to you in San
Francisco in Long Beach and Santa Barbara and we will keep coming back as
long as it takes to stop Sables zombie pipeline. Yet again we are here to say
thank you for your diligence in protecting our coast and upholding the
rule of law in our increasingly lawless country. Your staff is doing what
government in a civilized society is supposed to do protect and serve the
citizens of the state. Again we won't give up. Our friends in SLO have been
fighting at Diablo for 40 years and have and I wish I could come back on Friday
to support our sisters at Mothers for Peace who have spent their entire adult
lives fighting the dangerous Diablo facility. I can't promise that the
grandmothers can fight this zombie pipeline for another 40 years. But until
we turn into zombies ourselves and we and the youthful allies from our broad
coalition will keep coming back to remind you how important this is to our
Central Coast communities. Thank you for your faithful service. Please keep up the
good work in holding Sable accountable. Thank you.
Good morning commissioners. My name is Jenna McGovern and I'm with the UCSB
Environmental Affairs Board and Stop Sable Coalition. At the Coastal
Commission hearing in April we were beyond excited by the ambitious outcomes
and to feel heard and supported by this powerful Commission and I thank you for
efforts then and now. I am here again today to discuss the devastating Sable
offshore proposal. To put it lightly the students and community efforts against
Sable has taken over many of our lives. On top of school, work, and our personal
lives we've devoted endless hours to the efforts to stop Sable from restarting
this pipeline. As students we're not getting paid or promoted, we're doing
this because the health of our planet is vital to our long futures ahead along
with all of ours in this room.
I am extremely worried by Sable's repeated violations and non-compliance which was only
further illuminated on May 18th with their deceptive inflation of their operations.
I want to emphasize that this behavior is entirely inappropriate for a company attempting
to work in an industry of this magnitude and complexity.
I am urging the same requirements as the others in this room have said.
All activities in the coastal zone need to be subject to a new coastal development permit
including the restart of the pipeline.
I am extremely proud of the work the students
and the Greater Santa Barbara Stable Coalition have done,
but to be honest, I think many of us are shocked
that we're continuing to have to work against this project
and that it is even up for debate today.
We're in full support of your power and efforts
to stop this dangerous project
that will irreparably damage our coastline.
I appreciate your time and continued efforts, thank you.
We have about 14 speakers in person and 21 on Zoom.
So next is Parker Callan, followed by Alan Villa,
followed by Bran Snook, Cynthia.
Good morning commission.
My name is Parker Callan.
I got my master's degree from Cal Poly.
I'm a Los Osos resident.
And I have the unique privilege of working
as a marine biologist out at Diablo Canyon
for close to the past decade.
That means lots of survey work, intertidal work, scuba diving, counting fish,
over 893 dives as of yesterday. I firmly believe that Diablo Canyon is a great source of clean
energy. I've seen it firsthand, but I do think that objectively we need to keep monitoring the
impacts on the environment. I think that the robust environmental monitoring program PG&E has
supported, provides context for what the effects of Diablo Canyon are, and I
believe that this data set can be leveraged to also provide context for
what the ocean is in the public trust of Californians. I feel really proud of my
job. I didn't become a marine biologist to destroy the ocean. I became a marine
biologist because I care deeply about it, and I feel very privileged to have a job
where I can work and explore the coastline around Diablo almost daily.
So I implore that as re-licensing comes into view we continue the robust
monitoring and we keep a track for the public good of what's happening out
there. Thank you, Commission.
Allen Villa, followed by Brad Snook, followed by Cynthia Rieplogel, followed by Rachel Wilson.
Good morning, commissioners.
Asteaded, my name is Aline Villa,
and I'm a lifelong resident and proud member
of the Oceano Beach Community Association.
I'm here today to speak out for the community of Oceano
and its beautiful beach and dunes.
As you all know, the California Court of Appeals
ruled off-roading can continue at Oceano Beach and Dunes.
What this means is that the status quo continues.
While this is an upsetting ruling,
I want to thank you for your 2021 decision
to phase out off-roading.
It was the right decision based on facts,
data, and the Coastal Act.
I'm here to urge you not to give up on the fight
for a safe and free vehicle beach.
Oceano has endured decades of environmental injustice.
We suffer the negative impacts of noise, air,
and beach pollution as an unsafe beach,
and also the negative consequences,
economic consequences of having,
of not having a traditional beachfront.
This is clear environmental injustice.
40 years ago, Oceana was promised
that the entrance to Pier Avenue would be temporary.
And here we are with a temporary entrance
still in existence 40 years later.
This is justice delayed.
In order to make this the reality of, I'm sorry, in order to make Vehicle Free Beach
Safe Beach a reality, we must fight to ensure that Pier Avenue closes.
This won't be easy, but it can be done, but it can only be accomplished with each and
every one of you advocating for a safe Vehicle Free Beach in Oceano.
You must advocate at every level.
The judge stated that the LCP needs to be amended.
You must insist that this be done ASAP,
but please don't stop there.
Look for other avenues to make this a reality.
Contact all government stakeholders and let them know
the importance of bringing environmental justice
to Oceano.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Brad Snook, I'm the vice chair of our county's chapter
of Sir Frider Foundation.
Welcome.
I come today to speak about undue risk
to our county's ocean, waves, and beaches.
Sea walls continue to steal away public beach access.
The public shouldn't pay for bad choices
made by private property owners.
Don't privatize the profits and socialize the impacts.
The public shouldn't lose their rights
to beach access in Oceano.
Amend the LCP and the commission should work
with state parks to better protect Esha
and the public's right to safe access to the beach
per the Coastal Act.
Energy.
Only enormous government subsidies
could save the Diablo monster.
Why does it take?
Why does it make sense to entrain and discharge
over 1 billion gallons of ocean water a day?
And that's only one of the costs.
Some say the monster allows for better energy planning.
remember Santa no fray we look forward to cost-effective safe energy solutions
like good offshore wind projects can bring we look forward to safe solutions
to help address the world scientifically proven climate crisis because drilling
is killing thank you hi I'm Cynthia rep logo a resident of
Pismo Beach. John Oliver has a segment on last week tonight called how is this
still a thing? Past topics include daylight savings time, the Sports
Illustrated swimsuit issue, and Columbus Day. I couldn't help but think of that
last Friday while watching professional fireworks explode over the ocean. How is
this still a thing when it has so many adverse effects on the environment and
wildlife? Conventional firework fallout carries
perchlorates and heavy metals into our coastal waters, threatening fish health and bioaccumulating
up the food chain.
It appears the city of Pismo Beach has not chosen to procure more environmentally-friendly
fireworks that would discharge fewer toxins into the Pacific Ocean.
Large bursts spike PM2.5 in toxic gases, aggravating respiratory issues in seabirds, marine mammals,
and humans.
over 140 decibels can disorient nesting birds and stress marine mammals, driving wildlife
from critical habitats.
Species that breed or migrate along the central coast in July include western snowy plovers,
California lease turns, northern elephant seals, humpback and blue whales.
Bright flashes disrupt nocturnal feeding and mating behaviors in fish, invertebrates and
migrating species.
Spent casings and plastics wash ashore or sink,
posing entanglement and ingestion hazards
for shoreline and seafloor wildlife.
Please do more to protect our coast,
for instance, by requiring green fireworks,
debris capture nets, and scheduling outside breeding
and migration periods.
Or better yet, push for replacing fireworks
with modern drone or laser light shows,
which can maintain celebration
while eliminating chemical noise and debris impacts.
Thank you.
Next is Rachel Wilson, followed by Steve Ray,
followed by Barbara Harmon, followed by Michael Lynch,
followed by Susanna Brown.
Good morning.
My name is Rachel Wilson, and normally I come up here
to talk about BESS.
But the other day, I was cleaning out the basement,
and I discovered my eighth grade graduation speech.
Now I graduated at least a couple of years ago.
And it was on the role of nuclear power in our future.
And I was reading it, and it talked about carbon buildup.
It talked about climate change.
And this is decades before we really thought about it.
So I started thinking about there is not
an energy source around that does not have negative effects.
But over the past 40 years, Diablo Canyon
has done a very nice job.
So my proposal is, is that we continue Diablo Canyon
until we can really vet out the effects
of other power sources.
There is not a clean energy unless I ride my bicycle,
and that just doesn't power anything.
But until we know the effects
of battery energy storage systems, they catch on fire,
They've had negative environmental impacts.
Until we can do more research to protect,
let's look at the one energy source
that has not added carbon to our environment,
the one energy source that has not caught on fire,
the one energy source that has not spewed
toxic chemicals in.
And let's look at it and see how we can improve it
because nuclear energy has improved.
And then we can come off nuclear energy
when we actually have the backup power sources
that have truly been proven to be safe.
Because right now, we tend to jump to new things
until where they have a long safety.
Thank you.
Sorry, back surgery two weeks ago, so lucky to be here.
Well, good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners, staff,
the other staff, and members of the public.
I'm Steve Ray in the 43 years I've been coming to this Commission and speaking
I've addressed many topics over the years both the Chica Biono wetlands
banning ranch last 17 years banning ranch the banning ranch is 401
beautiful acres on Orange County right between the cities of Newport Beach
Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach there was a long effort to stop development on
the property in September of 2016 this commission denied development on that
property six months later the Supreme Court also stopped development on that
property we then set about to buy the property was going to be expensive and
we raised 97 million dollars negotiate with the owners and on December 16th
2022 we acquired the property it's now staved forever as public property it's
It's title is held by the Mountains Resource and Conservation Authority, which this MRCA,
which this commission sees often on their projects.
We have now renamed the property.
It's called the Frank and Joanne Randall Park and Preserve at Banning Ranch.
It's named after the couple that gave $50 million of the money.
And when I talked Frank into giving the $50 million, I said, you give me $50 million and
and we'll name the whole damn place after you.
Check, okay?
So it's now, you'll hear Banning Park and Preserve,
or Banning Ranch.
One of those names for short,
because the actual name is the Frank and Joanne
Randall Park and Preserve at Banning Ranch, that's a lot.
We are in the process now of remediating the property
that will be done in 2027.
And I am vice chair of the group now under MRCA,
that's planning the future.
I will have more for you as the future proceeds.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Barbara Harmon followed by Michael Lynch,
Susanna Brown, followed by Dorothy Heiner.
Good morning.
I'm Barbara Harmon,
former Royal Grand City Council member.
I've been a resident of San Luis Obispo County
for over 35 years.
I'm here to speak to you about Diablo Nuclear Power Plant
with respect, urge you to support the license renewal.
The California Energy Commission study determined
it is prudent to extend energy production at Diablo Canyon to protect against energy supply
shortfalls. Diablo Canyon provides an annual 18,000 gigawatt hours of electricity. This
gigawatt hour supplies about 9% of California's in-state electricity generation and is enough
electricity for three, good bless you, enough electricity for three million homes. Electric
Bill's continue to increase and nuclear power is by far the cheapest source of electricity
and operates 24 seven 365 days a year. There are huge benefits related to air quality and
clean emissions. Dablo Canyon is the largest clean energy producer in California and reduces
greenhouse gas emissions by six to seven million tons per year. PG&E has an exemplary safety
record and are proven environmental stewards.
Relicensing Diablo Canyon and its continued operation would ensure clean air quality,
provide a reliable zero emission safe and affordable energy source for not just Californians
but energy for the part of the western electric grid.
Respectfully, I urge you to consider these factors when the matter of relicancing comes
before the commission.
Thank you for your time and enjoy your stay on the beautiful Central Coast.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Michael Lynch, followed by Susanna Brown, followed by Dorothy Heiner, Sylvia
Dodd and followed by Helen Finger.
Good morning, commissioners.
Congratulations, Commissioner Harmon, our own commissioner.
I'm here from Santa Barbara.
And mainly I want to thank you for everything you've done to try and work with us to stop
the Sable pipeline from continuing.
It's important because you're the only commission that will do it.
The other state commissions, regardless of what they believe is important, just say someone
else is going to do it.
We saw this when a collection of commissioners came to Santa Barbara and did a presentation
for us and they all said, he's going to do it.
He's going to do it.
We'll make it happen and they didn't.
You did.
And we really thank you for standing up.
I also wanted to say having sat here and listened to all of this, it's amazing to me all the
issues you have to deal with and how difficult it must be to keep track of them and the perspectives
that you have to consider. And what struck me was what's important, what's a lot to one
person is really that? On the other hand, what is you really think it's just that? It's really
this and you have to weigh them it's all a matter of perspective. I would like to thank
you for keeping the perspective and to consider whether each perspective is valid in the context
of our coast which only you are going to protect. Thank you.
Hello, good morning, commissioners, and welcome to San
Elizabeth County. We appreciate your presence in our community
and the important work that you do to protect California's
beautiful coastline. My name is Susanna Brown and I am the
chairperson of the South County Chambers of Commerce, an
honorary commander with Space Launch Delta 30 at Vandenberg
Space Force Base, a business owner, a data scientist and a
mother of two small children being raised right here on the
Central Coast which I've called home my entire life. I want to express my strong
support for Diablo Canyon's power plants continued operation not just as a clean
reliable energy source but as a long-standing partner in environmental
stewardship, scientific research and economic stability for our region. I
visited the plant many times over the course of my life first as a
child on school field trips where I learned about the incredible coastal
ecosystems and the environmental research being conducted to protect our coastline.
As an adult, I've continued to go to the plant with my own children.
They've been in the training building and seen everything that is wonderful about our
coast.
They've explored learning about science of electricity generation, the safety protocols
in place, and how the site reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
I've shown them the sea otters, the sea lions, marine birds thriving offshore, and I hope
that someday they might even work there themselves, helping to preserve both our coasts and the
energy of California. The NRC's final environmental impact statement confirms Diablo Canyon meets
all environmental and safety standards for extended operation. This site is home to the
longest-running marine biology monitoring program in the country, and PG&E continues
its strong partnership with the YTT tribe to protect sacred lands and cultural resources.
the company's award-winning land stewardship efforts are visible every time you visit the site.
From a data perspective Diablo Canyon provides 17% of Californians clean energy and powers four
million homes. Thank you very much. Dorothy Heiner followed by Sylvia Todd followed by Helen Finger
followed by Ron Walters followed by Johnny Rodriguez McConville. Obviously I can't print
Well, my name is Dorothy Hines and good morning, commissioners.
I'd like to make three points.
The number one point is I use the expression kick the can down the road.
It's often used when a good solution or when the solution can't be found.
In this case, I'd like to use that expression of kick the can down the road to the south
entrance.
This is not good for Osoflaco, a beautiful environmentally sensitive habitat area.
It's not good for the residents of Guadalupe as the health hazard and the traffic directly
impacts them and it's not good for those of us who live on the mesa with the traffic,
noise pollution and the continued dirty air.
Second point is a request that you ask the San Luis Obispo County to line up the local
coastal plan with the Coastal Act.
It hasn't been updated in quite some time.
number three I'd like to also request that you consider reducing the number of
vehicles allowed at any given time on the beach it's well within your power to
do so and again I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight and for
continuing with the lawsuits and everything that's happening Sylvia Todd
hell of finger Ron Walters Johnny Rodriguez McConville good morning
Commissioners. My name is Celia Dodd, DODD. I've a resident of San Luis Obispo since
1990. I bought my home and I've been a California native. I moved up here and
made a big change in life. When I came up here I researched for seven years. Not
the housing but the safety of this community. And I knew Diablo Canyon was
here. I bought my home and my CC&R as I talked about Diablo Canyon. Since that
time I've made myself a member of the community also enough to go to meetings
as this one to hear your your background and what you're doing for us to keep our
safety. I do visit Diablo Canyon. I did take their tour along the coastline. I've
never seen anything so pristine and clean the grounds when you go up to the
Lighthouse. I've walked different areas. I'm a sailor. I've sailed the coastline and seen
the beaches. Prestine. You go further down in other areas, it's not as pristine. I talk
to people that have jobs at Diablo, neighbors, and they comment about their efforts to keep
things very safe. They may not be the engineer or the top person at Diablo, but they're committed
to their jobs, and I commend them for it.
I've been here since 1990, and I'm continuing to be here.
I visit Diablo's information centers.
I read their pamphlets.
I look at their calendar every year.
They update me.
They extend invitations to come to these meetings.
And all I say is, I support Diablo for the next 20 years,
and further on.
They do a lot for our community.
They invest their employees in the community.
They just don't go to work.
They live here.
They have families.
They raise their children here.
Support Diablo Canyon.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
Welcome to our community, and thank you
for this opportunity to speak.
My name is Helene Finger, and I'm
a lifelong California resident.
I've been a faculty member here on the Central Coast
in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
at Cal Poly since 1997,
but I'm here speaking on my own views
and not those representing Cal Poly.
I'm here to share my strong support
of Diablo Canyon PowerPoint.
This carbon-free energy generation facility
is needed now more than ever.
Diablo Canyon has contributed safe green energy for 40 years.
And in California, we've been making good progress
developing solar and wind and other alternative energy sources but I'm sure
as most of you are aware during peak demand times those sources are not
available. Diablo Canyon is essential for providing electricity during these
times when the Sun is not shining but demand is peaking because currently we
have no other technology. We're working on it but we are not there yet. The impact
on our oceans as well as our air in continuing to burn fossil fuels is
devastating. When San Onofre was shut down much of that power was replaced
with out-of-state power that was produced by burning fossil fuels, a fact
that's often ignored. Please support continued operation of our carbon-free energy source
Diablo Canyon to minimize burning of fossil fuels inside and outside our state. Thank
you.
Ron Walters, Johnny Rodriguez, McConville.
Good morning. Ron Walters, 30-year resident of Atascadero, and I'm here to show support
for Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
And I would ask you to think about the alternative
if we don't have the power plant running.
And obviously, as some of the speakers have said,
we cannot rely totally on solar and wind,
although solar and wind can be part of the process,
we can't rely on that.
I would also ask you to consider to look at Europe.
Germany has pretty much shut down the nuclear power plants
and they're having severe issues of people being able
to heat their homes and being able to afford that
to heat their homes.
Additionally, in England, they have the same issue.
The middle class people can no longer afford
to heat their homes because of the alternative energy costs
and so that needs to be kept in mind.
I know there's always a concern
about the nuclear waste and I would again point you back to
Europe. If you look at France, they recycle 90% of their
nuclear waste. They're able to bring that back in to do whether
they put it back into the system to create power or they use
medical process for that and bring that forward. So again,
I'm a supporter of PG&E and the power plant,
and just thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next is Johnny Rodriguez McConville,
followed by, after that, we'll go on Zoom.
We have about 22 speakers,
so I'll be moving them to panelists,
which will be Heidi Harmon, Walter Lamb, Eileen Bochen.
We'll be moving you guys to panelists on Zoom.
Hi, my name is Johnny.
I'm a director with CalPerg,
which represents over 25,000 dues paying members
across California and a long time Santa Barbara resident.
First, I would like to thank the commission
for your ongoing commitment to protecting our coast.
Your hard work ensures that California's coastline
remains a treasure for future generations.
I also urge the commission to require
that all activities within the coastal zone
undergo a new coastal development process.
This must include any restart efforts by Sable Offshore,
a company that has repeatedly demonstrated
its irresponsibility, incompetence, and disregard for both the law and the well-being of our
coast.
Their track record makes clear they have little respect for the vital work this Commission
does to protect our communities and environment.
Speaking of which, I'd also like to say where is Sable?
Not a single representative from an almost $2.3 billion company could be bothered to
show up for the single largest project in their company's history, which also happens
to be one of the most destructive we've seen on this coast.
Meanwhile it's our local Santa Barbara community who made the almost two hour commute to be
here today because ultimately this is our coast, these are our beaches, and we are the
ones who will bear the consequences of their recklessness.
Anything less than requiring Sable to undergo the permit process will jeopardize both the
legal integrity of this act and the safety of our coastline.
Our coast cannot afford another spill and the residents of Santa Barbara are firmly
behind this.
Thank you for your time and all you do.
All right, next to the Zoom, Heidi Harmon.
Hello everyone, my name is Heidi Harmon.
I'm a lifelong climate activist
and the former mayor of San Luis Obispo.
And I think most importantly,
a mother who wants nothing more than for my children
and yours and future generations to inherit a safe
and thriving world.
And I'm currently a senior organizer with Greenpeace.
And I wanna begin by warmly welcoming the new commissioner
and congratulating chair Meghan Harmon,
love the last name on her leadership role.
Your work is critical and I deeply appreciate
your ongoing dedication to protecting California's coast,
one of our state's most precious and fragile assets.
As someone who served in local office,
I understand how challenging your job can be
and how crucial it is to remain steadfast
in the face of powerful opposition.
And that's why I wanna thank you,
as so many others have done sincerely
for enforcing the protections of the Coastal Act
against Sable Offshore Corporation's
illegal and reckless actions.
Let's not forget, the pipeline Sable is trying to restart
is the very same one that ruptured in 2015,
devastating Refugio State Beach
and killing hundreds of marine animals and birds.
And I remember watching that unfold in horror
and I wondered what kind of world were leaving our children
when even our protected coastline wasn't safe
from greed and negligence.
It's unacceptable that this company has carried out work
in the coastal zone without proper permits
defying both your authority and the rule of law.
And these are not minor violations.
It is a direct threat to our coastline,
our communities and our climate.
And there must be no restart of this pipeline
without a full and transparent
coastal development permit process
and robust environmental review.
And anything less would be a betrayal of public trust.
As someone who has led on climate,
who has seen firsthand the consequences
of the fossil fuel disasters
and who has lived a life in service to her community,
I urge you to stay strong, vigilant, and rooted
in the values that guide work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Walter Lamb followed by Eileen Boakin,
followed by Susan Simon and Ernie Simon.
Walter Lamb.
Good morning, commissioners.
I believe there's one slide that I submitted.
In response to last month's decision on the Bionawetlands,
the abandonment in place of the drains, which we supported,
we just want to note that one thing that we had asked for
as part of that was an update
on the Bionawetlands Restoration Project.
The reason being was that it was five years ago,
it was a timeline for that project
that drove your policymaking.
And so we thought it was appropriate
for that timeline to be updated.
And the staff report said,
well, there was no need to update the timeline
because the decision that was being made
was now independent of the project.
But then during the staff presentation,
we heard the opposite.
We heard Deputy Director Steve Hudson say
that the final disposition of these pipes
is that they're gonna be removed as part of that project.
And so we do think it's reasonable for you
as a regulatory agency who's been making regulatory decisions
about this very important ecosystem
for 40 years now, over 40 years,
to just help the public understand
and help yourselves understand what is the timeline
for even just getting the environmental impact statement,
which is what was focused on in this staff report
from five years ago.
So when Mr. Hudson said at this point in time,
there's no timeframe on when the project might occur,
hopefully you can understand why that's concerning
to people who have been watching this unfold for 40 years in this current iteration of
the project the last 20 years, literally 20 years behind schedule and we just think it's
appropriate as a regulatory agency for you to help surface that information. Thank you
very much.
Thank you. Eileen Bochen, I'm going to allow you to talk. Go ahead and mute yourself.
Eileen Bochen, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, speaking on my own behalf.
During the June Coastal Commission meeting, under agenda item 8C, the legislative report,
the commission discussed AB 1007, Blanca Rubio, which would change staff review time from
90 days to 45 days.
Together with staffing reductions in the May revision, this would place the commission
in a difficult position.
This begs the question, is the Coastal Commission being set up for failure?
Is this similar to how cities are being set up for failure
by not being able to meet unrealistic housing goals
set by the state?
And when cities fail to meet these unrealistic goals,
ministerial approvals kick in.
New subject, the San Francisco planning director
who openly stated that coastal commission requirements
were bureaucratic and a waste of time has left.
Regarding the closure of the Great Highway in San Francisco,
A lawsuit has been filed.
The district supervisor is being recalled.
And the board of supervisors has instructed
the budget and legislative analyst
to conduct the performance audit
of the recreation and park department.
Advocates are urging that this audit
include possible collusion between Rec and Park
and local and state entities.
New subject.
Shame on San Francisco for not voting out
Newsom and Wiener locally before they went to Sacramento
and cynically took a chainsaw to CEQA.
And what's next?
Is it F around and find out?
Thank you.
Okay, Susan Simon and Ernie Simon,
followed by Paul Schneider, followed by Bill Woodridge.
Susan Simon?
Yes, good morning, Coastal Commissioners.
My name is Susan Simon,
co-chair of the Embarcadero Coalition.
I would like to share concerns we have regarding
the Port of San Diego's Port Master Plan update.
Specifically, the myriad of ways the PMPU is inconsistent
with the Coastal Act Chapter 3 codes.
Regarding Article 2, Public Access, Section 30210.
Due to major omissions, the PMPU does not promote
maximum access for Californians
or protect natural resource areas from overuse.
It also may not protect the rights of private property owners
due to excessive noise, traffic,
greenhouse gas emissions, et cetera.
All due to excessive development
inducing more out of state visitors to the water
for the San Diego Tourism Authority statistics.
The lack of inclusion of planning districts
such as Chula Vista, National City,
and the Seaport Project from the PMPU
under evaluates the impacts from these massive projects.
Section 30212.5, public facilities such as parking areas
and facilities are not distributed throughout the areas
so as to mitigate against impacts of overcrowding
or overuse by the public of any single area.
Most development is planned,
but not included for the Embarcadero
and not much or any in other included planning districts.
Section 30214 alpha section two,
due to large scale project omissions,
no proper evaluation of the capacity of the site
to sustain use and at what level of intensity
can be performed.
section 30214 alpha section 4. Without these large-scale project inclusion, there is no
discussion on the obvious need they will present for management of access areas so as to protect
the privacy of adjacent property owners and protect the aesthetic values of the area.
I appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning and your follow-up on these important
issues. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Ernie Simon followed by Paul Schneider followed by
Bill Woodridge, Ernie Simon. Thank you. Good morning coastal commissioners. My name is Ernie
Simon and I am a member of the Embarcadero Coalition. I would like to share concerns we
have regarding the Port of San Diego's Port Master Plan update. Specifically, the myriad of ways the
PMPU is inconsistent with the Coastal Act Chapter 3 codes. Regarding Article 3, Recreation,
30221 states quote oceanfront land suitable for recreation use shall be protected for recreational
use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreation
activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for
the area and quote there has been no analysis identifying the need for the vast number of hotels
and hotel rooms associated retail development identified that would be in addition to what
exists today. Current hotel occupancy rates are below 70 percent. Also the development of hotels,
restaurants, and associated retail decreases the amount of oceanfront recreational areas
and doesn't distribute them in a balanced manner. Excluding National City Chula Vista
and the seaport project from the PMPU did not allow a complete analysis of these issues and their impact.
Section 30224 states limiting non-water dependent land uses that congests access corridors and
preclude boating support activities and must highlight that hotels, restaurants, and retail
are not water dependent uses. Regarding Article 5 land resources, 30240B,
without the inclusion of mega development such as Chula Vista, National City, and the Seaport
Project in the PMPU, the evaluation of this measure can't be evaluated. In the Embarcadero,
certainly the Seaport Project, if developed anything like diversion,
ongoing CEQA. Parks and Recreation will be degraded due to large building. Thank
you. I appreciate the ability to comment. Next is Paul Snyder, followed by Bill
Woodbridge, followed by Gary Kirkland. Paul is not responding so we're gonna
move on to Bill. Hi commissioners, my name is Bill Woodbridge. Hello. Is that Paul?
Is that Paul? Paul is that you? That's me. Can you guys hear me? We can hear you. Go
ahead and speak. Thank you so much. I had some technical difficulty. So my name is
Paul Schneider. I'm a long-standing citizen here in resident of Santa Monica.
I'm a business owner as well and I'd really like to deeply mention my
concern regarding all the homeowners here strongly opposing the proposed
artificial dunes installation on state-owned beaches. Let me be clear to
you guys this is very very crucial to take the installation. I've lived here
full-time for 12 years. I've seen these beaches. I've seen how they're maintained. Adding artificial
sand dunes poses a real real issue. It's unjustified. It poses a major issue because there's basically
no erosion happening to the beach. There's no environmental impact reports. Excuse me sir.
This is an item on the agenda today so we'll ask you to hold your comments till that time.
Thank you. Perfect. I will. Thank you. Okay so Bill Woodbridge. Hi commissioners. My name is Bill
Woodbridge. I'm from Galita. First of all I would like to welcome the new
commissioners and recognize Megan Harmon for her new role as chair. Thank you for
your continuing hard work to protect the coast, especially in the fight against
Sable and imposing an 18 million dollar fine against them. Sable is just an
illegal radical disrespective company. We urge you to require all activities in
the coastal zone to be subject to a new coastal development permit including
restart of the pipeline. I am a volunteer rescue rescuer for Seabird
Wildlife for the Santa Barbara Wildlife Care Network. I see I rescue birds from
Montecito, up to El Capitan on the beach, mostly pelicans, other sea birds,
cormorants. I see more oil on more rocks than I ever want to see anybody have to
see. It's just permanent, it's destroyed our environment, it's destroyed our
beaches. We do not need another disaster like that to occur because of this
incompetent company who doesn't care which you say and doesn't abide by all
of the existing requirements. For the sake of our beautiful coast, please stay
strong and vigilant. You cannot afford to have another devastating spill or allow
the coast to be damaged any further. Thank you for your time and for the
work you do. Once again, this is critical. The beaches have been destroyed. We don't
need to have them destroyed any further thank you. Next is Gary Kirkland
followed by Ruth Rodriguez followed by Lynette Brooks followed by Emily Engle
if we move you to pounds that means you're going to be speaking soon please
try not to decline. Gary we're gonna allow you to speak. Hi thank you Gary
Kirkland calling for Metascadero California. I'm calling with two issues
I'll be very quick. One is Diablo Canyon should stay open for another 40 years or
20 years or however long it needs to be. It has been a great boom to our county
both environmentally and commercially and it's a boom to the state and I understand why
the governor changed his mind about it closing. He found out we don't have enough energy if we
closed down Diablo Canyon. It's got to stay open. The other is we need to stop the offshore wind
and battery storage facilities. The Coastal Commission, in my opinion, did a terrible job
in terms of the environmental impact of destroying beaches to put in, make
Avila and World Bay industrial like Long Beach to service the offshore wind and farms.
and it'll kill animals out in the ocean and we should stop this offshore wind farms and
stick with nuclear. Thank you very much. Okay next is Ruth Rodriguez. Good morning
commissioners. My name is Ruth Rodriguez and I'm speaking today on behalf of CHISPA,
an organization that provides affordable housing and community support services for working
families in Monterey County. I want to talk about what equity and access truly means when it comes
to our shared public lands, specifically Point Lobos.
Thanks to a partnership with Point Lobos Foundation and California State Parks, we've been able
to bring over 100 students to the reserve through education and outreach programs.
These experiences are life changing.
For many kids, it's their first visit to the ocean.
They touch the tide pool, see seals, and learn that these places are part of their birthright
as Californians.
Our kids are offered a program to be ambassadors to their families with gas cards and free
entry to take them back. However, it's access that is sometimes prohibitive. They arrive
midday, find the parking lot pool and discover their only option is to park on the side of
the highway and walk in. For a multi-generational family with elders, infants or with anyone
with a disability that's simply not possible or safe. So they turn around and a child's
wonder becomes disappointment in the day in connection with nature and family in the system.
That's why the Park It plan matters so much to us.
A reservation system and shuttle service that would offer predictability, safety and dignity.
It ensures that underserved communities can not only experience Point Lobo, but return
to it and be guaranteed access.
Free admission is not enough if you can't get through the gates safely.
Let's redefine access, not just by opening the door, but providing a path that everyone
can walk through.
Please support this plan.
matters more than you know. Thank you. Thank you Nexus Lynette Brooks. Go ahead and unmute yourself.
Um this is Lynette Brooks, a civil engineer retired USG press hydrologist.
I have previously sent you reports, letter, documents, and notifications.
Detailing that Rosetta's person is in critical overdraft. Lynette, do you mind speaking a little
bit more slowly and clearly for us. It sounds really buzzy, blurry on the speakers for us.
Okay. My point in all these documents was that the central core staff of the CCC was
ignoring data and using only a metric based on sustainable data that was calculated by
your own groundwater model. I warned the CCC that the water was wrong and was not matching
major data, but I was criticized by the staff and apparently ignored by the commissioners.
Now the new transit model has been completed, and as expected, it shows that current pumping
is not sustainable. Spencer Harris, a previous geologist wrote in a technical memorandum
that adjacent road of 1,830 acre feet per year,
which is a point pumping, is not sustainable.
Clearly, the urban estimate of a sustainable road
of 2,380 acre feet per year was wrong.
The model has not yet been used to estimate
what road would be sustainable,
but it will be an estimate of current use.
Some years of Bayside County
promise the citizens of Rosasos that the government would stop if company exceeded a new percent
of sustainable road.
Company was now exceeding 100% of sustainable road, as shown by data and by the new model.
It is up to the CCC to stop development and minimize further salt water intrusion than
Rosasos.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Emily Engel followed by Molly Troop, followed by Bill Hickman, followed
by Maggie Hall. Emily. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thanks for taking my comment.
Thank you to the commission for all of your time and for your service. I really appreciate
it. I'm the chair of the Santa Barbara Sierra Club Group, and I'm a mother of two young
children in Santa Barbara. I am here to urge you to continue your work supporting our local
um, environment, protecting our local environment and fighting climate change here on the central
coast. Um, as we all know, Sable Offshore Corporation is working to restart its oil
operations on our coast, and we still need your support. We urge you to require all activities
in the coastal zone to be subject to a new coastal development permit, including the
restart of the pipeline. For the sake of our beautiful coast, we urge you to stay strong and
vigilant. Our families and children are counting on you and we cannot afford to have another
devastating oil spill or to allow our coast to be damaged any further. I also urge you to hold a
formal hearing on the Diablo Canyon issue. Review of operations proposed by PG&E are critical given
the threats to local coastal resources such as marine life, marine resources which are key to
to our family's livelihoods, safety and protection,
as well as our local economy and education.
So I encourage you all to continue the work you're doing
and I really appreciate and applaud your efforts.
Thank you for everything.
Thanks for taking my comment.
Thank you, Nexus Molly, Molly Troop,
followed by Billy Hickman, followed by Maggie Hall,
followed by David Revelle.
Molly, there you are.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and members of the commission.
My name is Molly Trupp and I am the Science and Program Manager at Santa Barbara Channel
Keeper.
Our organization is located in Santa Barbara and we work to protect and restore the Santa
Barbara Channel and its watersheds from the Gaviota Coast down to the Ventura River.
I spoke last month on the issue of Sable and my comments today remain similar.
Channel Keeper and our 3,500 supporters are grateful to the commission for your continued
work to protect our coast including your incredible efforts to enforce the protections
of the Coastal Act against Stables' egregious violations.
I'm back today to again ask the Commission to determine that the restart of the pipeline
be subject to a coastal development permit so that the environmental impacts of this
project can be fully evaluated and the public can fully participate in a public process.
Restarting the pipeline without the cathodic protection that was required in the original
permit given to this project in the 80s is a significant departure and therefore should
trigger a new permit to evaluate the potential impacts. We continue to ask the Commission
to stand strong on this front and to require a full CDP before any potential restart of
the project. Again, thank you for all of your great work to protect our coast.
Thank you. Next is Bill Hickman.
Thank you very much. My name is Bill Hickman with the Surf Rider Foundation and thank you
all for your continuing hard work to protect the coast. I mainly going to echo the previous
two speakers so I'll be brief and just want to thank you specifically for continuing to
enforce the protection of the Coastal Act against Sable Offshore Oil Corporation, a
Texas based oil company, their legal work on the oil pipeline that spilled in 2015 by
plantings All-American in Santa Barbara County. Please require all activities in the coastal
zone to be subject to a new coastal development permit, including the restart of the pipeline
for the sake of our beautiful coast, please stay strong and vigilant. Thank you very
much for your time. Thank you. Next is Maggie Hall, followed by David Rivell, followed by
David Kay, followed by Jordana Drusch and Jake Talamy. Maggie, we're going to ask you
to unmute yourself, please. Maggie, I see you're unmuted. Okay. Chief counsel of the
Environmental Defense Center.
We represent the Environmental Defense Center get oil out,
Santa Barbara County Action Network,
SARE Club, and Santa Barbara Channel Keeper
regarding the proposed restart of the Sable pipeline.
As I testified last month,
we would like to thank the Commission
for its enforcement actions
related to the unpermitted repairs,
and we urge the Commission to similarly
require a coastal development permit
for restart of the pipeline.
As noted in our prior testimony and letters,
1987 permit for the pipeline relied on a cathodic protection system to prevent corrosion and reduce
the risk of an oil spill. That system failed causing one of the worst oil spills in the state's
history. Sable now proposes to restart the pipeline without an effective cathodic protection system
requiring a waiver of this important safety requirement. This is a significant change to
to the project which according to the commission's March staff report was not
quote considered analyze described or approved in the 1980s permits issued for
the original construction of the pipeline the removal of the pipelines
insulation and implementation of this new strategy ie the waiver for managing
corrosion risk represents such a fundamental shift in the pipelines
design and operation that resuming operations under this new system would
not be consistent with the existing permit and should necessitate an amendment to the
original permit due to the significant deviation between what was analyzed, permitted and constructed
and what Sable has been actively trying to transform the pipeline and its operation into.
Accordingly, the Commission must require a new or modified permit prior to restart and
operation of the pipeline.
Again, we thank the Commission for upholding the Coastal Act and protecting our coast.
urge the commission to take action in a timely manner. Thank you. Thank you. Next is David
Ravel. Morning commissioners and commission staff. Thank you for the opportunity to engage
the commission. I want to commend the commission on all the excellent work that it has done
on sea level rise over the past many years. However, I want to bring up one case that
has come up that sort of hit me upside the head a little bit last meeting. I
think it was 12a and it was at the mouth of the Carpinteria salt marsh at 501
Sandpoint. I've been studying the coast of California for 20 plus years as a
coastal geologist and geomorphologist. This place proposed development is one
of the worst places in California to develop and it received approvals to
continue building a huge house that's already surrounded by water on three sides and proposes
to build an above ground pool as well. If they want water, they're going to get it,
whether they like it or not. There was a couple of procedural things. I know there was several
public comments that did not get heard at the meeting last time. I wanted to raise a
couple of issues. I thought the staff report was good, but there was definitely some issues
around the public trust and the migration of in high water and the lack of analysis
of coastal erosion that considered a revetment that is unpermitted right now that this property
would depend on. Without that revetment in place, mean high water would likely be where
the parcel and the development is proposed. I think that is a huge misstep for the Commission
to approve into this very environmentally sensitive habitat area. At the very least,
have that project bonded so that when it becomes a public nuisance, we have money to clean
up their masks because otherwise we're going to be dealing with this for the next four
years. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is David Kaye, followed by Jordana Jersh, followed by Jake Talmoumi,
and Diana Sandoval. We have like four more speakers left after those three.
Can you hear me?
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
I'm David Kaye and I live in Playa Vista next to the Biono Wetlands.
Your most senior staff know me as the Edison guy who managed the San Diego Wetlands restoration
long, long ago.
Month after month, for decades now, the same half dozen people representing themselves
as experts they are not have come before you,
whining and complaining about the Bione wetlands
and mischaracterizing Cal Fish and Wildlife's restoration plan
as a capital crime.
They complain of delays caused by their own litigation.
I'm here to remind you that there are thousands of people
in Los Angeles who quietly,
patiently support the Fish and Wildlife plan.
And we don't appreciate those activists publicly berating your dedicated staff by name, simply
because they let law and sciences truths guide them.
These activists will look you in the eyes with the sun in your face and tell you it's
nighttime.
And when you point out to them the sun up in the sky, they will insist there's something
wrong with your vision.
Hear their words with extreme skepticism.
The Fish and Wildlife Plans for the Bionawetlands are elegant and extraordinary because they
build on lessons learned from scores of restoration projects you have already approved and which
are wildly successful.
Ignore the noise and stay the course.
My name is David Kaye.
Thank you for your time and your service.
Thank you David.
Next is Jordana.
I'm going to go ahead and allow you to talk and unmute yourself.
Good morning everyone. I'm here regarding article 13 the sand dunes in Santa Monica and I believe you guys are pushing that back for comments. Is that correct.
That's correct. We're likely going to need to postpone that item. We'll get to that later in the agenda.
But since we're likely going to be postponing it, you can speak now since it won't be on the regular agenda. So please go ahead with your comments if you'd like to proceed.
Okay, yeah, so I'm here today as a homeowner on PCH in Santa Monica.
And one, it's funny how this quietly got approved back in 2024.
Our concerns as a community are the fact that the dunes would be a huge disruption to the
vision in front of our properties, not only that, but a high risk of fire.
will bring transient encampments back that are already a huge problem in the
area. Um, I don't know if you're aware, but several years ago on the Venice
Boardwalk due to the transient, a whole entire apartment building caught fire.
Um, not only is it a huge fire risk, but the visit, the homeless population
that we already have down there will increasingly probably increase the
almost encampments as I stated. Also, we it's funny how we've been told that these are going
to go in front of our properties, but not in front of any of the beach clubs or the eateries,
the restaurants, and it's going to have a huge impact on the events that we currently have
and the access to the beach that we that we have for residents and guests that come to our city.
we have frisbee leagues, we have fitness classes, we have youth programs, and if these dunes are in
place then that's going to take away some of the availability of the land that we currently have
to use in front of our homes. So again it's just a huge concern and I hope you guys take this into
consideration moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Jake Tuomi followed by Diana Sandoval
followed by Jordan Plemons, followed by Paul Snyder. We're going to bring him back to be able
to talk about 13A. Jake, if you can unmute yourself. Oh, sorry, can you hear me? Go ahead Jake, we hear you.
I, um, congratulations new commissioners and chair. My name is Jake Toomey. I'm a student at UCSB
and I'm the chair of CalPERS students representing 25,000 UC students across the state.
Sable has time and time again proven to be an untrustworthy unlawful corporation
and they do not have the interests of the Californians and the California coast in mind.
I'm keeping this comment short because many have said what I've been saying but
it's very essentially important that Sable is subject to coastal development permits
in their journey to try and restart the pipeline.
Thank you very much.
Next is Diana Sandoval.
The only one I see I'm hoping is her
is Santa Barbara County.
So Diana, we're gonna ask you to unmute yourself.
I see you're muted.
Good morning.
Good morning.
My name is Diana Sandoval
and this is my eighth time discussing
the block public equestrian hiking trail
3215 F. Hill Road, Carpenturia. To recap this public trail, which should be accessible to the
public, has gone unrecorded and blocked for years. Despite this clear violation,
Santa Barbara County has known about this for 14 months and the commission has known for 13 months,
but the issue remains. The public trail is unrecorded and blocked. The 15-foot-wide public
equestrian and hiking trail easement was required to be recorded prior to land use clearance,
yet 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 Sarapola Drive, a public street which we see here.
This would allow immediate public to public access once recorded.
Slide please. Santa Barbara County is using a one foot buffer, again one foot
at Serapola Drive which the same property owner owns as an excuse to deny the southern entrance.
As we see in this grant deed, the one-foot buffer is part of the same deed and should not be used as
an excuse. I respectfully urge enforcement staff to ensure that the polo trail is promptly recorded
immediately open to the public. Santa Barbara County Planning and Development has a documented
pattern of unlawfully exempting this property from permit requirements and the coastal act. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Jordan Plemons. I muted you. Go ahead and talk.
Good morning commissioners. My name is Jordan. I'm a longtime beach community resident and I'm
also here to voice my opposition to the Santa Monica Dune restoration project. Not because
I oppose environmental efforts but because this plan introduces serious trade-offs that I believe
are being overlooked. As the individuals before me have noted, the increase for fire risk by
introducing dry vegetation into what is now clean groomed low-risk areas cannot be overstated as we
saw in the palisades and Malibu fires earlier this year. Second, with the transient activities,
before me people have indicated risk of crime and other things, but I'd like to also add that
adding fences and cover creates pockets that reduce visibility and could invite loitering or
encampments that further increase the fire risk posed in these areas. Lastly, I would just like
to touch the cost and complexity of this project and the fact that we're already failing to maintain
what we already have. The promenade is deteriorating, crime and safety is escalating along our beach
front, and residents here are asking for basic services, not more spending on aesthetic experiments.
Thank you. Thank you. Next is Paul Schneider. Paul, if you can unmute yourself.
Hi. Hello and thank you so much for coming back to me. I truly appreciate it. Can you guys hear
me okay? Yes, no problem. Thank you tremendously and thank you guys for everything you do. As a
resident here in Santa Monica for 12 years, I live here full-time as not a lot of people do.
I spent much of those 12 years doing everything in my power to make Santa Monica better. From
working with the fire department to the police department, I have cameras all over the beach
helping keep at least a minimum to the homeless encampments, the trash. I spent Saturdays and
Sundays along with local homeowners cleaning everything up, and I'm here to urge you guys
to put an end to these dunes. They're an insane fire hazard. As somebody who spent two weeks with
all of my company trucks rescuing all my friends from fires down PCH and up in the Palisades,
I can't tell you that I had 38 of my closest friends lose their homes and much of their
their livelihood because of the fires.
Putting these dunes on the beach
poses an incredible fire risk to not only the residents,
but also people looking to flee to safety.
I've discussed it numerous times
with the Santa Monica Fire Department
and other local fire departments.
There are hazards that simply can't be managed.
With more than 40 acres being taken away in public spaces
for dunes that will never be maintained, never be cleaned,
we currently can't even keep the beaches
that we have now clean.
They're full of homeless encampments,
dirt, trash, and debris.
With over 10 million people visiting the Santa Monica Beach
every single year, that's an insane amount of trash
that'll be collected inside these dunes.
The combination of the fact that we don't have the money,
the management, or the maintenance plan
to even control the vegetation and things that are planned,
this is really a test we can't afford to do.
As a resident and somebody that truly loves Santa Monica,
and I hope you guys can see in my tone of my voice
the passion I have for this place,
we can't allow this progress to continue. It's horrible. It's a massive trash and
homeless encampment issue. It's a fire issue. I'm not even going to mention the
fact of lack of public process since nobody was even notified. It poses a
legal and public safety liability and one that we can't really continue to do.
This plan is unnecessary, unsafe and completely disconnected. Thank you guys.
Please don't move forward with this plan. I urge you. Thank you. We have two
Linda Kropp followed by John DeRosa but we do not see them online so let me just
see if they can raise their hands. Wait a minute. I do notice that we have
Zoe Collins. She intended to speak on item 13A. Should we allow her to speak?
Okay. Zoe Collins you can unmute. Hi, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.
Good morning, my name is Zoe Collins and I'm part of the science and policy team
Heal the Bay, an environmental non-profit advocating for making the coastal waters and
watersheds of Los Angeles safe, healthy, and clean, and we would like to express our support
for this application. The combination of sea level rise, stripping away sands, human activity,
obstructing natural sediment deposition, and coastal development hindering natural beach
movement puts Southern California beaches at risk of shrinking and even disappearing.
Recent research indicates that by 2100 as much as 75 percent of California's beaches may become
completely eroded due to sea level rise. Healdah Bay advocates for nature-based multi-benefit
solutions that promote an equitable and resilient future for Los Angeles, recognizing the many
challenges that we face as we continue to bear the increased impact of climate change.
Student restoration is a multi-benefit solution that not only helps protect our beaches from
increased wave action and storm surge but also provides important habitat for sandy beach
organisms. Further, dune creation and restoration is a soft solution which is a much better option
than hard armoring such as seawalls as these solutions lead to increased beach loss over time
and did not preserve biological integrity of the ecosystem and reduced coastal access for communities.
As supporters of restoration projects across LA County as integral components of shoreline
adaptation and resilience we support this proposed project. Thank you so much for all the work that
see you guys do, and we urge you to support.
Thank you, Zoe.
No other hands are raised.
We're good to go.
Awesome.
Thank you, Simone.
Thank you, Chris.
Before we take a break, I'm going
to turn it to commissioners for questions pertaining
to public comment.
As a reminder and for our new commissioners,
just a heads up that this is an opportunity
to ask staff questions about what we heard in public comment
to determine whether a full hearing is appropriate,
not to substantively discuss the matters that were brought up in public comment.
So I'm going to stress Galante earning my name chair and congratulations.
So sorry I missed the celebration last month and vice chair part back at the helm.
So nice to see you and welcome to the new commissioners who look forward to getting
to know and to meet a couple of and thanks to the public for such thorough commentary.
It was all very inspiring.
It's always very concerning in many ways.
On Oceano, when will be the next sort of commission review?
And I guess somebody mentioned that annual review was
passed to, and I would also like to ask
if we can have organized a site visit for that next whenever
that happens.
I think the new commissioners would benefit from that.
I actually haven't gotten very far deep in there in part
because I got stuck in the sand.
So it would be great to hear about that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Escalante.
We don't have anything scheduled in front
of the commission at this point.
So there's nothing coming up on the agenda
that I can tell you about.
That said, I and staff have been working on,
generally with parks and with the community members
and things on these issues generally
over the last few months.
So I actually did get the chance
to do a little bit of a site visit,
which is really helpful.
So I will, next time we're down here
and we can arrange that.
I think that would be something we could definitely do.
So I don't have any specific updates yet,
only know that we are working on all kinds of,
first for me, it's getting my hands wrapped
around the entire situation
and what potential next steps would be.
We're working through that.
and once we have any more information or clarity,
we'll absolutely bring it to you,
possibly as an informational update first
and then depending on whatever future decisions
may come before this commission.
Just to follow up, Chair.
So what were they talking about,
the annual review that was passed to, what was that?
So the permit that the commission amended in March of 2021
required annual updates to be taken to the commission,
but that aspect of the permit was changed
by the commission's March, 2021 action.
And that's what has been litigated
for the past several years.
So that permit condition isn't currently in place.
Thank you, thank you.
And I just have one question.
This Carpinteria horse trail,
I do appreciate that the member of the public
has been sticking to the issue.
Do we have any comments about that or your response?
don't think Lisa's oh yes we do she's gonna see if Lisa's available so my again
we're continuing to work on it we've been in touch with the county I believe
it is so I don't think we have an update on it at least I'm not aware of one and
it's just we might we're continuing to work to try to get the issue is resolved
thank you director Hucklebridge and I guess that's the the answer to the
member of the public and folks concerned is that our agency is looking at it. So
oh there comes Miss Hagee. I'm sorry I don't have a lot of substantive updates
to do. We have received the complaints from Miss Sandoval and we've talked to
the county about them and we're continuing to try to coordinate. Some of
them are in the county's jurisdiction and they have the lead and they haven't
yet responded substantively. So we are going to keep monitoring and working with
county to try to address the issues and evaluate the extent to which they require future action.
Thank you Ms. Hagee. Commissioner Wilson. Commissioner Preciado.
I was interested in the commentary that was made associated with
providing access and so when projects are approved or permits are issued and access is provided
in the sense that there would be a road or a pathway
or a trail.
The discussion was from the speaker
was that there needed to be further accommodations
to support families or multi-generational families
in attending.
And I was just curious if in a future space of any kind
we can discuss what constitutes access
in reality for a community.
Is access a simple pathway or is access full accommodation?
I think it would be interesting to understand
what the implications of that is related
to projects we approve because,
well, another speaker spoke about a one foot path.
And so I don't think my heart would let me walk through
there, but I am interested in understanding what that is.
And as projects get approved, obviously, each project has a
context, each project has a community it serves, but I'm
interested in understanding better what access means when
it is a condition placed on a project.
So I was just trying to understand that better, but I'm
not expecting a substantive answer, I'm expecting to
understand in the future how that works. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Procciato. An excellent question and one that we grapple with constantly
because I do think it's it I think access looks different in different places for different
purposes and that is an incredibly important question that we need to be asking ourselves
every time we have a project in front of us that has an access component and something
that I think staff we've become increasingly over the years focused on ensuring access
for all and what does that entail?
And again, it's changed over the years, I think, in what's been acceptable.
So I just, again, won't respond substantively here, but it's an excellent question and one
that I think we absolutely are thinking about and engaging on and will kind of be a topic
that we're going to be covering constantly and grappling with what does it look like
and how are we making sure that everyone can get to the beach and is welcomed at the beach.
For me, I also have a follow-up. I'm interested in some of the issues of environmental justice
that were discussed in the OC annual project. I know that's not on our agenda, but I was curious
in terms of the other, the local governments that run and how we coordinate or how they're
responsible for that access. I know that we were we were not successful in
litigation as the public shared with us but it also seems that there are other
governmental entities that could contribute to improving the situation so
I'm just interested in in the future to see to what extent the mitigations the
public is looking for could be addressed through another process thank you thank
you commissioner not off thank you a couple things I did want to associate
myself with some of the comments by just just but in Monterey County about
concern about safety and accessing point Lobos and there's a number of proposals
that staff has been talking to the County about that I think you know we're
making some progress there but I did want to just highlight the public safety
problem that's now existing with the on-road parking there and you know
children and older people and others walking along Highway 1 while people are
zooming by at 50 miles an hour. So I'm just wanted to encourage staff to
continue to work with the county to come and with state parks to come up
with a safer alternative there. And then the other question I had was
regarding Oceana. It sounds like there's it's kind of the ball is in
the county's court to amend their L. C. P. And wondered if we had any report
on that I'm not aware of any discussions specifically about amending the LCP you're right that we
don't unilaterally to you know that they would need to come to us with an LCP amendment it's
not something that we can unilaterally decide to do so but I as I was sort of trying to
allude to before I think we're in this position of right now of trying to figure out what
the next best steps are and that's for us and all the other entities that are involved
including local governments and state perks and others.
So I don't have a clear answer for you
because we're still working through that process
of what are the next potential steps that we can take
to continue to address the myriad of concerns
that we've, you know, that we're all very familiar with.
So, but yes, I think we're, you know,
the local governments are absolutely part
of that conversation on what potential next steps would be.
Okay, so while we're here in San Luis Obispo County,
It's really, I just want to make sure that they understand
that we need the county to work with us
to provide access and to protect the habitat there.
So just want to encourage that collaboration.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Seeing none, thank you very much to the public
for your comments.
I think now we'll take a brief break
if the commissioners could please be back at 11.15
to resume the calendar.
Thank you.
OK, thank you.
We're ready to jump back in, and that will bring us
to item five, which is the chair's report.
And I just have a brief comment.
On June 26, at staff's request, I
authorized a support position on behalf of the commission
for Assembly Joint Resolution 16 by Assemblymember David
Alvarez.
This resolution would urge the president and Congress
to fully fund the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's comprehensive infrastructure solution
for the Tijuana River,
and to take immediate and sustained action
to address the transboundary pollution crisis
affecting the San Diego region.
While ordinarily, staff would bring any recommended positions
on legislative items to our monthly meetings
so that the full commission can take a vote,
In this case, AJR 16 was introduced
after the June Commission hearing on June 16th
and was scheduled to be heard by the Assembly
before this July meeting on July 1st.
Given this narrow window of time
that the Commission had to take a position,
the fact that this Commission has supported
a similar revolution by Mr. Alvarez last year
and that we've had consistent, strong support
for all efforts to address
the transboundary pollution crisis,
I felt it appropriate to register the Commission's support for the resolution.
The letter is up on our website, so I encourage everyone to please take a look at that and
I'll ask if there are any public comments on this item.
No, I don't believe there are.
Wonderful.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
With that, we will move on to item six, the Executive Director's report.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Commissioners.
My published Executive Director report can be found on the Commission's website.
As usual, I'll spend a few minutes going over several of the items, so it'll be a relatively
short report today.
On June 11, staff from the San Diego District and Federal Consistency Division participated
in a site visit with staff from the San Diego Association of Governments, North County Transit
District, and the City of Del Mar to see the progress and construction of the Del Mar Bluffs
Five project to stabilize the existing railroad right of way along the Del Mar Bluffs, and
there's a picture of that site visit in the published detailed report if you're interested.
Next, the State Coastal Conservancy hosted a webinar with state and federal agency partners
to provide information on grant funding, opportunities for local governments, and other stakeholders
to support resilience planning efforts.
Commissioned staff provided an overview of the new sea level rise planning requirements
associated with SB 272, as well as the Commission's LCP grant program and the role it has played
in helping local governments prepare for sea level rise.
Other agencies, including the OPC, the Conservancy, Department of Water Resources, and the Wildlife
Conservation Board, and federal agencies, Army Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
spoke about their own grant opportunities for supporting both adaptation planning work
and project implementation.
A recording of that webinar is available on the Coastal Conservancy's YouTube channel,
and there is a link in the published ED report.
Next, I wanted to let you all know we were already gearing up for Coastal Cleanup Day in this fall,
and so from mid-May to early June, public ed staff held a series of in-person and remote
workshops for California Coastal Cleanup Day and for the regional coordinators for that event.
The workshops were designed to kick-start planning for this year's cleanup, which will take place on
Saturday, September 20th. So please put that date in your calendar. Coordinators
shared ideas, challenges, and successes they've experienced during past cleanups
and brainstormed ideas about how to make this year's event even better.
The workshops also gave staff the opportunity to reveal this year's theme,
which is the Trasher Hunt. This year's Coastal Cleanup Day will be the world's
largest scavenger hunt. Volunteers all around the state will have the
opportunity to find special items hidden at cleanup sites that can be
redeemed for valuable prizes, such as passes to California theme parks, stays
at luxury hotels, and even an e-bike. So details can be found at Coastal Cleanup
Day dot org and I'm sure we'll be sharing more as it comes available.
Finally, the Commission is excited to welcome our new Peter Douglas intern,
Hallie Bolek. The internship is a part-time paid opportunity for
undergrads funded by a memorial fund for the late visionary
leader of our agency. The internship is administered in
partnership with the California marine sanctuaries Foundation
and drew in over 100 applicants. This showcases the interest of
the next generation of environmental advocates. So
Holly Bullock will be working with the Central Coast district
staff, as well as supporting environmental justice and
housing initiatives for the Coastal Commission.
And Madam Chair, that concludes my
executive director's report,
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Director Hucklebridge.
Are there any public comments?
None.
None, thank you.
And any questions or comments
from commissioners on the EV report?
Commissioner Escalante.
All very exciting news and events,
and wish I could participate in that,
scavengers hunt and win a prize,
but I know I can.
And we'd love to just at some point get to see the intern,
at least through Zoom, it would great to meet them
and hear about their background
and kind of what they want again
for being from this experience.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I will try to make that happen.
Okay, thank you very much.
Moving on to the legislative report.
Chair Harnett and commissioners,
this is the legislative report for July.
Staff is bringing one bill analysis to you today,
But first, let me begin with an update on the legislative session.
At this point in the session, most bills that are still moving are being
heard in policy committees in their second house.
These committee hearings have led to a number of the commission's priority
bills being amended in the past month.
And those amendments are summarized in staff's written report.
We want to draw your attention to a few recently amended bills in particular.
First, AB 357 by assembly member David Alvarez, which deals with university
housing projects in the coastal zone was amended twice in the past month.
You'll recall that that bill requires the commission to act on CDPs for university housing
projects within 90 days.
On June 30th, the author amended the bill to add language that would exempt certain
types of housing-related amendments to a university's long-range development plan, or LRDP, from
Coastal Commission review.
The bill amendments also direct the Commission to prioritize active transportation and public
transit over private parking when it's evaluating proposed LRDP amendments, and also to defer
to universities in determining parking requirements in their LRDPs.
Following these amendments to the bill, staff met with the author's office and sponsor
the bill to affirm the Commission's commitment to facilitating university housing projects,
and also to flag potential unintended consequences to housing and to coastal resources that could
result from exempting certain LRDP amendments from the Coastal Act. The bill was heard in the
Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee yesterday and during the hearing the author
agreed to further amendments to the bill that removed the proposed exemption language and instead
would establish an expedited process for the Commission to quickly approve
University LRDP amendments that raise no coastal resource concerns. This new process is analogous
to the existing processes that the commission uses to quickly approve
de minimis amendments to an LCP or to a port master plan.
Once these committee amendments go into print that will resolve the commission's
concerns with the previous amendments to the bill.
It'll be heard next in the senate housing committee on July 15th.
Next AB 462 by assembly member Lowenthal and assembly speaker Rivas was also
heard in the senate natural resources and water committee yesterday.
That bill would have exempted ADUs from the Coastal Act on a gradual county by county basis.
In yesterday's committee hearing, Assemblymember Lowenthal accepted amendments that will remove
the proposed exemption language and instead require coastal local governments and the Commission
to act on CDP applications for ADUs within 60 days, which is the length of time that local
governments currently have to act on other local permits for ADUs. The amendments specify that if
if the local government or the Commission misses the 60-day deadline, then the CDP is
automatically deemed approved by operation of law.
The amendments also prohibit local CDPs for ADUs from being appealed to the Commission.
Overall, these amendments make significant progress toward addressing the Commission's
previously identified concern with exempting ADUs from the Coastal Act, and the potential
to lead to unintended consequences to coastal resources, public access, and sea level rise
adaptation. Staff do have some concern with prohibiting appeals of local CDPs
for ADUs altogether, because although it's historically rare for the
Commission to accept an appeal of a local CDP for an ADU, we're talking about
1% of local ADU CDPs, the permits the Commission does take jurisdiction over
are the cases that do present potentially significant issues. Staff are
continuing to have conversations with the author's office about this policy
concern as the bill continues moving forward. That bill will also be heard in the Senate
Housing Committee on July 15th.
Next AB 770 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez was substantially amended in the Senate Transportation
Committee last month. That's the bill that would have exempted from state and local environmental
review projects that structurally fortify old billboards. The recent amendments shrank
the scope of the bill considerably to focus just on billboards located at convention centers
in the city of Los Angeles. These amendments resolve the Commission's previous concerns
about exempting billboard projects in sensitive areas of the coastal zone.
One last priority bill update, SB 484 by Senator Laird, which the Commission supports,
was also amended in June. That bill would direct the Commission to establish categorical exclusions
for 100 percent affordable housing projects in the infill areas of three or more uncertified
local jurisdictions. The recent amendments make several clarifying revisions to the language
of the bill and require the commission to post the adopted Caddexes on its website.
Staff has no concerns with these changes. There are two new bills that have been added
to the written legislative report this month. The first is AB 130, which is one of a suite
of budget trailer bills that were introduced the week of June 23, passed by the legislature
and signed by the governor June 30, along with the primary state budget bill, and then
took effect on July 1.
Traditionally, budget trailer bills make any statutory tweaks that are needed to implement
line items in that year's state budget.
Some of the budget trailer bills that were introduced and enacted in the past month contain
more substantive changes to a number of statutes.
Among these, AB 130 made several direct amendments
to the Coastal Act, and it also amended relevant provisions
of the Permit Streamlining Act.
Within the Coastal Act, AB 130 narrowed the legal grounds
upon which local CDPs for certain multifamily housing
projects can be appealed to the commission.
Specifically, the bill excludes residential projects
of four or more units from being appealed on the basis
that the project is in a sensitive coastal resource area,
or is not the principally permitted use of the parcel
as designated in the LCP.
The bill also added language to the Coastal Act
requiring the commission to submit an annual report
to the legislature with data
on appeals of multifamily housing projects.
AB 130 also amended the Permit Streamlining Act
in two ways that affect the commission's permitting process.
First, the bill decreased the time
in which the commission must act on CDP applications
for most housing projects
the current deadline of 180 days after receiving a complete application to 90 days after receiving
a complete application. Second, the bill established that if any state or local agency including the
commission doesn't act on a permit for any type of project by the Permit Stream Wanting Act deadline
then that permit is deemed approved automatically. Given that AB 130 was a budget trailer bill its
provisions took effect immediately and are now the law. Some of these statutory changes may
sound familiar and that's because they were originally introduced this year as a part of
SB 681, which is the Senate's housing omnibus bill. AB 130 essentially took these and other
provisions out of SB 681 along with several other bills and passed them all together as a budget
trailer bill. Staff certainly support the overall goal of these provisions to facilitate the
construction of new dense housing in the coastal zone.
As staff noted when we previously briefed the Commission on SB 681, careful implementation
will be key for avoiding unintended resource impacts that could result from limiting the
appealability of development in sensitive coastal resource areas and from allowing permits
that aren't acted on in time to be deemed approved automatically.
Additional staffing resources may be necessary to meet the new Permanent Streamlining Act
deadline for housing projects.
In the meantime, staff are making the necessary adjustments to the agency's permitting workflow
to meet the reduced permit timeline for housing permits.
Staff will also be notifying local governments in the coastal zone of the permitting and
appeals changes made by AB 130 to make sure there is smooth implementation throughout
the coastal zone.
The other new bill on the legislative report this month is AB 1470 by Assemblymember Matt
Paney from eastern San Francisco. The bill previously dealt with student housing but
was rewritten by the author at the end of June to instead make a number of statutory
changes aimed at simplifying the construction of restaurants. Relevant to the commission,
the bill would exempt the construction of restaurant patios from the Coastal Act.
Staff met with the author's office last week to discuss the potential unintended consequences of
exempting restaurant patios from the Coastal Act, particularly in sensitive areas like
along state tide lands or adjacent to public access ways. Staff also provided information
about existing processes under the Coastal Act that already allow for expedited permitting of
restaurant patios and other development in appropriate locations. It is our understanding
that the author's office is now pursuing amendments to remove the proposed Coastal Act
exemption from the bill and to press on with the remaining provisions that are unrelated to the
to the Coastal Act.
This will resolve staff's policy concerns.
Looking ahead, July 18th is the last day
for policy committees to hold hearings on bills.
At that point, the legislature will begin
its summer recess for about a month.
When it reconvenes, there will be another month
that's left for the legislature to pass bills
before the session ends on September 12th.
With that, Chair Harmon, I'll pause
in case there are any questions
about the legislative report
Before I turn it over to legislative director Sarah Christie to present the analysis staff is bringing to you today. Thank you. Mr. Drake. Any questions at this time.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thank you. I guess this is to you. Director Hucklebridge with these more and more we're seeing these accelerated timelines.
How do you anticipate dealing with those? Will there be budget requests for additional staff or.
Can you just sort of outline whatever your concerns are
with regard to this?
Yes, thank you, Vice Chair Hart.
We do have concerns about our ability to carry out
the more accelerated timelines with the current staff
we have and given recent budget cuts that you're all aware of.
You know, we're kind of in a phase of shrinking staff,
our staff numbers as opposed to growing them.
At the same time, we're being asked to do things faster.
And so that is a challenge.
and we've been very upfront about that
with the legislature and the administration
about the challenges associated with that
and we'll continue to advocate for appropriate resources
to be able to meet those deadlines.
Because in principle I don't think we have,
there are some concerns but it's more
of a staffing issue frankly.
So we're gonna continue to advocate
for additional staff resources
so that we can meet those deadlines
and we will let you know how that shakes out in the end.
but again, as you all are aware, it's not a good,
we have a really difficult budget situation
this year for the state.
So I'm also not anticipating being able
to get a bunch of additional resources
to address these additional requirements.
So we're gonna have to figure that out.
Commissioner Preciado.
I think the vice chair brings up an important topic.
It has been, as it was explained to me at the last meeting,
the Commission's policy not to use developer fees
or developer staff for a combination of all of that
to get involved, but in our local government,
when we see increased activity,
we put it upon the developers
to fund processing their activities.
And so I just want to put it out there
for the consideration of the commission and staff
that we may have to find a way in the near future,
given that everything is getting accelerated,
that we need to find ways to staff through fees
or use fees, staff and consultants
to carry out the important work of the commission so that as the language specifies in many
of the legislation things become approved if we don't get to them.
And so I just want to encourage the commission to work with staff to create scenarios and
potentially develop policy that will allow us to follow what counties and cities are
doing throughout the state, as these development projects come around, that we charge enough
fees to have the staff to carry out our regulatory or legally required review.
And so that may cause some tension with the legislature that we're creating new burdens,
something's got to give and tough budgets come around in California every
two or three years so we have to figure out a way to sustain ourselves and being
be able to carry out our function so I'm editorializing a little bit but Vice
Chair I think it's an important work work that we need to figure out as we
move forward as an agency, commission. It costs money to do these processes. It costs
human capital to do these processes. And as an example, in the last report that the executive
director provided, well, eyeballing it from far away, we're getting a cut of about $4
million dollars, if I remember correctly.
I don't know how we continue to accelerate,
continue to meet everything we do,
leap over high tall buildings,
and other things if we don't create
the infrastructure necessary to carry out our purpose.
And so I just want to appreciate that you rose,
that the Vice Chair rose the issue up,
and that hopefully in the near future
we can have a policy discussion about
how to turn this into action.
Thank you.
We will return to Mr. Drake, Ms. Christie.
I would turn my camera on so my camera is disabled
by the coast.
We're having a little trouble hearing you, Ms. Christie.
We do.
Sorry about that.
I was saying I couldn't turn my camera on,
but the staff secured that.
So thank you very much.
Good morning, commissioners.
And thank you, Sean,
for outlining the very busy month
that we've had in Sacramento since we last spoke with you.
Staff has prepared an updated analysis of SB 675 for you.
It reflects the recent amendments
which went into print in the bill on Monday.
That analysis can be found at page 20
of the legislative report if you haven't reviewed it yet.
We've been getting monthly updates for you on this bill
through the ledge report, but just as a refresher
for members of the public SB 675 addresses the proposed seaport San Diego redevelopment
at the port of San Diego which will be reflected in an upcoming port master plan amendment
before this commission. SB 675 would establish a series of separate specific deadlines by which
the commission must respond to the port and the project proponent during all three phases of
that process, preparation of the EIR, Coastal Commission review of the Port Master Plan Amendment,
and any subsequent appeals of coastal development permits issued by the Port.
The recent amendments would also limit the circumstances under which appeals of
seaport San Diego projects may be appealed to or considered by the Commission to objective
standards only. And while objective standards are an important tool that planners use to ensure
certain policy goals and provide certainty for applicants, objective standards can't fully
capture the myriad nuances and complexities that are inherent in coastal resource protection.
To Commissioner Presiado's earlier inquiry this morning, the question of what constitutes public
access is a perennial question that the commission addresses in myriad ways under various circumstances.
It is this change to a legal standard for appeals for this one specific project that
has informed staff's opposed recommendation to you today.
However, it's worth noting that throughout the last few weeks, commission staff has been
working very closely with Seaport San Diego Development Team on an MOU that would flesh
out a mutually agreeable timeline and associated protocol for the review and processing of
the Seaport San Diego project.
This type of approach isn't unusual for large complex coastal developments and the commission
has participated in numerous MOUs over the years to good effect.
We're happy to report that our conversations with the development team and the port have
been fruitful and we'd like to take a moment to thank the entire team for their willingness
to roll up their sleeves and work through these issues with us.
We've taken this approach because we believe an MOU will have greater utility for both
parties.
MOUs allow for additional, sometimes granular detail that's not well suited to statutory
language, while still remaining nimble enough to account for contingencies that may arise
without having to go back to the legislature.
We're hopeful that a signed MOU would also alleviate the need for a bill on this subject.
We've reached out to the author's office to keep him abreast of our efforts, and we
hope that given the progress over the recent days and weeks, and how close we now are to
reaching an agreement, we can work with the author to resolve any remaining issues by
early August, at which point we hope the bill will take a different trajectory.
However, in order to be fully transparent with our legislative partners and the public
and our commissioners, we felt it was important to bring you this updated analysis for your
consideration.
And so with that, I'm available for any questions unless Director Hucklebridge has anything
to add.
Yes, thank you.
Through the chair, I'd love to add a few additional comments, just a little bit of additional
context because I've been personally very engaged in discussions around this bill and
with the project, and so I want to put a finer point on the issue that Sarah mentioned that
a recommendation today really stems from the components of this bill that would create
a separate standard of review for appeals for one individual project.
And for obvious reasons, if this becomes a trend, you can imagine a scenario where we
quickly have several different types of reviews for different projects all up and down the
coast. And that very quickly becomes untenable for the commission to manage,
let alone creating uneven playing fields across the state. Um, that said,
you know, we have been hearing about concerns related to our appeals process
and that includes, uh, that was some of the subject of the author's recent
amendments to this bill. Um, so and in fact, I actually was able to speak to
the author just this morning and we talked through some of these issues.
and, you know, want to appreciate the author's willingness to engage with us
and as well as the development team, as Sarah said.
It's been a really fruitful process.
So the author is appreciative of the work that we've been doing to clarify some
of the process and timing issues and is an interest in engaging with us
on in a broader conversation about some of the issues that were raised.
And so I think, you know, again, as I said, we're appreciative of that approach.
we're hopeful that this bill will take a different trajectory and appreciate everybody's willingness
to kind of think through how that might work and are really committed and interested in
engaging in these broader conversations and anticipate that that will be a longer conversation
and a broader conversation over the next year or so.
So just wanted to provide that additional context again thank the author, thank the
development team for all their work with us and kind of as Sarah said rolling up
our sleeves and digging in because I find that often we can work out many of
the issues that that are raised in you know if we all have that kind of an
attitude in here everybody has and so I'm appreciative that and hopeful again
that we can work through the author's remaining concerns specific to the
project and then again engage in these broader conversations. Wonderful. Thank
Thank you.
I'll ask if there are any public comments on the legislative report.
None?
Okay.
Thank you.
We'll turn it back to the commission for questions and comments.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thank you so much, Chair.
I just want to make some comments with regard to the opposed recommendation on SB 675 on
Seaport San Diego.
I want to start out by saying I personally and several of us on this commission have
long-standing, close, and very respectful relationship and admiration for Senator Padilla.
As we all know, he was chair of this commission and served on this commission, I believe in
two separate times.
And I believe that he has great respect and is an ally, given what he knows about the
work of the commission and its mission.
However, in this instance, as our staff has said, the impacts and
the precedent that this bill sets could significantly
impact coastal natural resources and access.
Because the Coastal Commission does provide a critical step in the process
of approval to ensure that the mission of the Coastal Act isn't impaired.
And I know that Senator Apodea shares these goals, and that's why I am very glad to hear
about the conversation that you had with him this morning, Dr. Hucklebridge.
And I just feel very strongly at this time that while the commission, and I would ask
my colleagues, I certainly agree with the recommendation to oppose the legislation.
I think the most important thing is that the author know that it's the pursuit of the MOU
and what that, the opportunity that that provides to resolve his concerns that could provide
an outcome that really demonstrates his legislative prowess in getting us to this point and at
the same time resolves the difficult issue that in potential that this
seaport San Diego project that the legislation would would result in if it
were to move forward so but saying that I'm asking I my colleagues to join in
supporting the recommendation for opposition on SB 675. Commissioner
Wilson. Sorry but I didn't jump in soon enough to comment on the ones before but
I'll get to it later. So let's see I want to say that I absolutely appreciate the drive to want to
have more efficient and effective policies to make projects happen and
to make them happen better.
And so I wanna say to Senator Padilla that our good friend,
my good friend, Senator Padilla,
I think that there's a lot of good effort
in that trajectory.
My main concern with this is specifically
around the objective requirements
or the inability to appeal on anything but the objective things.
The reason for that is because one of the main jobs of the Coastal Act and why the public,
why the voters of California enacted this was around public access and maintaining public
access.
not just maintaining it, it's very specific. It's to maximize access for all the people.
So that's what the job is. And it doesn't give objective criteria for that. It just
says maximize. Now it gives them...there's section 30210, there's sections 3001.5, there's
section 3-0-2-1-2.5, there's section 3-0-2-5-2 and many others that really talk about those
very, I guess you would say, subjective duties and roles that this commission plays in protecting
and enhancing public access.
And in sort of the gestalt of talking about streamlining at the state level, most of that
has been around housing and about affordable housing,
and this is not that.
This isn't, this discussion isn't,
this is a different kind of project.
So for me also to kind of break the seal
for this type of project on sort of the public access
and the objectivity, subjectivity argument
is maybe not the place
that I'm quite comfortable doing that yet.
This is, again, as far as I understand,
It's not a housing project.
That being said, I've seen some pictures of this.
I have not analyzed the project.
I don't have a positive or a negative
about what this project is.
This isn't about that at all.
My concern really is around whether or not
this is the place where we remove public access analysis
from a statewide perspective, protecting public access
for people in Modesto, from Sacramento, from Yolo County,
from all in this project area, where do we go from there?
And so that's kind of where I'm at on this
and why I support the recommendation for opposition.
And I would say, you know,
I think it can be amended to get to a place,
but just the public access part alone
is the part I have the most concern about.
I'm very heartened by the work that the staff has been doing with the developer.
I'm hopeful, and I'm actually confident that that will be fruitful and
that we'll get there, and I think that the senator has been a positive element in that
and can get and help us all get there together, and that's where I'm at.
And so I just want to, and that's all I got in my analysis for that.
let me know when I can talk about the other stuff we talked about before but
right now okay sorry to confuse things. All right I want to say thank everybody
for their efforts on pushing back on AB 770 which was the Billboard bill which
was which was terrible for those of us who lived in these rural communities
where they're erected all over the place and unregulated it would have been a
nightmare to to to deal with that so I'm happy that that's that's happened I want
say it's an interesting turn of events that now the the it looks like the
sponsor of that bill is now an opponent of the current language which is ironic
but be it as it may the the it will probably other attempts will be made to
and we'll have to deal with that in the future. One last thing is on the I think
it's AV462 which is the accessory dwelling units and I'm not sure about
about the status of it currently,
but I think if there is an inability to appeal on ADUs,
still there, I know that one local tribe in my county,
the Bear River Band is concerned
that there's not an appeal process,
I think for them because you can have
in more rural settings and you can have an ADU
that can be in a space where unless you have the ability
to analyze both the archeological, cultural
and even access issues from a tribal perspective,
they're not confident that that can be completely mitigated
or dealt with completely by the local jurisdiction
or especially if there's no jurisdiction.
And so there are still concerns with them.
I just want to they talked to him yesterday about that. And so there you go. That's my
concerns. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Presiado. I wanted to join both Vice Chair
Hart and Commissioner Wilson's comments regarding the legislation. I guess I'd missed out since
I don't have as close of a working relationship with my former councilman, my former mayor,
my former port commissioner, my former everything.
But I will share with you that I think the opportunity
that this legislation is allowing us to think about
is the productivity of the MOU that the developer
and the staff are able to work out.
And so to, from that perspective,
we will appreciate the senator's legislative energy
On the other hand, I think the commission would benefit greatly
from taking a principled position against this legislation
for the purposes that have been outlined already
by my colleagues.
And I'm confident that good,
thoughtful people will come together
from the staff perspective and from the development perspective
and agreed to a process of review and a process of analysis
that will allow what I'm really committed to.
I'm interested in seeing development along with the goals
that we have laid out for us in our legal framework.
But I am interested in seeing things get developed and built
and what would be helpful not today but in the future is
to lay out some of the complexities of setting up such an MOU and because it might be a bit
more beneficial for people who are trying to build on the coastal zone to understand
that it's better to come and meet with the staff, prepare to work with the staff and be engaged
in a process with the staff than to seek legislative relief, shall we say.
And so in that context, I join my colleagues
in encouraging oppositionality against this bill.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll align myself
with the previous commissioners who spoke.
Just wanted to add, well, first of course,
declare my firmest respect and affection
for a previous chair and Senator Padilla.
Of course, he's near and dear and in modern pop terms,
I keep having sort of this thing in my head
that don't make me do it.
I don't wanna do it.
I wanna vote against a friend,
but I think I'm gonna have to in this case.
And I'm quoting Love Island for those of you who know.
For in the end, you know, you know.
So for me, aside from public access, of course,
and we're all very familiar with the San Diego Bay,
it's so industrialized, do you know?
I mean, I think especially further south,
you know, the harder it gets,
but I think thoughtful planning for this master plan
is definitely in order.
And aside from the public access aspect of it,
to me, the natural resources impacts,
the filters of that and our standards of review, and also environmental justice policy, I mean
some of the most impactful projects to public health are ports, of course they're necessary
to our local economies, but all the regions that have ports across the state have been
very detrimentally impacted by this development, so I do think that I look forward to hearing
more about this process and what you process and I encourage that that avenue and and I
will definitely stand with my fellow commissioners on on opposing this particular bill with all
due respect to Senator Padilla. Thank you. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you, Madam. Thank
you, Madam Chair. I was not going to say anything, but I was inspired by the Love Island comment.
Because I don't think anybody had that on their bingo card. I just want to say I appreciate
the Commission's never-ending ongoing commitment to collaboration and trying to get to yes.
This is just another prime example of how you work hand in glove with developers and
community members in seeking yes whenever possible.
So I just want to applaud you on that.
And as my fellow Commissioners have said, MOU is far better than legislation any day
of the week so thank you and thank you for the love island bingo thank you and I will
just associate myself with the comments of of everyone who's spoken less far particularly
vice chair heart I agree that it's appropriate for us to take an opposed position here I will
be voting to do so but but also agree that continued conversation around this is necessary
and I look forward to that ongoing.
So with that, if anyone would like to make a motion,
now would be the time.
No, please, please, Commissioner.
For legislation reports, you can just do it
as you're doing it, importantly.
Oh, sorry.
I move that the Commission take a position opposing SP675,
sponsored by State Senator Padilla,
in the interest of justice.
There we go.
Second.
OK.
So we have a motion from Commissioner Preciado,
a second from Commissioner Escalante.
Would either like to speak to the motion?
I think I've already said thank you.
Great.
OK.
And unless there are any objections,
we could approve this motion by unanimous consent.
Seeing none, we have approved opposition to this bill.
Now, we will move on to the fee increases.
Director Hucklebridge.
And I would like to turn it over to Claire Wilkins, who I believe is online for this
item.
Yes, everybody.
Yes.
Hi, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
I'm Claire Wilkins, a staff attorney.
Regarding item 6D fee increases, every year the commission adjusts permit and other application
fees for inflation.
Regulations section 13055 contains the schedule of fees.
As the regulation describes, fees are increased each year according to the California Consumer
Price Index.
This fiscal year, the year to year increase is about 2.7%.
The new fees are published in application forms by July 1st when the fees take effect.
In the same rulemaking, the figure for what defines a major public works project or major
energy facility is also adjusted for inflation.
That change takes effect on approval.
Staff submits the proposed amendments to the Office of Administrative Law, which for the
past several years has accepted these changes as non-substantive.
No commission action is required, and I'm available for any questions.
thank you thank you miss Wilkins are there any public comments on this item none okay this is
informational as was stated but are there any questions or comments commissioner nada yeah i
just wanted to um highlight how the commission's fee structure um incentivizes construction of
multi unit facility housing in the coastal zone and I think that's consistent with both our infill
focus affordability focus workforce housing focus and I'm glad to see that that's carried
through and to our fee structure as well. Thank you. Okay now we will move on to our LCP grants
program. We actually need to vote on that one. I'm sorry. I move to approve the recommended
fee increases? Second. Okay, then we've moved to approve. Is there any opposition
to unanimous consent? None? Okay, the fee increases are so approved. Thank you. Now
we will move on to the LCP grants program. And here I'll turn it over to
Carrie Batho who's also online. Alright, good afternoon commissioners. I'm
here to present an LCP grant application from the city of Pismo Beach
for your consideration. Staff is recommending approval. Next slide please.
As a reminder the LCP grant program supports LCP development or updates with
a special emphasis on addressing impacts from climate change and sea level rise.
The program has been running for just over 10 years and has awarded 27.6
million dollars to 47 jurisdictions for 94 different projects. Most recently the
The Budget Act of 2021 appropriated $31 million to the Coastal Commission, both to award to local governments as grants and to support Coastal Commission staff administering the program and working with those local governments.
If this grant is awarded today, we will have about $3 million left to award between now and June of 2026.
We have several pending applications in the pipeline, so we fully expect to disburse the funds within the next few months.
Next slide, please.
Over time, the Commission has updated its program priorities and evaluation criteria to better reflect the current state of coastal resiliency planning and to ensure efficient use of funds.
Eligible grantees include local governments responsible for developing and amending LCPs,
and eligible projects are those that assess, plan for, and adapt to the impacts of climate
change and sea level rise, and which contain an LCP planning component.
The program prioritizes technical studies and outreach, environmental justice, adaptation
planning at various scales, and work on LCPs.
The Commission has also streamlined the application process to make it more accessible to local
governments.
Currently, all grant applications can be submitted and awarded on a rolling basis.
The Executive Director can approve awards up to $500,000, and grants for more than $500,000
require approval from the Commission.
To date, the Executive Director has approved 17 grants totaling $5.3 million.
grants are described in section E of the staff report. The grant application in front of you
today falls into the latter category of proposals over $500,000 that require commission approval.
Next slide, please. The city of Pismo Beach is seeking $900,000 to update two portions of its
land use plan, the safety element and the parks, recreation and access element and the corresponding
sections of its implementation plan primarily to address sea level rise resilience. The city also
proposes to update its sea level rise vulnerability assessment, perform an economic analysis of sea
level rise impacts and adaptation strategy options, and update its adaptation plan with
detailed neighborhood scale adaptation pathways per the various segments of the city shoreline.
This technical work would reflect the most recent statewide sea level rise guidance
and ensure compliance with SB 272. The project would include close coordination with commission
staff and the major deliverables would incorporate comments from commission staff,
stakeholders, and the public. The project would conclude with local public meetings,
including public study sessions with decision makers, planning commission hearings, and city
Council hearings, followed by submittal of the proposed LCP amendment to the most mentioned.
Next slide please. Staff believes the proposed project is consistent with the LCP grant program
priorities and evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission. ISMOS LCP was certified in 1984
and the last comprehensive update to the land use plan was in 1993. So bringing it up to date would
provide significant public benefit and enable it to address the effects of climate change,
including sea level rise, in a way that's informed by the latest best available science.
The proposed project also leverages ongoing work and capitalizes on current momentum to update the
LCP, giving the project a high likelihood of success. The City is currently in the process
of updating several other elements of its land use plan, which contain baseline policies on
sea level rise adaptation. The proposed project would build upon that work by updating the
remaining elements of the land use plan with detailed sea level rise policies tailored to
the neighborhood scale. In the proposed project the city would first update its 2019 sea level
rise vulnerability assessment using the most recent guest available science and state guidance.
It would then perform an economic analysis that evaluates the costs of sea level rise impacts
including infrastructure replacement costs, property impacts, and recreational value losses.
And then adaptation alternatives would be assessed via a cost-benefit analysis.
The city's adaptation plan would be updated to include near-medium and long-term adaptation
strategies for each segment of the city shoreline. This technical work would then inform updates to
the safety element of the LUP, including maps, policies, and action items for each neighborhood
planning area. The parks, recreation and coastal access element of the LUP would be updated to
protect and enhance the coast's natural and cultural resources and expand coastal access
for the future. Corresponding updates to the implementation plan would also be developed.
The city also proposes to employ various outreach outreach strategies to engage the community with
with an emphasis on reaching underserved
and underrepresented populations.
These project elements align
with the LCP grant program evaluation criteria
and would also enable the city
to fulfill several requirements of SB 272.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, the proposed project would lead
to the update of the city's LCP
to reflect advanced neighborhood scale adaptation planning.
Commission staff recommends awarding
and LCPU local assistance grant to the city of Pismo Beach
in the amount of $900,000.
The motion and resolution are on page three
of the staff report and staff are recommending a yes vote.
Commission staff and Pismo staff
are available for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone who wishes to make public comment
on this item?
Yes, we have Sydney Jansa from city of Pismo Beach.
Good afternoon, Commission staff.
It's great to be here.
My name is Cindy Jason,
Planning Manager for City of Pismo Beach.
And let me just say welcome to our beautiful city.
There's a great weather forecast this week,
so it'll be a great time to enjoy the beach.
Naturally, we support the staff recommendation.
We're excited to be here with this grant application.
You wanna thank your Central Coast District staff
and your grant staff for really the strong,
collaborative working relationship
they've had with city staff, it's been much appreciated.
It really kind of helps us as we proceed
with our LCP update.
The grant application, if funded,
as stated in the staff presentation,
would allow the city to develop and complete
a long overdue update to its safety element
and parks, recreation, and access element.
And also do that,
employing a neighborhood-based adaptation planning approach.
And then also fund critical needed technical study updates.
We look forward to working with your commission staff on completing the LUP update and the
corresponding zoning code, coastal implementation plan updates is long overdue.
And so we're really excited for this opportunity for grant funding.
And I just want to say thank you for your time.
No other speakers.
Great.
Thank you.
And I will turn it back to the commission for any comments, questions or emotion.
Commissioner Kelly. Thank you. I just want to make a brief comment that as a member of a small
local jurisdiction on this body that providing this type of funding to cities
like this where it is it is very difficult to identify funding to support
and prioritize solid land use planning and proactive planning and so for us to
be able to provide these funds and to do it in a way in concert with existing
funds or other sources I think will really help to advance our common goals
And so I just wanted to support this this grant and also to say that I think it's really critical the work that we're doing and while I know we've had a number of conversations about the lack of ongoing funding from the state to continue to replenish these funds within our coffers.
I know that it is really critically important to continue to advance these these grants and to help to promote solid proactively and use planning with our local jurisdiction.
so thank you. Commissioner Ekreli. Okay Commissioner Kelly and I did not plan
this but you really teed me up perfectly for my comments. I just want to
acknowledge the comment that Carrie made about the Commission itself only having
three million dollars left for this this funding and then highlight that the
Ocean Protection Council has a sea level rise adaptation planning grant program.
We have about 14 million dollars left right now to fund these types of planning and implementation projects.
We also have an additional 75 million dollars through the climate bond for this purpose and we will continue to work very closely with Coastal Commission staff
to make sure that we're helping invest in the high priority projects that need these planning dollars.
Oh, and one other note, the next we have a rolling application deadline for this grant
program.
The next deadline for submission for these projects is on September 12th.
You can find more information on the Ocean Protection Council's website.
And I am happy to share also at our last council meeting in June, our council approved funding
specifically under this umbrella program but adjacent specifically for tribes to
support tribal cultural resources evaluation, seal of rights vulnerability
assessment on ancestral lands and cultural resources. So again more
information about that on our website. Thank you. Great thank you very much. Any
other comments or a motion? Commissioner Wilson. I'll make a motion. I move that the
Commission to ward LCP local assistant grant funding of $900,000 to a city of
Pismo Beach and authorize the executive director or their designee to enter into
a grant agreement with the guarantee for allocation these funds and to make any
amendments there to subject to the requirements and conditions set forth
in the stack recommendation. Second. It's a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second
by Commissioner Kelly. Do any commissioners object to unanimous consent for this item?
Seeing no objections, the grant funding is approved and congratulations to the City of
Fisma. Okay, so now we will move on to the consent calendar, please.
All right. Thank you, Chair Harmon. Before we move into item eight, I would just note
that for the audience and commissioners, staff would like to note that item 13A, the City
of Santa Monica and Bay Foundation item will be postponed due to a noticing
issue so that's a change since we went over the agenda changes this morning.
Next, moving on to item 8. Item 8 is for applications being moved from regular
to the consent calendar today for all districts on the agenda. As mentioned
during our agenda changes this morning there are three items that staff is
recommending be moved to consent. Those are item 10.1a, the Ventura County Harbor
Department's Channel Island Harbor Public Works Plan amendment, or the Carl
Village Project, and that is a time extension only. Next, item 11b, the city
of Carpentaria's winter berm CDP application is moved to consent. And item
13 B the Caltrans San Gabriel River Highway 1 bridge CDP application is
also recommended to be moved to consent and closing staff is not aware of any
opposition to these items and and the applicants are in agreement with the
staff recommendations and we're recommending the Commission vote and
approve this item I am available for questions thank you mr. Hudson are there
any commissioners who have any ex parte's on these items seeing none are
there any members of the public who wish to speak on any item that's been
moved to consent no only available to for questions great thank you very much
do any commissioners wish to remove an item from the consent calendar okay then
I will ask for a motion to approve consent move consent by Wilson second
seconded by Commissioner Notoff. Are there any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none the consent calendar is so adopted. Thank you and I'd like to ask
Director Hucklebridge. Yes. Thank you. Apologies. Just a time check. Yes. Does it
make sense for us to begin the next item? I think we break for lunch and then
and come back after lunch and do the enforcement items.
Perfect.
Then we will return at 1.30.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you, everyone.
Sorry that lunch went a little longer than we planned.
So now we're gonna consider agenda item numbers 9.1,
9.2 and 9.3 as described in the agenda,
all regarding a public access easement
at 6437 Meadows Court.
sorry in Malibu California I'm sorry chair we have an enforcement report
briefly to present before that item okay item nine and we have a PowerPoint for
this let's try this again we'll go to item nine please the enforcement report
thank you very much chair and commissioners good morning today we have
a good morning afternoon today we have two enforcement items which hopefully is
clear. We're going to do a short report on some local district cases and then
we're going to present a set of proposed consent orders regarding a trail arising
in Malibu. And first we're going to present a few success stories from our
Central Coast District and as you may know this district covers Santa Cruz,
Monterey and San Luis Obispo County so we wanted to report on some cases that
were relatively local to our hearing today. The cases that we're going to
report on today involve both environmentally sensitive habitat areas
or ESHA and public access. As you may know our enforcement program is divided
into district work and headquarters work. Most of the cases begin at the district
level where our district staff investigate reports of alleged
violations and work with the property owners or other responsible parties to
try to resolve the case. In situations where the responsible party is
responsive and cooperative as you will see the situation can quickly be
resolved and easily resolved. When the responsible party is not cooperative or
the resource impacts are great or authorization is needed from the
Commission, the case can be elevated to our headquarters team to be brought
before the Commission as a proposed order. The vast majority of our cases
never come before you. They are instead resolved at the district level without
any formal Commission action and periodically we do these reports to let
you know what's going on and get a full picture of the work that we're doing up
and down the state.
And it gives you sort of a window into some of the other work that happens.
So today we're going to do an example of both of those types of work and we're going to
start with the Northern California Enforcement Supervisor Ellie Oliver is going to give a
presentation on district cases.
Thank you Lisa.
Can I get the next slide please?
Good morning Chair and Commissioners.
The first two cases that I'm reporting on today involve the restoration of environmentally
sensitive habitat on two different residential sites within the Acela Mar Dunes complex in
Monterey County.
Here you can see an aerial overview of the Monterey Peninsula, with stars marking the
two properties in question.
We'll discuss the northern property first, located in Pacific Grove, but first a little
bit about the dunes.
Next slide please.
The historic Acela Mar Dunes complex, where the first two cases arise, used to cover many
hundreds of acres before unregulated development including golf courses, roads, and homes all
but wiped it out. Here you can see a photo of a restored section of dunes owned by state
parks. Next slide please. This is a unique ecosystem supporting a diverse range of native
plants and animals including several endangered species such as the Menzies Wallflower and
Tideschirm's Lupin, both pictured here, and the endangered black legless lizard. These
These dunes are therefore considered environmentally sensitive habitat area or Esha, which is protected
under the coastal act.
Next slide please.
The dunes are also home to Seacliff buckwheat, the host plant for the endangered Smith blue
butterfly which is only found along the coast in Monterey and Slough counties.
In addition to providing habitat for these rare species, intact sand dunes also provide
a buffer from waves and storm surge, protecting inland development from coastal hazards.
This function is even more important as sea levels rise.
Since the passage of the Coastal Act, the Commission has routinely required that homes
built within the Doon Esha are sited within a building envelope and that the area outside
the building envelopes are restored to native Doon habitat to balance the right of private
development and ensure that it's done in a manner that is as protective of coastal resources
as possible.
In this way, the Commission has protected this unique habitat and the habitat functions
while still allowing for residential development
consistent with the Coastal Act and Takings Law.
Next slide, please.
Here's an aerial overview of our first case,
a residential site in Pacific Grove,
with the property roughly outlined in yellow.
You can also see Sunset Drive running north to south,
and to the left of that,
you can see sections of the California Coastal Trail.
This land on the seaward side of the road here
is owned by state parks.
Next slide.
Here's a more zoomed in look at the parcel
as it appeared in 2007.
The house here was originally developed in 1979, and the coastal development permit for
that house was conditioned to require the permittee to restore the remaining area on
the lot with native dune plants and maintain them in perpetuity.
Unfortunately, the permittee at the time apparently never complied with that condition.
And by 2007, you can see that almost the entire lot is covered in invasive ice plant, which
appears orange and green in this image.
Next slide, please.
In 2007, the new owners of the property applied for a remodel and expansion of the house.
The remaining lot was again required to be restored with native plants and maintained.
Here you can see an image of the property from 2013 and you can see that significant
restoration has been undertaken.
The orange colored ice plant has been removed and native plants have been planted and you
can see patches of sand in between the newly planted natives.
At least 10 different native plant species were planted here replacing the monoculture
of ice plant.
Next slide.
So that is some of the site history, but before we get to recent developments at the site,
let's just take a moment to understand why ice plant is bad for this ecosystem and for
California's coast.
In this image of a nearby residential lot, you can see a deep mat of ice plant that completely
covers the lot.
This is typical of ice plant, which is non-native and highly invasive in California.
Because of its creeping growth pattern, ice plant can spread vegetatively and grow into
mats, which easily out compete the native plants for water, space, and light. This reduces native
plant diversity, destroying habitat for native wildlife, and replacing it with the plants that
do not support wildlife. Essentially we have a monoculture instead of a thriving ecosystem.
Next slide please. It's also commonly thought that ice plant prevents erosion, and it was
actually introduced in California in the early 1900s for this purpose, as that dense mat does
prevent some topsoil and sand from moving. However on coastal bluffs, the
very place that erosion is the biggest threat, ice plant actually can
exacerbate the problem. Here you can see a team removing ice plant from bluff
tops in Slough County. Ice plant actually has very shallow roots and as a succulent
it absorbs and stores water and nutrients from the soil which makes it
very heavy and that weight causes increased erosion on coastal bluffs.
Native plants, on the other hand, tend to have deep roots that actually hold the soil together and can help stabilize bluffs.
Since it spreads so easily, removing ice plant anywhere is good not just for dune habitat, but for bluff stability in the region.
Next slide.
So back to our story.
Here you can see two images of the house.
In the top image from 2017, there is a diverse plant community immediately in front of the residence in the area marked with a yellow rectangle.
In the lower image from 2019, you can see that many native plants have been removed,
and an ornamental variety of what ice plant was planted. Not only did this take out native
habitat, we were particularly concerned that the ice plant would spread to the state parks
property across the street. Next slide please. And here it is after those ice plant plugs have
taken hold. The ice plant species spread quickly, and you can see that by 2024, when commission
staff received a complaint about the landscaping here. The new plantings immediately in front of
the house had taken hold and the area in the box is now all ice plant, whereas it used to be
predominantly native plants. Next slide. Additionally, ice plant from nearby parcels
had begun to recolonize the site in other areas choking out the native plants. In this image you
can see a different view of the property with the house in the background and the ocean behind us,
and that reddish mat of iceplant in the foreground, demonstrating that creeping growth pattern.
Next slide please. Fortunately, upon receiving a notice of violation from commission enforcement
staff, the property owner here immediately acted to remove the invasive and non-native plants.
This photo taken this month shows the area in front of the house that had been planted with the
ornamental iceplant. Now you can see seaside daisy, lupins, buckwheat, and many other native plants
growing on the lot on top of a restored dune, which both protects the house from
future sea level rise and coastal hazards and provides critical habitat.
Next slide. Here's another view and you can see a sprinkling of baby plants
across the sandy areas, those little dark spots. In this case, under the ice plant
was a seed bank of native plants which began to sprout as soon as the ice plant
was removed. This is ideal as it maintains the unique genetic stock of
of the native plants in this area.
The property owner will continue to remove any non-natives that appear on the site in
compliance with their CDP.
Next slide, please.
So this next case in the Pebble Beach area of Monterey County has an even longer history
with the commission.
The basic violation was the same, failure to maintain native dune vegetation as required
by a CDP.
The story of this site is a great example of the two different paths a violation can
take depending on property owner response and cooperation.
As you can see in this image, instead of restoring the site with native vegetation as required
by the 1983 CDP for the house, the property owner instead installed a three-hole golf
course.
When commissioned staff learned of this violation in 2002, enforcement staff contacted the owners,
the Fiduniacs, explained the requirements of the CDP, and asked them to restore the
lot to native habitat to comply with the permit.
side. They did not comply with the request or the permit and eventually in
2003 the matter was brought to the Commission for formal action and the
Commission voted to issue a cease and desist order and a restoration order. The
Fiduniacs challenged the Commission's actions, claiming among other things that
Commission staff who drove by the golf course or visited the beach across the
street in the years prior should have known that this property was in
violation and addressed it at that time.
This implies that all commission staff should have an encyclopedic knowledge of all conditions
on all permits that have ever been issued and that they can and must apply that knowledge
to every property they pass by in the course of their work.
The commission prevailed and the published Court of Appeals decision continues to be
important case law upholding the commission's ability to address violations after we become
aware of them regardless of when the violation occurred.
slide. After the litigation was concluded in 2011, the golf course was finally removed
and the site restored before the Fuduniac sold the property. Here you can see young
native plants planted in compliance with the restoration order. Next slide please. Fast
forwarding to last year, the Commission staff became aware of large quantities of ice plant
that had taken over the lot. You can see both varieties of ice plant in this photo, the
The yellowish one with pink flowers and the darker green one with white flowers, and notably
not much else.
Enforcement staff sent a notice of violation to the current property owner.
Next slide, please.
Here you can see another view of the ice plant taken looking towards the ocean from the house.
You can also see a few native plants are still alive interspersed with the ice plant in this
area.
also shows the proximity to the additional dunes across the street in
the background. Next slide. And here's that same view with the restoration
underway after the ice plant has been hand pulled leaving only the few native
plants. While this may look barren since the restoration hasn't been completed
yet, the earthen areas in this photo have also been planted with native plant
seedlings. In contrast with the prior owners who spent many years and unknown
amounts of money pursuing litigation to avoid complying with their CDP, the current owner
immediately began working to rectify this issue and comply with the permit conditions
that were designed to protect dune habitat. Next slide, please.
In this photo, you can see a massive pile of ice plant being removed from the site.
This is just a small portion of the plant matter that was removed. Ice plant sprouts
very easily from cuttings, so it was important to appropriately contain and dispose of it
once removed. Next slide please. Here's another photo before restoration. Note
the lack of diversity of plants. Everything you see here is just the two
species of ice plant. Note also the house under construction in the background.
We'll come back to that in a moment. Next slide please. Here's that same view after
and you can see the little divots where new plants went in. In this case due to
the quick action of the current property owner, the invasive ice plant has been
removed preventing it from spreading to nearby sites and the restoration has begun.
Next slide.
And here's that area several months later with the new plants beginning to take hold.
I also want to highlight now how planning and enforcement staff often work hand in hand
to protect coastal resources.
The property immediately looked next door to the left in this image recently received
a permit for a demo rebuild from the county that did not have that crucial condition requiring
the remainder of the lot to be restored.
This was out of conformance with the LCP.
Central Coast Commission planning staff flagged the issue, and two commissioners appealed
the project.
Rather than go through the costs of an appeal hearing in front of the commission, the county
and applicant worked to amend the county's approval and require that restoration, consistent
with the LCP, and in order to protect and enhance student habitat.
So here you can see that all ice has been removed from that parcel as well, and that
areas also being restored. While this parcel by parcel approach can take a
long time, you can see that the result of these efforts is the preservation of a
unique and special ecosystem that would otherwise be lost, protecting both the
species that rely on this habitat and the dune formations that ultimately
protect development from the hazards of sea level rise. Next slide please. The
last case I will present is out of northern Santa Cruz County. Here's an
aerial image with the arrow at the top showing Highway 1 and the
arrow at the bottom showing Five Mile Beach or Piggy Beach. The star marks the
location of the violation and you can see some agricultural and residential
development just next to that star. Next slide please. On this image we can see in
red the approximate parcel line separating the private property to the
north with the parcel owned by state parks to the south. The state parks
parcel has not only a trail to the beach but also a series of lovely bluff top trails.
The yellow line marks the approximate location of a 50 foot wide public access easement held
by state parks, which was designed to cross the private parcel and allow the public to
access the state parks property, including the trails and the beach.
Next slide please.
Here you can see the private development that had been placed across and adjacent to the
easement, including an imposing chain link fence with barbed wire, a chain across the
path and signage falsely claiming that the area is private.
Our partners at State Parks informed us of this unpermitted development, impeding public
access and blocking their easement, and staff prioritized this case, as this easement provides
the only access to Five Mile Beach and the State Parks trails.
Next slide, please.
Here's another photo from further down the path.
This is actually State Parks gate that prevents vehicular use of the easement, but is designed
to allow the public to have pedestrian access.
You can see there is a small brown sign that says trail on the wooden post.
The property owners had also installed private property signs on State Parks gate, as you
can see.
State Parks asked them to remove the obstructions, but that request didn't result in a resolution
of a violation, and so commission staff sent a notice of violation to the property owner,
them of all the unpermitted development on the site and requesting that it immediately be removed.
Next slide please. The owners promptly complied and here you can see an after photo showing that
the access has been restored. I've marked the easement here in yellow and you can see that
vehicular gate in the background. Staff met with the agents for the owners and state parks on site
and discussed the owner's desires for offense along the easement and commission staff is supportive
of such offense as long as it's designed to be accurate, welcoming, not impact
coastal views, and allow free access to the trail. We are also supportive of
signage that welcomes the public and directs them to the trail. The owners
will be working with the county to get a CDP for such development and commission
staff will monitor and comment on that CDP as it makes its way through the
county process. Next slide. While staff was researching this case, we discovered
that the popular website All Trails, which comes up prominently when you Google search
Five Mile Beach, erroneously stated that the trail was private.
All Trails is a widely used site and app that allows people to easily locate and use hiking
trails.
We were unable to determine when the false information was posted, but staff contacted
All Trails and the listing was promptly corrected.
Next slide.
And here's a picture of the beautiful beach that the public can once again access.
This is another example of a cooperative property owner who acted quickly to address the issue
once commissioned staff informed them of the violation.
While staff would prefer that coastal-like violations never occur in the first place,
the next best option is that property owners respond quickly and cooperatively to restore
impacted coastal resources.
This saves staff time and resources for both the state and the property owners, and more
importantly it limits the impacts of the violations on the coast. Next slide. In
this photo you can see a member of the public enjoying that beach. Finally I
want to give a shout out to our Central Coast Planner Nolan Clark who stepped in
to help on this case. Unfortunately due to our budgetary constraints one of the
vacant positions that remains unfilled at this time is the Central Coast
Enforcement Officer position and this creates challenges addressing the many
hundreds of violations in the central coast.
Thankfully, commission staff is both dedicated and flexible, and we are therefore still
able to address and resolve some cases such as these.
That concludes my portion of the report, and I'll note that we received two comment letters
of support, one from the California Native Plant Society that discussed the importance
of the dune restoration, and one from the Santa Cruz chapter of Surf Rider in support
of all three of these cases.
The letters are posted on our website.
And with that, I'll turn it back to Lisa for some closing thoughts.
Thank you, Ellie.
So, I just wanted to note that these cases demonstrate several issues.
First, as you can see from that first example, it shows how hard it is to preserve habitat
via permit conditions and the need to be constantly vigilant to ensure that the habitat is not
lost over time or even lost again after having been restored.
Sometimes it feels like it's whack-a-mole here because we kept trying and trying to
this dune but it's paid off in habitat protection and the dunes that also protect the homes
behind them.
These cases also show the value of collaborating with other state agencies like state parks
who often request our assistance and how we often get good results when we can work together
with our partners to address the violations.
And finally, all three cases demonstrate the value in complying right away with notices
of violations and permit conditions.
I'll note that in all three cases, the property owners took immediate action after being contacted
by staff. And by doing so, they avoided the cost of formal enforcement actions, avoided
any monetary penalties being sought by staff or imposed by the Commission, and the Coastal
resources were restored more quickly than if they were contested. So that includes the
enforcement report, and we'd like to turn it back to the Commission for any public or
Commissioner comments before we go into the next item.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Haigy. Thank you, Ms. Oliver. I'll start by asking if there
are any members of the public who wish to speak on the report.
We have a total of 3, Susan Jordan, Jennifer Savage, they should be here in person, and
Zach Plopper is on Zoom.
Thank you.
So Susan Jordan.
Is this on?
Okay.
Susan Jordan, I'm the director of the California Coastal Protection Network, and once again
I want to thank enforcement staff for the excellent work that they do, and it's so relevant
because as you know, I've appeared before this commission
for many years and I'm never short of being astonished
by the lens that some people will go
to block public access to the beach.
And without the commission here,
I can't tell you what the conditions would be present day.
That's a good example.
I'm glad that we had some willing owners to step up,
but for every willing owner,
I can tell you there are 10 that are not,
and we'll take it to litigation,
fight as hard as they can.
I mean, I've seen fake garages,
painted sidewalks, huge signs.
I mean, I don't know what it is about people thinking
sometimes that the beach is their private backyard,
but I'm glad that you're here doing this work,
and hopefully we can get that position filled.
Thank you.
Oh, and one more thing.
even though public access cannot be considered an objective standard, we know when it's blocked.
We know what it should be and we know when it's blocked.
Thank you.
Next is Jennifer Savage.
Sorry.
She's making a bunch of noise up here.
All right.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon, commissioners, Jennifer Savage, Surf Rider Foundation.
As always, we appreciate your enforcement team's efforts and regarding the benefits
of coastal dune restoration, you're about to hear a more comprehensive overview from
my colleague Zach.
But I wanted to share one little example of how dunes can look really robust but actually
be causing, invasive species can be causing a significant problem.
So the photos in this slide were taken at the beach near my house in Humboldt County.
The dunes between our neighborhood where I live and the ocean are covered in invasive
species there are some really nice restored dunes in either direction, but by my house
it's a mess.
And you can see in the left photo the European beach grass and the ice plant everywhere.
On the right side you can see me for scale, but you can see how the European beach grass
holds the dunes in place, so instead of having the ability to shift and absorb and adapt
to the high tides and the powerful waves, they get really scoured out.
So during the winter months in particular it's like 10, 15 feet high and people you
can't even get down to the beach.
Like this whole trail for the last six months, people couldn't even go down to the beach.
And that's a bummer.
But also people sometimes do scramble down and then the tide is coming in and they can't
get back up.
And this is just one little example but it has this huge impact on access and we see
this repeated in different forms up and down the coast.
and adjacent to public property, adjacent to private property, and this just is one
of the many examples of how having restored dunes is so helpful and it's safer, and the
more that we can prevent this harm from happening in the first place, the better.
The more that we can restore already impacted dunes, the better.
And so we just wanted to thank your enforcement staff for recognizing how important this is
encourage you to continue leveraging opportunities for dune restoration as
appropriate in the permitting process. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Zach. Yeah,
good afternoon Chair Harmon and commissioners. I'm Zach Clauper, the
senior environmental director at the Surfrider Foundation and want to thank
you for the attention to enforcing violations in our coastal dunes in the
conservation of those sites. Corridor our mission at Surfrider is the
protection of our coast in the face of climate change and coastal erosion.
Last year we launched our climate action program to help our coasts adapt to these changes
through nature-based solutions, and that's using the power of nature to protect our coastal
communities, infrastructure, businesses, and ecosystems.
And this includes the restoration of our coastal dunes.
Why is that important?
Because they buffer against storms and sea level rise, they capture carbon, and nothing
else really does that better than our coastal dunes.
And part of this work is removal of invasive plants,
giving space for the native vegetation to thrive.
Invasives crowd out the local plants that anchor the dunes,
that capture carbon, that provide habitat,
and then actually allow these ecosystems
to move and adapt as nature intends.
Iceplant, Arundo, Sea Rocket, and other species
can't do that.
So even though these plants might look nice,
they're anything but.
And when they cover enough ground,
they become exponentially harder to remove.
By removing these species, we actually enhance these dunes,
and the native plants take really quickly,
and we're seeing that at a number of our restoration sites
at Surfers Point in Ventura,
Trestles down in San Clemente, at Port Waineme.
These are all sites that Surf Rider has active
climate action program projects where our volunteers
are out every single weekend,
removing invasive plants and restoring those sites.
So I wanna thank the commission and enforcement staff
your efforts and working with partner property owners to make sure that they're making the best decisions for our coasts and
Anytime you'd like to take a site visit to see some of this work in action, please reach out. Thank you for your time
Thank you very much any comments from stuff, thank you, okay, I'll bring it back to the Commission
Was Turnbull Sanders. Did you have your hand up? I think you were first. Thank you
I'd like to really thank the commission staff and the public
For
Contributing to that last report miss Oliver, I really appreciated hearing your enthusiasm for the work
it's really wonderful to see how dedicated our staff are to public access and
The ability to resolve these without taking further action or penalties
One question I had on the ice plant removal, a lot of folks in the public might be interested in how you remove ice plant.
I know you referenced also the California Native Plant Society as a reference for native plants.
But are there any, you know, for folks who may be listening in, are there any, is there any guidance that you may be able to provide for, again, fostering the use of native plants
and getting rid of ice plants because on one of the cases I think you mentioned there was a
native seed bed that bank that renewed itself after the ice plant was removed so I assume
there weren't any kind of pesticides or herbicides used to remove the ice plant.
Yeah thank you for that question. So I think there are different tools in the toolkit
And sometimes various restoration plans might include with ecologists sign off some limited
use of pesticides when the problem is particularly pervasive.
In the two cases I presented, there were still some native plants.
And so pesticide was completely avoided.
And all of the removal was done by hand-pulling it, which is much more labor intensive, but
but also protected and preserved the native seed bank
like you were talking about
and all the existing native plants
that were still clinging on in those sites.
As far as resources,
the California spent a good amount of time
on California native plant society website recently,
actually, and it's pretty robust.
And there's a lot of other resources,
depending on where exactly you are,
that recommend plants to plant in your yard
that are native and that support our native habitat,
native pollinators.
So, I do recommend them as a resource and I think that's,
I can't remember if that was all your questions,
but thank you.
Yeah, thanks.
Can I add?
I'd love to add too,
because I'm just, I'm hearing our ecology team offline
being like, we have lots of thoughts.
We have an entire ecology team that spends a lot of time
on these kinds of questions.
And I think to Ellie's point exactly,
it is somewhat case-specific depending on
is there a native seed bed in a dune situation,
for example, or a whole bunch of other factors.
What's the coverage?
What does it look like?
What's the resources available?
So that is one of the things that our staff, along with our ecology team, would be looking
at to determine what the right restaurant, work with an applicant, for example, to figure
out what the right set of things to do for any particular place is.
And the Native Plant Society is a fantastic resource, so is our ecology team.
They're very knowledgeable.
We have some dune experts on staff that love to dig into the various dune native species
And what the best plan is so if you're interested. I'm sure they would be willing to give an update at some future time
Thank You commissioner commissioner Lopez
Thank you. I miss the love island conversation earlier, but
To sort of bring it back. I'll just share this is pillow talk for me
So you guys can learn a little bit about me. I'm going to share my wife is a California Master Gardener
so these are the things we discuss at night or run the invasive species sea banks and so
Appreciated the update. It was a little too close to home
Yesterday we spent about four hours dealing with another remodel of a home right next door to the second home that you shared in that intersection
So we've got another one coming
but just want to appreciate all the effort that went in and
understanding the importance of the plants and the removal of the invasives and what they do for the environment and the way that pollinators come back the way that
We know the Pacific monarch and its trail through this particular are so dependent on our native plants
So just a deep appreciation for staff. We're seeing this one through it meant a lot to me
And I was very excited about that update. It did not disappoint. Thank you
We've spent a lot of time internally talking about a rundown removal and how to do that. Believe me. We're we're with you. Yeah
Commissioner Wilson
Thanks
done a lot of
removal of ice plant near Jennifer Savage's house. Myself, which is near mine. And also
it's not just that we've locally in our area there's been these debates about the value
of the invasive species versus the native species. And I think Jen really did a good
job of explaining why those non-native species actually create more hazards than one might
imagine.
The other part of this is that when it creates this, what they call the foredoom, which is
the dune right in front of the beach, too high, too steep, then the migrating sand can
actually build the dunes bigger behind that for actually further protection.
So it actually has multiple layers, negative impacts.
I just wanted to point out there has been discussion around the ability for appeals
on various levels and I think there was a good illustration here of the ability to appeal
a local decision that maybe staff wasn't fully, you know sometimes staff at that level doesn't
necessarily, hasn't been there a long time or maybe doesn't fully understand the values
Those are the structures of the public trust resources and in this case the public trust
resources is the ecological value of those dune areas.
And so the ability to appeal that to the commission actually is what helped not just save that
public trust resource but it probably saved that homeowner a big hassle in the future
because they might have gotten a permit that was not actually well vetted and then there
and then there could have been conflicts in the future.
So, from this perspective, I just wanted to point out
that there is value to having that backstop
of being able to, if the local jurisdiction,
you know, hasn't quite got it right,
there's a way to get to that place.
And I just wanted to point out that this was a good example
of how that was done, and never even got
to the appeal process.
Like, there was a way to just say, hey,
and they dealt with it.
So I just want to thank you guys for working
with both the local staff and the homeowner
to get to that place without even having
to bring it to this board.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado.
I wanted to see if there was any update
to a matter that was brought to the attention
of the commission at our last meeting.
This was an invasive gate.
This gate was connected to the Buena Vista Lagoon so it's at the mouth of the Buena Vista
Lagoon in the city of Carlsbad.
And so I think one of many of the community organizations brought pictures, the gate is
really robust and nice.
I think the UT covered the challenge in Carlsbad widely
and talked about a property owner who's in New Zealand,
who's back from New Zealand and is very excited to be there
and has all these plans.
But there seemed to be a lack of compliance
with the CDP permit that allowed the development to occur
and then required a trail or free access into that area.
It's a little challenging
because I see there's another development next to it,
but that particular property abuts the lagoon
on the south side, pardon me.
Yeah, I guess it would be the south side of the lagoon.
And so I'm just wondering if there's an update.
And my hope is that I can keep bringing attention to it
and the enforcement part, not by simply just bringing it up,
but that we're interested in the San Diego coast
to address these.
I know it's not on the agenda, but I've just
seen if there was any action since our last meeting.
To the commissioner, to the chair,
this matter will be, we're very active on this matter.
We're very aware of it.
And I know exactly what site you're talking about,
and it is very likely that you will see it
on an agenda in the very near future.
I appreciate that, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Escalante.
Through the chair, I guess,
maybe a question for Dr. Huckabridge first.
We organized, I mean, one way to educate the public
about the coast, about the Coastal Act.
You can't, it's hard to love something that you don't know.
So this is a way sort of to socialize all of these values.
And we do that with beach cleanups, right?
Sort of annual beach cleanups that seem to be popular.
Is there, I volunteer with an organization up north
that does this type of invasive removals.
Obviously, you know, they get some funding for it.
It is volunteer-based.
Are there any kind of broader programs statewide
that sort of harness people power to get out there
without, I mean, I know it's sort of not as simple
as getting out and picking trash
because you're kind of stepping on Habitat too,
but is there any effort statewide
for maybe doing a little more?
I think there are likely a lot of efforts,
and I'm not sure I could encapsulate all of them,
but I'll just say that one of the focuses
of our whale tail grant program, for example,
is programs to, some of them are restoration focused,
but a lot of it is education and getting people to the coast,
but in teaching about how the coastal processes
and why it's important and why cleanup is important
and invasive species and all that,
there are programs that we fund that that is a focus of.
Not all of them, but some of them do.
And I think we're not the only agency
that funds programs like that.
I think Conservancy will fund programs like that.
I bet OPC probably has funded programs similar to that.
I'm not sure that there's an umbrella effort
that connects all those necessarily,
but that has been a huge focus of the work
that we have done through the Whaletail grant program.
Because I think part of the goal is,
it's bringing people to the coast
that don't necessarily get the opportunity to do that.
But then it's getting them excited and joyful
and making new coastal stewards, right?
So to that point.
So that's been a focus of our programs.
We could always do more, you know, in other words,
as a state, it would, you know, the more coastal stewards
and folks that we get to the beach,
the better as far as I'm concerned.
So I don't think it's, you know, we've like achieved the goal
but we're definitely working in that direction.
No, and definitely the needs sort of overwhelms
the capacity of, you know, state and public to deal with it.
I guess a question for maybe the colleges,
what would they advise to the public
if we come across some of these invasives in public lands?
Would they recommend, sort of,
somebody just grab a bunch of iceplant,
or this is something that we really need
to just leave it up to the biologists and the?
I think it's probably best in any given circumstance
to look to the people that manage that space
and that if we're talking about somewhere
in our jurisdiction, we're likely involved
and our ecology team is a great resource.
If people have questions, they're more than welcome
to reach out to local staff and we can get them in touch.
But again, there are some site-specific issues
in different, that are different to every region
and not that ICE plan is ever good,
but there may be plans to do particular things
that people would be unaware of.
So I guess I would say for folks that if you live near a region
or your favorite beach has invasive ice plant,
talk to whoever manages that beach.
If it's the local government, if it's state parks.
And my guess is there are already programs and plans
in place that at least address it.
And if not, maybe that's something
that if there's public interest in,
it could move the public entity, whoever it is,
that manages that space to address it.
So that would be my advice.
As opposed to just going and picking out ice plant,
because that could, I don't want to get people into trouble
if it's on a property that they can do that,
and it might not be the right solution
in any given moment.
And many areas do have organized efforts.
In the Bay Area, there are groups that routinely go out
and you just sign up and you go out
and do invasive removal.
And they are very careful about,
they know which areas and what plants should be removed.
So, and it's kind of backbreaking work in it,
but it's fabulous.
and a lot of people, I have many friends who volunteer
to do invasive removal and it's a really great thing.
And there are a lot of organizations that do it
in conjunction with the local governments.
And in fact, as Ellie had mentioned,
the case here was reported to us by state parks
because they didn't have the resources.
And so we worked with them to get the property owner
to do the work.
So it was a good collaboration.
That's super helpful.
Thank you, I think that's a good education for the public
And I guess to encourage more of these organizations to kind of coordinate with local governments
and the agencies sometimes it's, I know that up north it's Fish and Wildlife, you know,
they coordinate very carefully.
But the times that I've gone, I mean these are places that are not accessible to the public really.
Some of the areas are kind of far out there and the only way to see that those natural resources
to volunteer to go, you know, some sweat equity to put in there and go pull some grass but
I have to say that I've seen some of the most magical species and sunsets when I've been
deep in the bushes and the dunes up there and it's been glorious.
So anybody who has time and some energy and I don't have a lot of muscle in my arms but
I still did pretty well so I encourage hugs, thanks.
Thank you.
Anyone else, comments or questions?
Seeing none.
I think that moves us on to 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3.
OK, perfect.
So we are now going to move to agenda item numbers 9.1,
0.2, and 9.3 as described in the agenda, all of which
are regarding a public access easement at 6437 Meadows
Court in Malibu, California.
Would the alleged violators and or their representatives
please come forward and identify themselves for the record?
Hi, I'm Steve Weaver here on behalf of LMD International, Inc.
Oh, rather than...
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Weaver.
Staff, can you...
And I believe, Chris, we have another other party,
their council is on Zoom.
Yes, we have Alan Block on Zoom as well as Kirk Eisenberg.
Alan, do you want to identify yourself for the record?
This was Kirk Eisenberg.
Thank you.
I believe your council is also online.
Is that right?
Yeah, he's online.
He and I are not together.
So I'm not sure if he's having issues unmuting himself.
Yes, hello.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
We can hear you.
Yes, hi.
Alan Block, representing Villa Anastasia.
I'm here to answer any questions.
Great, thank you.
To our staff, can you please identify
what items are already part of the record
and how much time you'd like
for your presentation and rebuttal?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
The record consists of the contents of the staff report
in supporting documents,
the public documents and the violation file
in today's hearing, and we would like 30 minutes
for our presentation, please.
Thank you.
And there shouldn't have been any ex parte communications
on this matter, but do any commissioners
have an ex parte to report?
Okay, seeing none, thank you.
I'm now gonna review the rules for this proceeding.
As you've heard, our staff's asked for 30 minutes
for its presentation, so I will give the alleged violators
the same amount of time, 30 minutes total,
and they may also request to reserve some of that time
for any final statements or responses to public comments.
We will allow three minutes for any other party
who'd like to speak as an interested member of the public.
Anyone who speaks at this hearing may propose questions,
either orally or in writing that they would like commissioners to ask of any other party,
but it's not appropriate to suggest that questions be asked to yourself.
Commissioners may, but are not required to ask the proposed questions.
So now we're going to begin the public hearing with our staff presentations.
Thank you, Ms. Hage.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Can we get up the PowerPoint for this item, 9.1?
Thank you.
Staff is pleased to announce that both parties, Villa Anastasia LLC and LMD International,
who are the current and former owners of the property
have each worked with staff
to reach an amicable resolution of this case
by entering into separate proposed consent
cease and desist order and administrative penalty orders,
which will be collectively referred to today
as the consent orders.
In our presentation, we're doing a unified presentation
for both parties since they share many facts.
This matter involves the failure to comply
with the coastal development permit,
condition that required construction of a hiking
equestrian trail within a public access easement. As you will hear the trail was
never constructed and public access was always also obstructed by placing
unpermitted development within the area of the public access easement. This trail
runs through a subdivision known as the Meadows Court subdivision in Malibu and
our district enforcement staff were able to reach a resolution with all the other
property owners in the subdivision to construct and fund the required trail.
This trail also connects to Escondido Canyon Park which leads to Escondido Falls
which is shown on this slide, and is a popular scenic waterfall and makes the
trail here even more important. When completed the trail will provide a low
cost valuable public recreation opportunity in Malibu by finishing
construction on this new trail that will connect to the other already very
popular trails in the area. The trails are so popular in fact that they become
very crowded. Staff worked together closely and collaboratively with both
respondents and greatly appreciates their cooperation and participation in
crafting the proposed resolution. We are now pleased to detail the proposed
agreement for your consideration and note that it would provide public
benefits to the entire trail beyond this specific parcel. Staff recommends that
the Commission issue the proposed consent orders to resolve the violations
on the property which will require the construction of a new trail, installation
of public amenities throughout the entire trail, and payments to ensure its
upkeep and long-term viability. Today's presentation will be given by Shelby
Wayman, an attorney in our headquarters enforcement unit, and I also note that
Deputy Chief Counsel Alex Halperin is also available for questions.
Ellie, I'm sorry. Thanks Lisa. Good afternoon chair and members of the
Commission. On this slide you can see the gen- oh sorry next slide please. On this
slide you can see the general Malibu area. The property at issue here is
marked by the yellow star. The property is located inland from Escondido Beach
and is directly inland from Pacific Coast Highway. The property is also down
coast of Point Doom and north of Santa Monica and the Pacific Palisades. Next
slide please. This next slide depicts where the public access trail will be
completed and how it will connect to the Izumi Coastal Trail and Escondido Canyon
Park, which leads to Escondido Falls, a very popular waterfall hike in Malibu as
as shown on the slide.
The red line depicts where the easement
in the Meadows Court subdivision is
and where the trail will be constructed on this property
directly off of PCH.
The blue line depicts how this trail connects
to the existing Azumi Trail,
which connects to the rest of Escondido Canyon Park
and other existing hiking trails.
The green trail depicts a popular existing hiking trail
in Malibu to the Falls called the Winding Way Trail.
As noted, once completed,
this hike will provide a valuable low-cost recreational opportunity in
Malibu. Next slide please. This slide shows the many existing trails including
through Escondido Canyon Park. The yellow star depicts where the trail on
this property will be constructed which connects to the rest of the trail in the
Meadows Court subdivision and the Azumi Trail. You'll notice two small yellow
stars at the bottom of the screen that depict two coastal access points. As you
You can see there are several public hiking trails to Escondido Falls and this trail will
provide a valuable alternate route which is extremely beneficial given how popular the
other trails already are.
Next slide please.
I'm now going to cover the permit history of the property followed by the enforcement
history with both owners of the property during their respective periods of ownership.
This slide shows the already constructed trail on a neighboring parcel which will connect
to the trail on this property which is located across the street and shown by the red arrow.
The red arrow depicts the beginning of the easement on this property where the trail
will eventually be constructed. The trail on the neighboring parcel already has directional
signage installed as you can see including directions to the beach and Escondido Park.
In September 1981 the commission approved a CDP which allowed the division of two parcels
into eight parcels one of which is the property at issue. The prior issuance conditions were
eventually met and the permit was issued in August 1990. Next slide please. This photo shows a picture
of the easement on the north side of the property. Once built the trail will be eight feet wide and
provide for both hiking and equestrian access. As you can see the trail has not yet been constructed
on the property. The commission approved the first amendment to the CDP in 1990 which authorized
building pads, driveways, and an access road in the subdivision. An additional amendment was
issued in July 1990 for additional cubic yards of cut and this amendment contains special condition
number five which is the CDP condition at issue here. This condition requires that the applicant
improve the trail within the approved easement to the satisfaction of the county department of parks
and Recreation. Next slide please. This slide shows the track map to the subdivision, which
includes an eight-foot wide easement for hiking and equestrian purposes and the location of the
easement is highlighted here in yellow. The easement was dedicated to the county of Los Angeles
and the county accepted the easement in March of 1990. In 2021, the county transferred its
interest in the easement to MRCA, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, to take
ownership. MRCA continues to hold the easement today. The Commission approved
other amendments to the original CDP which included reminders that all of the
original permit conditions are still in effect which included the requirement to
build the trail. In May 1991 the Commission approved a CDP for the
development of a two-story single-family residence on the property. This CDP
contains special condition number four which states that the applicant shall
comply with all special conditions attached to the underlying subdivision
which included the requirement to construct the trail. Next slide please.
However, historical photographs indicate that neither the permittee or their
successors and interest including both owners of the property involved in these
consent orders ever constructed the trail as required by the CDP. This photo
was taken in 2015 and the red arrow shows where the public access trail
should be located on the north side of the property but as you can see there is
no trail here and there is vegetation that would block any access throughout the easement.
The orange arrow here also depicts where the easement should be located on the west side
of the property and commission staff also determined from these photos that a fence,
garden wall, and ornamental vegetation had been placed within the public access easement
rendering it impassable.
Next slide please.
I'm now going to cover the enforcement history of the property beginning with LMD International,
the former owner of the property
and which owned the property from August 1995
to October of 2021.
This slide shows the public access easement
which is located to the left of the fence
and what should be the public access trail.
This photo was taken during a commission staff site visit
in October of 2019.
As you can see, no such trail exists on the property.
Commissioned staff first wrote
to all Meadows Court property owners,
including the former owner in August of 2018,
informing all property owners of the requirement
to construct the trail as required by the CDP condition.
Commissioned staff sent an additional letter
to all property owners in July, 2019,
reiterating the requirement to comply with the CDP condition
and asking for a plan to construct the trail.
Commissioned staff reached an agreement
with every other property owner to construct the trail
or pay ongoing maintenance and operation costs.
Due to the delay in opening this portion of the trail,
which is directly off of PCH
and can be used as a trailhead
to access the rest of the trail.
The entire trail in Meadows Court
has been blocked for many years.
Next slide, please.
Commissioned staff first heard from the former owner
in September 2019 when they claimed
that the trail had been constructed as required.
While this photo on the slide shows
that some vegetation had been cleared,
the hiking trail needed to be
the entire eight-foot width of the easement.
In addition, the easement needs to be safely passable
members of the public for hiking and equestrian use. As you can see from the slide, there's a
steep slope and lateral tilt making this unsafe for members of the public and for horses to use.
Further, this so-called trail would not have met the standards of the county department of parks
and recreation who is the entity responsible for determining the trail standards here.
Next slide please. Commissioned staff informed the former owner that the trail did not meet the
county standards for trail design and was not safely passable for members of the public for hiking
or equestrian use. Further, commission staff informed the former owner that there were
encroachments in the easement, including the ornamental vegetation and garden wall depicted
in the earlier slides. In December of 2020, Stephen Weaver, who represented the former
owner in this matter, informed staff that the fence, wall, and vegetation within the easement
had been removed. However, the trail had still not been constructed, did not satisfy the trail
guidelines of the County Departments of Parks and Recreation, and was not the full width of the
easement. Commissioned staff continued to negotiate with the former owner to develop a resolution to
construct the trail. Next slide please. In October of 2021, the property was sold to the current owner
Villa Anastasia, LLC, who asserts that they were unaware of any prior negotiations with
with Commissioned Staff and the ongoing enforcement case
and the violations on the property.
This slide shows the condition of the easement in 2023
after the purchase and where the trail
should have been constructed.
As you can see, it is blocked by vegetation and not passable.
Commissioned Staff first informed the current owner
of the requirement to construct the trail within the easement
in January of 2022.
Commissioned Staff began to negotiate with the current owner
to develop a plan to construct the trail,
which would finally open the entirety of the trail
within the subdivision for public access.
Throughout this time, commission staff also continued
to negotiate with the former owner
to resolve the violations and penalties
that had accrued during their period of ownership.
Next slide, please.
Throughout the time period of the current ownership,
the trail continued to be blocked by overgrown vegetation
and was never constructed for public access,
as shown by these photos taken in 2023.
These photos show some of the overgrown vegetation
throughout the trail that made it difficult,
if not impossible, to pass through for our commission staff
during site visits in 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Next slide, please.
This photo shows the most recent condition
of the so-called trail from a site visit last week.
Commission staff are pleased that we were able to work
with both parties on these proposed amicable resolutions.
I also want to note that commission staff
have closely coordinated with MRCA
holds easement and will manage the trail. Although resolution of this matter took time, both parties
reached a separate proposed agreement that would ensure the long-term viability of the trail
and provide additional public benefits and amenities throughout the entire trail. Next slide please.
This slide also shows the current condition of the trail and you can see the steep lateral tilt
that makes it unsafe for members of the public and horses to currently access. Additionally,
there's vegetation within the easement that continues to obstruct public access. Next slide
please. This slide shows Escondido Falls, which you'll be able to access from this property once
this trail is constructed. Now I'll turn to the proposed actions before you today, which if
approved would provide full resolution of this matter. Both the former and current owner reach
separate agreements to resolve their liabilities. First, I will summarize the proposed consent
cease and desist order for the current owner. This slide shows the statutory authority for
the issuance of the consent cease and desist order. As described more fully in pages 16 through 18 of
the stack report, the jurisdictional elements for the Commission to issue this order have been met.
The respondent undertook development as defined in the Coastal Act and also undertook actions
inconsistent with the underlying CDPs by failing to ever construct the required trail.
If left unaddressed, this trail will continue to be blocked by the
unpermitted development, preventing all access to the rest of the trail.
Next slide please. This slide shows the beautiful coastal views from the
property, which members of the public will be
able to see at the beginning and end of their hike.
Next, I'm going to address the administrative penalty actions.
You likely notice that these consent orders include the imposition of two sets
of administrative penalties, one to the current owner and one to the
former owner of the property both issued under section 30821. I want to emphasize that these are
two separate proposed consent agreements with each respective party. Section 30821 gives the
commission the authority to impose penalties when someone is in violation of the public access
provisions of the Coastal Act. Here the violations blocked public access across the easement for many
years during each party's period of ownership of the property which prevented access to the rest
to the trail. Therefore, the commission may impose administrative civil penalties for
the public access violations. Next slide, please.
Section 30821 incorporates the five factors from Section 30820 as the basis for determining
the amount of civil liability to impose, which we have covered extensively in the staff report
at pages 18 through 28. While there were many delays in reaching this
agreement to construct the trail due in part to the property changing ownership in 2021.
This proposed agreement would ensure the long-term viability of the trail and provide
additional public benefits and amenities throughout the entire trail. Once built,
this trail will provide a valuable recreational opportunity in Malibu and an additional trail to
Escondido Falls and Escondido Canyon Park where other nearby trails are reported as very crowded.
As the area and other nearby trails are already very popular, constructing additional trails here is
clearly very valuable. Aggregating all of these factors, Commission staff concluded that a low
to moderate penalty is justified here for each respective party. Staff recommends that the
Commission adopt staff's recommendation for the imposition of a monetary penalty to each party,
as I will describe in detail in a few slides. Next slide, please. Now, moving to the proposed
resolution for the former owner. Sorry my pages are out of order here. As mentioned
in the staff report, staff also recommends a low to moderate penalty due
to the former owner's cooperation even after selling the property. Their proposed
consent orders would resolve Coastal Act liabilities by requiring a payment of
$400,000 of which staff proposes that 150,000 be paid to MRCA to provide for
trail maintenance and operation costs for the entire trail which will ensure
the long-term viability of the entire trail. Next slide please. Could you go
back two slides? Sorry. Oh okay. Yeah I'm so I'm so sorry I'm not I'm I'm sorry I
don't know what's going on with our slides but that's my fault. But now we're
going to move to the proposed resolution for the current owner which would
require compliance with the CDP and construction of the trail. First, the
current owner must submit and implement a trail improvement plan to construct a
trail within the existing public access easement. The trail must be monitored for
any erosion, drainage, or other maintenance problems and must be
maintained for a period of at least five years to ensure the long-term success of
the trail. Further, the proposed consent orders would resolve Coastal Act
liabilities by providing a payment of three hundred and fifty thousand
dollars, of which staff proposes that one hundred
thousand dollars be paid to MRCA to provide for trail maintenance and
operation costs for the entire trail. And in addition to the three hundred and
fifty thousand dollar cash payment, the consent orders require
additional public amenities on portions of the trail,
not directly affected by these Coastal Act violations.
The current owner will provide additional public amenities throughout the entirety
of the trail, including installation of two benches, directional signage, and
striping of a crosswalk at Meadows Court Drive. These signs and benches will be
placed at locations to be determined by MRCA. Further, the consent orders would
require ongoing maintenance and monitoring for a period of at least five
years. While it is difficult to estimate the monetary value of these additional
public amenities, these improvements will create a better hiking and
and equestrian experience from members of the public
and make the trail more welcoming and inviting.
And last slide, please.
Sorry, you can go back to slide 20.
This photo shows the beautiful mountain views
throughout the rest of the trail,
as well as directional signage
that shows how to access Escondido Canyon Falls.
The trail on this property in the Meadows Court subdivision
is critical to the overall trail
as the failure to comply with the permit condition
blocked access to the remainder of the trail
for many years.
However, this proposed resolution
will not only provide full resolution
of the CDP noncompliance,
but provide valuable public amenities
along the entire trail
and ensure the long-term viability of the trail.
We are very excited that both parties
have agreed to a resolution of this matter.
In closing, I want to thank both parties
for working so cooperatively with us
to provide this agreement for the public,
as well as both of their attorneys,
Alan Block and Steven Weaver,
who made sure this great outcome was reached.
I also want to thank Andrew Willis,
our South Coast District Enforcement Council,
and Cameron Lee, our South Coast Enforcement Officer,
for all of their hard work, not only on this site
and moving us towards this resolution,
but also resolution with all of the other
Meadows Court subdivision owners
to construct the trail on their properties,
which this trail will connect to once it is constructed.
I also want to especially thank them
for hiking this easement throughout the many site visits,
including over the last week
to take some of the photos you saw today.
Finally, I want to thank MRCA who will continue
to manage this easement and the rest of the trail.
We recommend that the commission approve
the proposed consent cease and desist order
and consent administrative penalties
set forth in the staff report.
There are three motions for this matter
and they can be found on pages eight and nine
of the staff report.
This concludes my presentation
and we are available for questions.
Thank you Ms. Mankins.
No, I just wanted to say that I think there may be
public comment I'm not sure yes and now though I think we're going to go to the
alleged violators or their representatives they may address the
Commission mr. Weaver okay thank you this is Steve Weaver I just want to thank
the staff for working so hard and so patiently with us countless phone calls
countless emails exchanged and you know I'm just really happy we were able to
find our way of agreement on this. I'd like to reserve a minute of time to
respond to the comment. Thank you. Mr. Block, Mr. Eisenberg, would you like to add any
comments? Mr. Block, if you can unmute yourself. Hi, this is Kirk Eisenberg. I just want to say thank you to the
Commission for also being patient with me and for coming to a resolution that
works for both parties. Yes, this is Alan block. Can you hear me? Yes, yes. Uh,
yeah, we also, yeah, as, as Kirk stated, we want to thank commission staff for
working with us. I just want to state that my client was a good faith
purchaser of this property that had no information regarding the violations
until contacted by staff. And when they were contacted by staff via via a
letter three months after the close of escrow, they were advised in the letter
that LMD had agreed to build the trail
and to pay the civil penalties.
So any delay was based on, we really thought that LMD was going
to take care of this at that time.
But we want to thank staff.
We've reached an agreement, and we're happy to proceed.
We have filed our separate arbitration proceeding
against LMD, and we'll proceed with them as well.
Thank you.
Okay. We'll now take any public comment on this issue.
None.
no public comments so there is a miss savage has a public comment no you are
not on this list come on up don't go forward either am I okay this is it um
yeah thank you I just wanted to really take a moment to celebrate the
enforcement staff because this is such an important resolution to this case
Jennifer Savage, California Policy Associate Director for the Surfrider
Foundation. As you may know, the Surfrider Foundation is dedicated to the
protection and enjoyment of the world's ocean, waves, and beaches for all people.
Therefore, we strongly support the consent, cease and desist order, and the
administrative penalties. And I was thinking about how the conditions on the
CDP requiring the trail were actually from the early 1990s, and to put that
into perspective. I had three babies in the early 1990s, and they had been
full-grown adults for a long time. So that the public could be denied access
for three decades is really stunning. And cases such as these illustrate how
important dedicated enforcement staff is to protecting the rights of all
Californians to go to the beach. And again, wanted to just really celebrate
that and support this action today that will restore the public's rights and
result in this long overdue trail being constructed and opened for the public at
last. Thank you again to enforcement staff for their constant work on behalf
of the public and thank you for supporting this as well. Thank you and
sorry for the confusion we had you sign up for item 9 which was separate from the
9.1 to 9.3 but that's where the confusion came from. But we have no more speakers. Thank you.
Thank you Miss Savage. Okay I'll ask if Mr. Weaver, Mr. Block or Mr. Eisenberg
would like to use any of their reserved time to respond to the public comment?
No thank you. No thank you. I have to ask, thank you. No thank you. Thank you. Any closing
comments from our staff? No I think that's it. If you have any questions for
us we'd be happy to answer them. Also I understand that the representative from
MRCA is available for questions if anybody had questions about that as well.
Thank you, thank you very much Ms. Hagee. So with that I'll now close the public
hearing and bring it back to the Commission for deliberations and questions.
Commissioner Escalante. Thank you.
Well I was their former representative to Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
as next to PCO so I've been hearing about this for a while. This is very exciting
outcome and I've actually never been to those waterfalls even though I lived in
LA for almost 40 years. So I look forward next month to go and checking it out.
Mike Colson has promised me that we're going to do this, so we're going.
Looking forward to it, and I'm super grateful that this is the outcome and
all peace and kumbaya, and looking forward to checking it out. Thanks.
Commissioner, Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much. I just want to say, you know, having read this item,
also, I don't know why the feedback is happening.
Also, not having been to this area, but now
seeing that this is, you know, the future.
We were just talking about it.
We're gonna be in LA in this area next month,
and maybe we could arrange a time to at least see this.
I'm just getting the sense there's a lot of interest in that,
but then the main thing I wanted to express to you,
Lisa, and to your absolutely mind-blowingly
wonderful enforcement staff,
is how you take such difficult
very contentious situations and somehow reach this kind of positive outcome.
And I want to thank, of course, you all, the idea that a person could purchase property
not knowing about this.
For those of us that are lawyers, hard to believe.
Yeah.
But we're grateful, of course, to you.
And I just want to express my deep gratitude for this wonderful outcome.
And I'm happy to make the motion if no one else wants to.
Motions.
Commissioner Kelly. I just wanted to briefly align myself with the comments of my fellow
commissioners and Commissioner Escalante, you know, while I normally don't go chasing waterfalls,
I stick to the rivers and lakes that I'm used to, but I do want to mention that I think a key
component and an interesting feature of this area is the equestrian component and all of the different
farms and ranches that are within this area in the Malibu region which is you
know it's unusual that they've been able to preserve and restore a lot of
these these equestrian properties and to have the coastal access with the
equestrian trails I think makes it unique and incredibly important to
ensure that we maintain those trails and keep them open and accessible I mean
obviously as evidenced by the photos you know those were not you couldn't
navigate those paths by foot,
you certainly couldn't unhorse back either.
And so I just wanted to make that comment
that I think that this is critically important
for access for a lot of different trail users
and to continue to push forward after so many years
of working on this project.
I just wanna commend staff and yield, thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'm just trying to go from my memory.
Was this initiated by public person
having come running into conflict with the property owners is that where this
what was the point at which this kind of started it began when we got complaints
about the fact that the trail wasn't wasn't constructed it's true and we've
spent as you heard the district staff spent years trying to get get the rest
of the trail get this piece to hook up it to the rest of the trail so and then
there was like some nearby access to that wasn't there a road nearby there
Are people having some access issues or no?
There are a number of access issues in this area.
And I believe you're thinking of a different one.
But we're on that also.
I was looking at Google Earth.
I'm like, oh, that looks like that one.
OK.
I got it.
Well, then I also want to thank the public
for being vigilant and knowing that in researching and making
sure that these things and pushing the envelope on what
access really is and and if we did if it's not the public that that we serve
doing that I think we would have a much harder time to make this all work so I
just want to think and encourage the public to if they see something where
they feel like they were having access before and somehow there's been blocked
off don't just assume that that sign is correct this often times people just see
a sign that says no trespassing in the place that they were using for a long
long time and they just assume that since the signs there that it's right
I'm not saying trespass what I'm saying is question it's great yeah bring it to
your local land use authority and ask the question so yeah it's certainly
worth it to to make an inquiry and here MRCA did something very clever which is
they put up the sign where the trail was supposed to be
so that there was awareness that there was supposed
to be a trail there far in advance
of when the trail was actually there.
So that helped us a lot.
And I have to say that our district staff was diligent
and tracked the fact that this trail was in the permit
and picked it up as soon as they could.
While I have the mic, if I could just respond to a couple,
I don't, well, I think it would be fabulous
for people to go out there.
And what we could do is we could do a map
showing some of the more recent openings and access ways.
This one isn't constructed yet.
So you'd have to go up that very steep slope.
And our intrepid district staffer said he has to hang on
to the fence to be able to get down the trail
to be able to take the pictures.
So it's not a completed trail yet.
Although, so you might wanna look at a different trail
in Malibu next month.
You got a month.
Yeah.
Or I'm hanging on a fence.
It's gonna be on a window.
And also, I wanted to respond to Commissioner Presiado's point earlier today that it's supposed to be a 10-foot-wide trail.
It's a 10-foot-wide easement, and so there can be a trail that's wide enough for a whole variety of users and horses.
And so we're hoping that, as you can see in the photos, you can't do that now, but it will be a fairly accessible trail when it's constructed.
So, and the last thing I wanted to say is that this case,
we weren't planning on bringing this to you today,
we had some late breaking ability to settle it.
And I just wanted to thank Shelby,
who I called Ellie earlier in an error,
but she had to do this over her honeymoon to settle this
so that we could get it on for today's hearing,
but we're very happy and we're very glad that it worked out.
That's dedication.
truly is. Commissioner Preciado. I just wanted to know if we are able to or if
we have an understanding of how long it'll take to open the trail given
construction and all of those things so is it two three years out or? Hopefully
much much more quickly than that. Under the orders they have 30 days
after the order to submit 60 days to do the removal work and then they're
submitting a plan for construction. And this is one of the things that's great
about the original permit even though it's been sort of a delayed
gratification but it had the construction by the private party and
it's much faster to have the private party construct than if the state has to
do it has to find funding and get permits and go through all the DGS
requirements and so we're very excited about the fact that the rest of the trail was constructed
relatively quickly and this piece could be done quickly as well. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Lopez. Yeah so I just again want to express appreciation and recognizing I was
listening earlier when I heard Commissioner Preciado talk about how do we define access and
want to just tag onto those comments and look forward to having that bigger conversation
understanding that it's different based on the community and what that access point may look
like. I think this was a great example of 8 feet wide for folks on horses makes more sense.
But I guess Commissioner Kelly I just want to share I'm gonna offer to go on a hike with you
up there someday when there's no scrubs. Thank you. You guys okay. That's good. Any further. You
guys are on your A-game today. It's like millennial bingo. Any further comments?
He ain't too proud to beg, I'd imagine.
He ain't too proud to beg.
Yes, OK, I think we are truly ready for motions.
And there's three, thank you.
OK, we're ready for motions.
I could say so many things, and I'm not going to.
No, but I was thinking we would just go see, obviously,
where the trailhead is, some of the signage.
That would be awesome, if we could do that.
All right, so let's move to the business of the day.
I move the commission issue consent cease and desist order
number CCC-25-CD-02 to Villa Anastasia, LLC,
pursuant to the staff recommendation,
asking for a yes vote.
Second.
It's moved by Vice-Chair Hart,
seconded by Commissioner Escalante.
Are there any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the order is...
Can you do that on cease and desist?
Okay, just checking.
Seeing none, the order is so adopted.
Now moving on to the next motion.
Thank you.
I move the commission issue consent
administrative penalty number CCC-25-AP-02
pursuant to section 30821 of the Coastal Act
to Villa Anastasia LLC
pursuant to the staff recommendation as for yes vote.
Second.
Moved by Vice Chair Hart,
seconded by Commissioner Lowenberg.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none.
penalty is so issued. All right I move that the Commission issue consent
administrative penalty number CCC-25-AP-03 pursuant to section
30821 of the Coastal Act to LMD International Inc pursuant to the staff
recommendation asking for a yes vote. Second. Moved by Vice Chair Hart, seconded
by Commissioner Wilson. Any objections to a unanimous consent? Seeing none the
second the other penalty is so issued. Thank you. Okay thank you very much.
Thank you so much. Appreciate it. We'll move on to item 10 South Central Coast
District Deputy Director's Report. Alright and thank you. Item 10 is the
Deputy Director's Report for the South Central Coast District and includes one
permit waiver and one immaterial amendment this month. We're not aware of
any opposition to these items being reported. And we're asking whether three or more commissioners
object to any of the items in the deputy director's report. Staff is available for questions.
Thank you Mr. Hudson. Are there any ex partes on any of the items in the DDR? Okay. Are
there any public speakers who wish to address us on these items? No. Thank you. Okay. Are
Are there three or more commissioners who object to any item on the deputy director's
report?
Okay, seeing no objection, the commission concurs.
And that brings us down to item 11A, I believe.
Thank you.
And item 11A will be presented by Tyler Liddell, a coastal program analyst via Zoom and located
in our South Central Coast District.
We can pull up the PowerPoint please and Tyler, please take it away.
Tyler you want to fix your mic real quick?
It might be your connection, you know you're really choppy right now.
Let's try yes just audio, oh okay, you want to try again?
you hear me now, sorry about that.
Good afternoon commissioners, the present item is 11A.
We adopted the Director of the League
or we discussed it in the book of law.
No, Tyler, they're giving us a nodding head.
They're not hearing you that clearly.
Let's try you, okay, just try again,
just slowly as clearly as possible, I guess.
Yeah, good afternoon commissioners.
The present item is 11A, in which applicant Director Marine Holdings is requesting a coastal
development permit for improvements to and reconfiguration of an existing private marina
located within Ventura Harbor in the County of Ventura.
Next slide please.
Through this slide shows an aerial view of the existing marina.
The marina is located in the northeast portion of the harbor, adjacent to the harbor's public
launch ramp and across the channel from the port side marina.
Next slide please.
Through this application, Director Marine Holdings is proposing to expand and reconfigure
the existing marina.
The applicant proposes to replace the existing wooden docks and piles with new precast concrete
docks and piles.
This will result in a net increase of roughly 10,000 square feet of dock area and approximately
24 piles within the marina. The proposed project also includes the installation of ADA compliant
gangways and updated security gates, a marina wide fire suppression system, upgraded fuel pumps,
a sewage pump out station, an electric boat charging station, a publicly accessible water
taxi stop and personal craft launching dock, and rentable storage spaces for kayaks and stand-up
paddle boards. Next slide please. In past decisions regarding Ventura Harbor, the
Commission has sought to preserve the availability of small slips, those at or
under 36 feet in length, in order to promote a range of recreational boating
access and protect lower cost recreational opportunities. The proposed
project would substantially increase the number of both small and large slips in
the marina. The number of small recreational slips in the marina would increase from around
9 to 35 and the number of large recreational slips in the marina would increase from around
7 to 49. This represents a nearly 4-fold increase to the number of small slips and a 7-fold
increase in the number of large slips. Next slide please.
In addition to increasing the number of small slips, the project includes rentable kayak
and paddleboard storage facilities, a free publicly accessible dock to serve as a water
taxi stop, an area for launching small craft, and four slips designated for commercial recreation
vessels. These components provide additional opportunities for lower-cost recreational
boating, and Special Condition 8 stipulates certain requirements, such as a public access
signage plan, which ensures these benefits are fully realized.
Several members of the public have written letters in opposition to the project.
Many are concerned that the expansion of the docks and consequential narrowing of the navigable
channels will negatively impact boater safety in the area.
They argue that the reduction in space will make tacking more difficult for sailboats,
the public launch ramp, reduce the maneuverability of large vessels using the proposed fuel dock,
and force kayakers and paddle boarders into closer proximity with larger craft.
These concerns have been addressed in the staff report and an addendum to the staff report.
The Ventura Port District's General Manager and the Ventura Harbor's Harbor Master both signed a
letter included as Exhibit 5 to the staff report attesting to the safety of the proposed project.
This conclusion is based on an analysis from the Port District's consultant which found that
the project meets or exceeds all minimum design standards from the California Division of Boating
and Waterways and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Members of the public have also
expressed concern that the existing containers which hold live bait for sale to sport fishers
at the fuel docks are not proposed as part of the new marina. According to the applicant,
These were excluded to make space for the small boat slips and commercial sport fishing slips,
which they believe provide greater recreational boating benefits to the public.
This issue is further addressed in an addendum to the staff report.
In conclusion, staff believes the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with
the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. We recommend that the Commission approve the permit
subject to the 10 special conditions listed on pages 5 through 11 of the staff report.
The motion to approve the Coastal Development Permit can be found on page 4 of the staff report.
This concludes the staff's presentation and staff is available for questions. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. Are there any ex partes that commissioners would like to report on this
matter. Okay seeing none we will open the public hearing and we'll start with the
applicant. Yes we have in person, Leonora Volvo and Tom Director. And how much
time would you like ma'am? We didn't actually specifically put in for
speaking more to answer some questions so if we can have just maybe less than a
minute to just talk a little bit about the project.
That'd be great.
So we've been in this process for about four years now,
four and a half years.
And one of the things I'd like to say, and Tyler,
thanking Tyler and the local coastal group, I mean,
they've been working really diligently with us,
so we're really appreciative that we're here today.
It started to look like that would never happen,
so we were pretty excited that this was going to happen.
I also just want to quickly say I didn't have enough respect
how much you guys take on. So when you're us and you feel like it's really slow and
then you hear all of the stuff that's going on you kind of go, yeah maybe our little project
isn't actually that big a deal. So thank you for that. I just want to say part of our condition
for getting the lease is the development of that property. It's about 50 years old, nothing's
ever been done to fix it in 50 years the you know not having people like us who
were willing to come in and step up and take it over would have meant
potentially losing the whole the whole value of that marina to the community so
so yes it is it is we are developing it and we did propose it but but that is a
condition for the Port District for anybody who has that property and I just
thought that was worth mentioning.
Again, I just want to thank all of you for your time and efforts in putting this together,
especially Tyler, who really burned a lot of midnight oil making this happen.
I did want to just add that the current marina docks are barely holding together, and it
is important that we get this done and replace them with some modern, solid concrete docks.
Thanks very much for your time.
Thank you very much.
Are there any members of the public signed up to speak?
Yes, we have four members of the public signed up.
We have three in person, one on Zoom.
We'll start with Dan Hansbruck followed by Alicia Stratton
and then Graham Dawson.
Hello, a little bit higher.
And then Chair, how much time were we giving?
Two.
OK, I'll make it quick then.
My name is Dan Hansbruck.
I actually own and operate the fuel dock
that they're talking about in the marina called Mavco Market
Fuel and Bait.
The biggest push today is the removal of the live bait will be a detriment to the entire Ventura Harbor.
It represents local fishing, sport fishing, one of my other businesses, Freedom Boat Club, all of their fishermen.
If you take live bait out of the harbor, the fishing community will basically die and they'll go to the Channel Islands.
So I collected 40 signatures over the weekend at my fuel dock just over three days as a point to this being a major part of Ventura Harbor.
I would like to state too that the new plans were pushing
for commercial vessels, for sport fishing vessels.
Those sport fishing vessels are currently in Ventura Harbor
and they need the live bait to actually function.
So by removing the live bait,
we can't actually have those boats there
and function as businesses.
Those sport fishing vessels also got roughly 7,000 people
out fishing last year, out to the Channel Islands,
experiencing the coast and things like that.
My current business around the corner was also planning on moving into the new marina
that I was going to manage myself within Mavco Freedom Boat Club.
We were going to bring in over 10 to 20 boats.
This is a business that could be well-reflected by section 30213.
The low cost of boating, we offer membership boating, which drastically removes the boating
cost 3 to 4X down.
So one of our major concerns is definitely the live bait well being removed.
It's a massive part of my business, it'll remove revenue for myself, but more importantly
it'll take away a massive part of the community in Ventura Harbor, which would no doubt be
a detriment to the fishing community for sure in all of Ventura Harbor.
One of the other concerns too is the location of the fuel dock.
It's now on the southern side or the outer side of the marina, very easy to access by
It's very safe to access multiple ways in multiple ways out multiple levels can park at the same time one two three four five
It's right now the new version of that would be one way in and one way out
Thank you very much for my time. Thank you Alicia Stratton
Thank you
Hello commissioners, my name is Alicia Stratton, and I've been boating out of the Ventura Harbor since 1969.
I have worked on fishing boats, government boats, the National Sanctuary and National Park Service,
charter sailboats, research boats, and island packers, the ferry service to the Channel Islands.
I'm on my eighth issue of my Coast Guard captain's license,
and I also worked as a planner for Ventura County Resource Management Agency for 25 years,
and I helped develop the Blue Skies Blue Whales vessel speed reduction program
and I also was on the committee that created the Channel Islands marine
reserves. I've welcomed a lot of changes in the Ventura Harbor and I've never
opposed a development project until now. This slide you see shows the Ventura
public launch ramp back in the day 1965. It had five docks then and it provided
much more public access than we have today. Next slide please. This is the
existing environment again that Tyler showed on the right is the same public
launch ramp but now with only two docks. Next to that is the dredge barge and the
fuel dock. To their left is the marina, home of several sport fishing boats and
this entire area is used by boaters using the launch ramp, the fuel dock, the bait
dock, as well as sailboats that need to raise and lower their main sails, the
sailing schools and outrigger canoes. The existing fuel dock and bait docks are
shown. Please notice how its location allows for a circular flow pattern for
queuing and docking. Next slide please. Another view of the existing environment
with the proposed project footprint outlined in yellow, the charter sport
fishing boats, the fuel dock, the pump out station, and several 78-foot recreational
boat slips will be moved next to the launch ramp. May I go on? Please go ahead and finish
your thoughts. Thank you. I'll be really fast. All this activity must pass through the blue
circle which is a new choke point in addition to the public launch ramp. Next slide. This
photo is taken looking west from the public launch ramp showing the area used by sailing
outrigger canoes and sailboats. That space that they're sailing will be full
of docks. Next slide and I'm almost done. The blue circle you can see shows where
boats currently access the public launch ramp, the fuel dock, the bait dock, port
side docks, and maneuvering space for sailboats. The yellow circle shows the
future water available to these boaters which Tyler showed you in exhibit four.
That yellow dot is what we'll have. The choke point is shown as having a
navigable waterway of 220 feet. This is a misrepresentation because with boats
at the dock on each side, boats that can easily be 30 feet beam, that will add a
10-foot buffer space as well. You're left with a usable channel less
than 150 feet. Next and last slide, my closing comment. The staff report states
states that the quality of navigable water in the channel for sailboat access to and
from the launch ramp should be taken into account but has been intentionally included
from its technical review. Instead, it directs the reader to documents that still don't fully
address the problem. The California Department of Boating and Waterways guidelines does have
ideal widths, which are in your staff report, but the guidelines stipulate that design widths
of water areas within a recreational boat marina must take into consideration sizes
and types of boats and levels of traffic.
And that unique site conditions and circumstances may require special analysis and design considerations.
This stipulation is important to your commission because it was developed for conditions such
as this.
We encourage design alternatives that will allow the boating public to have navigable
water, while allowing the applicant to improve this portion of the harbor.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Graham Dawson, and then our Zoom speaker will be Hall Stratton.
Give us a moment to bring it down.
Graham Dawson, sailor and professional land surveyor, I have five points to make.
This exhibit number four, submitted by the applicant and included in your package, violates
state law.
As Commissioner Wilson well knows, preliminary or not, there is no licensed civil engineer
identified and required, as indicated in Business and Professionals Code 6735A, therefore this
application must be deemed incomplete.
Second, I am opposed to the slot line adjustment.
Exhibit 4 shows the proposed boundaries going through vessels on Dock A and B, around the
the outermost beam of vessels on dock C, along the dock faces of dock D. It is not apparent
what limits the controls the limits of construction. Can the applicant rent out areas outside of
their lease? Can catamarans and wider vessels, without beam restrictions, birth on the end
ties? Next slide, please. Third, since 2015, at every opportunity for public comment, the
is express concerns about the narrowed main channel width. Specifically, the elimination
of an area required by larger sailboats to raise and much more importantly, lower and
flake main sails. This staff report does not even mention this, let alone address the issue.
The reviewing engineer states, navigability has been intentionally excluded from this
technical review. This report deflects photos focused to the boat ramp, does not
note that the main channel here is in the most congested and bottlenecked area
of the harbour already and does not address Ventura Harbour's orientation
relative to typical weather conditions. Fourth, the Port District has a vested
interest in developing this last remaining space. Where are the safeguards
of the existing user or the general public given there has been no public
engagement, no one knows about this. And lastly, this plan does not take into account the unique
characteristics created by the use, orientation and location of Ventura's Harbour. Thank you.
Thank you. And our onesom speaker, Hall Stratton.
Hall Stratton, you may unmute him again.
Okay, I think I'm unmuted there. Can you hear me?
Oh yeah, we can hear and see you. Go ahead.
Okay, well my name is Hall Stratton. I've been using the Ventura Harbor public launch ramp for over 50 years now.
Director and the court district are about to take away from the public a very large part of an abigable waterway
and create a private marina that is four times the size of the existing marina.
I was surprised when the Coastal Commission staff told me a couple of weeks ago there was very little opposition to this project and it was a consent item.
surely people would not want to see access to this waterway eliminated I
thought somebody would object then I realized the director in the port
district have kept this project off the radar intentionally and yes I'm sure
they posted it in the back of a newspaper somewhere that nobody ever
reads but there are no signs up there's no media releases there's nothing that's
would indicate this great addition to our beloved Ventura Marina or Ventura
Harbor, I should say. I attended a port district public workshop a few years or
a few months ago where presentations about the future changes in the Harbor
were given and workshop. Many projects were discussed. We spent over an hour
workshopping a proposal to institute paid parking in some of the Harbor's
parking lots. A proposal that can be instituted, then adjusted, or even turned
off with the push of a button. There was not a single word spoken about the
director project at this workshop. A project that impacts all voters from
Ventura Harbor in one way or another. A project that will remain will remove
access forever. I figured the project had suffered an economic death and that was
it. Here's another example of not communicating the public. I know several
people that rent spaces at the director yard there for their boats and they are the first
ones that would be impacted by some of these changes at the launch ramp. They had not heard
anything from their own landlord that this was coming from. Can I just finish up? I've just got
this last little bit. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. I just want to say that this is equivalent
to somebody coming into a small town and very quietly and putting condominiums on the only
Little League baseball field in town and then telling the people, hey, it's okay. You still have
half a baseball field you can play baseball on. This isn't right. You're taking away public
waterway and giving it to a private interest to make money off of it. I would like to help
in this development. I think the area needs to be redeveloped. It's in bad shape like the
directors say, but let's collaborate. I'll buy the first beer. I'll buy beer for everybody.
That's it. Thank you for the extra time. I appreciate it.
Thank you. We have no more speakers. Madam Chair.
Oh, and Mike was on. The applicant can come forward to respond. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So, Commissioner Preciado, we have also tried to leak tall buildings trying
to get this project put together. Although I have full respect for everybody in the community
who has opinions, ideas and objections to the project, I do resent being accused of coming
from out of town and trying to sneak it in. I think that that's objectionable and also not true.
So I just want to talk a little bit about that fuel dock area.
First of all, in front of our marina is not the navigable waterway.
It's also not a turning basin.
The sailors who are coming in and turning there,
maybe they're not experienced enough
to drop their sails outside the harbor,
which is very common practice in many harbors.
Also the area in front of the Port District Office is what is meant
to be the turning basin in the harbor.
Granted, while this marina has been neglected for 50 years,
People have had a lot of free space
to do what they wanted in there,
but it isn't navigable waterway.
It is a pathway to the public launch ramp
which launches small boats who can very easily pass
from there through out to the mouth of the harbor
or wherever they're going.
So that has not been without consideration.
And in fact, when we came in,
we scaled the project down considerably
from what the previous owner had been proposing
for their marina development.
The reason for the bait, and we can talk about the bait,
so we did talk with the owner of Ventura Harbor Sport
Fishing, who is one of our tenants,
and a few things for color.
Our marina is the only private marina in Ventura Harbor
that accommodates commercial boaters.
So if you talk to some of the big marina operators,
they don't want commercial boats.
They don't want fishing boats in their marinas.
We accommodate that.
Our design accommodates sport fishing.
Tobot is our tenant, MSRC.
So we have a number of commercial customers,
not just Ventura Harbor sport fishing.
And we are committed to them.
We have a good relationship with the owner of that business
who has said, I don't even like the bait where it is.
Half of it dies before we can even pump it out.
So the problem is that it's very close to the shore
and it's inland way inside the inlet there
to the harbor, from the harbor, and the bait dies.
It can't survive and thrive in that environment.
So we've talked with him about helping him
and working with him and the owner
of the live bait company, Baydol,
about helping them try to find another place in the harbor
for their live bait.
That said, we can't have one small marina
that is burdened with keeping commercial sport fishing
in the harbor, keeping live bait in the harbor,
keeping all of those other things in the harbor
because we are one small marina
and we cannot be burdened with that responsibility
when none of the other marinas in the harbor
offer any of those things.
So that's one thing about that.
The other thing that I wanted to just make sure
we made a point about is, sorry, just bear with me a sec.
So the reality is Anchor QEA engineering company
that we hired noble engineering company.
The port hired both of those engineering companies
looked at that area between us and port side.
We also don't know that port side legitimately
can have catamarans hanging off their docks over there.
So, you know, there are lots of questions
about what waterway people should be in.
But we did expand.
So in our effort to increase the number of small boats
in our final discussions with local coastal,
We did have to sacrifice something.
Bait was the thing that we could no longer fit there.
Fortunately, we also then discovered
from the owner of the sport fishing business
that that isn't a good place for bait anyway.
So that was one consideration.
But we also had to look at how else can we get that space
and also help out the people who have objections and concerns.
So we increased 20 additional feet in that area
that was 200 feet.
So, I will leave it at that, but we haven't not considered the constituents and there
are many of them and we, many stakeholders and we've done our best to consider all of them.
Thank you very much and you may have questions from commissioners when the time is right,
but for the moment, I'll turn it back to staff, if they have any comments or responses.
I'll turn it over to Tyler.
Yes.
I'm sorry.
Thank you so much.
On the issue of channel navigability, as the applicant mentioned, the original proposal
that we received was for a channel width
of 200 feet dock to dock.
And that was the width under which
all of the port districts analysis
and their consultants analysis took place.
I did want to flag that the analysis
that the port district commission
was not just for the guidelines,
not just to ensure compliance with the guidelines,
but also actually included, there's two separate letters
as part of this analysis and that second one
found that the reduction in the channel width
would not impact tacking maneuvers.
And so I bring this up because I want to clarify
that these reports were done with the 200 foot channel width
and the current proposal is for 220 feet of channel width.
And then I will direct it to Mr. Hudson
if he has any additional comments.
All right, thank you.
Just to add to that issue, so as Tyler had mentioned,
we did look closely at the safety of the redesigned channel
so as it would be reduced from that 330 to 220 feet width
and confirmed with the Harbor Department
that that is in compliance with the state division
of boating and water safety.
that that's the typical standard applied within these harbors now the harbor
master and the Harbor Department have also confirmed that their belief is that
this provides for a safe with for that channel so we believe that this would be
an adequately designed project to ensure that that stability and in regard
to the debate box issue or the debate well we also looked at would it be
possible to preserve the existing bait boxes. There's several changes that would
occur to this marina because it's being expanded and it will provide additional
boats or additional slips for boats and that is an amenity that will improve
public recreation and public access and so that is a benefit but there are
trade-offs and the applicant has indicated that the issue with the bait
box was that they're constrained by the width of that channel. The bait boxes are
located in the water at the ends of the ties.
And that it wouldn't be possible to locate those boxes
in the water due to the width of the channel
without reducing the number of slips.
And that was something that they weren't willing to propose.
It was a reduction in the number of slips.
So with that, we didn't believe that we had a clear ability
to require retention of those boxes
at the expense of reducing the number of slips.
So I just want to provide that background
and that concludes our staff comments,
but we are available for questions.
Sorry, Steve, I also would just like to add that
because the Port District parcel was being expanded
for this project in a lot line adjustment,
the State Lands Commission also has reviewed the project
and made sure it poses no issue
to public access and recreation.
And then there was also, I believe, a comment about
perhaps lack of noticing.
We coordinated with the applicant to make sure
all of the letters to owners and occupants
within 100 feet were sent out.
And we also have a signed declaration of posting
from the applicant.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
Now I'll bring it back to the commission,
Commissioner Lowenberg, oh been answered, okay.
Any comments, question?
Commissioner Wilson.
I got a couple of questions.
There was, you know, there is an expansion of the space
to be used for this dock facility.
And I want to see an expansion of dock use.
I think that's a good idea.
I will say that, I mean, when I looked at the numbers,
I don't know where to how to speak to this,
But understanding that the majority of it
was for slips like 70 feet or more, is that right?
Do I have that correct?
There was a, I was looking for the table,
I saw the applicant put the table up on the thing,
but then I didn't really see it in, oh there it is, yes.
So I have it here in front of me.
So I'm just saying like, that trend,
we just keep seeing that the use of these public trust areas
when you have them, these slips being larger than 36 feet,
meaning you have to be able to own a vessel
that that's that big in order to access
this public resource, right?
So it reserves more and more of our public space
for people who can afford,
only can afford these things
that are of very, very high value.
And to the exclusion of people who can't afford
or don't have access to those things.
Now, there's commercial activities around that.
And I will say, commercial fishing vessels
are a great way to provide access to a lot of people.
There's a lot of commercial activities like that.
But then there's just a lot of the privatization.
And then we're seeing more of the mega yachts and stuff
like that.
This isn't that, but still, they're good sized vessels.
And I'm just saying, that's the trend.
That seems to be the increase.
It goes from nine things that are smaller
than 36 to 35 and seven that are larger to 49.
So again, that's just saying it just seems to be the,
it's a graphic demonstration of some of the,
I would say, some of the inequalities we have
and the pressures that it has on our public spaces.
That's one issue.
I don't have an answer for that here today.
But the other one is we have had projects come to us
that are marine-oriented that have had conditions
of approval around lighting and making sure,
because again, light pollution,
and especially in our coastal zones,
is expanding, growing at 10% a year.
It's becoming more and more of an impact,
and we know our marine resources are impacted by those,
whether they're migrating birds or other things.
And this thin zone that is the coast
is a very unique ecosystem around the planet.
And we need to do what we can to lessen those impacts.
In places like Florida and other places,
they have special lighting so that the sea turtles don't
get confused and those sorts of things.
And what we do know about lighting
is that it's actually very inexpensive, if not cost less,
to be over when you're controlling where the light goes
and where it and even the hue of the light as well.
So I'm just saying, I didn't see anything in here
that addresses that.
And this is the time when we would do that.
And so those are my first one I don't have an answer to.
The second one I think that we have
had stipulations and and conditions that address light pollution and I'm just
wondering if that is something that if we're too far down the road for that on
this project thanks thanks Commissioner Wilson so I I think maybe I'll take your
second question first and then come back to the first or the point you made and
agree that I think if we're gonna look at lighting and we should be looking at
lighting and in everything where it's relevant especially right on the
coastline, this is the time to do it.
I don't think there's a history of doing much lighting
conditions in Ventura Harbor.
So it's maybe a new concept for this part of the coast.
But I am aware of a couple of other harbor-type projects
that are similar where we have required a lighting plan.
And so generally, I think I would ask the applicant if
they'd be willing, but I think we would expand our staff
recommendation to include a condition that would require the applicant to submit for
review by me a final lighting plan, and that would include shielding light, directing it
downward, not directing light into the water, minimum light for safety and for purposes
of operating the marina.
I did find a previous condition for Remorina that had some other specific requirements
around temperature that I would want to look into to see if that's something we want to
include, but the idea being, you know, whenever possible, use cover material composed of dark
and nonreflective materials so that you're minimizing contribution to sky glow.
So I think that's, if that's sort of what you are thinking about would be appropriate
here, I think that is something that we could include.
I'm seeing in new facilities right now, the way LED lights have been expanding right now,
they're just going bonkers.
And you can see the big difference between a project that takes these into consideration
and ones that don't.
And especially in areas that have fog or other kinds of things, man, you can really, it makes
a big impact in the community in the night sky.
The night skies are really valuable not just because for the non-human critters.
It's actually a very, when people want to maintain sort of rural night skies or even
just be able to see the stars, we're becoming less and less able to do that.
And that's a value that people might want from the coast and their communities.
So I just, it's, again, it doesn't cost very much,
and oftentimes it saves you money in electricity.
So I'm hoping that we can move more into this arena,
and we're seeing, all I'm seeing is we're applying this
unevenly across our projects,
and I would hope that we could do something about that.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Pris-Siaco.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just had a brief question.
I wonder if staff or the applicant can describe the location of the fuel station, and it looks
like it's in one place right now because of its current development format, and it looks
like it's tucked into one row.
And if you could just comment on how safe that is, or if it's compliant with state
regulations so that it is safe. So I don't know if the applicant or staff can
comment on that and then I have a follow-up comment. Yes, through the
chair. So staff has confirmed with the harbor master and the applicant that
this project as designed does conform with boating and safety waterway
standards and the harbor master has determined it to be safe but we would
recommend that that question be directed toward the applicant for those sorts of
details. Yeah, I think so the and you can talk more to this but the design for that was done by
Bellingham. So Bellingham is I'm sure you know one of the major construction companies for marinas
and so they put their engineers on looking at where that that fuel could be. So a little bit
about the fuel dock on that side. We we ourselves owned it for a year before Mavco bought it. The
Big vessels fuel up at the other fuel dock in the harbor.
It's because of a number of reasons,
including things like they can get oil changes and whatever.
So that's where all the big fishing boats tend to fuel up.
So it really is the smaller boats
that fuel at that fuel dock, primarily for gas,
because it's the only fuel dock with gas
and can accommodate the boats that are using gas typically
to power their boats.
So that's how that design came about.
That was also in consideration of trying
to keep too much from happening in that circle
that everybody's been talking about, right?
So if you put fuel at the end,
then you've got boats lining up and coming in to get fuel.
And so now you've got congestion at the end there
instead of them just, you know, making their way inside.
So that's a little bit about kind of why that was,
where that came from.
And I just, to just address the question
from Commissioner Wilson.
So again, one of the things that's unique about our property,
First of all, even in our small marina,
our small slips are empty.
People don't want them.
We have a day sell lot.
We have 80 boats in our day sell lot.
Those are boats on trailers who go down to the launch ramp
and launch.
They occasionally do call and say, can I get a slip?
And we tell them the price for the slip.
And they say, no, thank you.
I'll leave my boat on a trailer.
So it is a tension, I understand.
We feel that we accommodate getting everybody
on the water through the 7,000 tickets
that sport fishing sells, through the 80 boats that we keep in day sale,
plus the number of slips that we have in our marina plan.
But there's also a cost of development equation here.
I mean, I know it's crass to talk about money, but to get funding
to build a marina, there is a tension.
You need to make sure that that marina is going to throw off enough revenue
to justify the kind of debt that you have to take particularly
in today's economy and what's happening with interest rates.
So we are walking a very delicate line there.
And that was my next comment, and I
appreciate your last comment as well.
I have a friendly little neighbor
who I get to see his boat every day.
Makes me happy.
But I do ask, why isn't it in our marina?
And he says, that's not how I can afford.
I take my boat and slip it in.
And so I think we need to look at the whole economics
of these projects to see who has a need for these locations
and who's willing to stay.
So it's probably infeasible to say,
we need to have like a low cost rate to store your boat
in a marina where you're investing significant amounts
of money to create the infrastructure
to support all your customers.
And so, we have a small component of the San Diego big, San Diego, Port of San Diego.
We have a couple marinas that integrated into one.
And yeah, we experience a lot of our community that use boats that we get to see them
in their yards or in the extra driveway they put in because they're not willing to put them there.
And when they're really sizable vessels,
it's probably more reasonable to have them
instead of taking them out and in all the time.
So I just wanted to comment on that.
And the other thing,
and I don't know if staff is willing to comment,
but I know we're looking at this project particularly.
It seems like the whole ecosystem there of marina
and users and that when the port approved
It's contextualized to the whole system that's there and not that the individual project
has to meet everyone's needs.
So I'm kind of balanced when I hear testimony from the public, particularly when it doesn't
feel like they've been engaged with you over years.
I have that concern, but at the other side, it's not possible that you've been through
this four-year process and nobody knows.
And so I just wanted to make those comments to add to our discussion today, but I am hopeful
that projects can work.
There is an operator right now in our marina that hopefully will have a pathway to get
long lease. But it will require that we update. And so I'm just, on one side I'm interested
in the axis. I think the lighting idea is a good idea. But I'm also interested in the
economics and what will make it work for everyone. And so I appreciated that the fuel station
seems to be compatible even though it's different from the old way. And so with that I just
I appreciate getting more information about this because it was interesting to read it.
It looked like it was just growing but in context you see that there are multiple stakeholders
with different perspectives on how this should go.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Any?
Okay.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you staff for the briefing.
Thank you applicants.
I happen to live by a marina in my neck of the woods in Los Angeles and I can tell you
It's a sort of need, desperate actually,
for an investor to come in and to make some changes.
So the fact that you're willing to come in
and make some improvements is certainly appreciated
even by the folks who may not necessarily agree
with your scope or the project.
I also appreciate the locals who've been there
using it for years.
This is one of those things where it's tough
because you've got competing interests
and there's never an easy answer.
We talk all day about collaboration and collaboration
and compromise and then hopefully some sort of consensus.
And it's unfortunate that we don't have that here.
And it's tough because I see the value
in the Freedom Boat Club, where I've seen that work
where my neighbor, for example, says,
I don't wanna own a boat, but man,
it's nice to go out there on a Saturday,
jump on it for two hours, bring it back,
just fill it up and be done with it.
So I happen to be a boat owner.
So I appreciate his perspective considerably
because there are days I wish I could just get on the boat,
turn it in and be done with it
as I pay my slip fees and maintenance fees
and everything else.
But I appreciate the fact that I can do that.
So, you know, I certainly understand the importance
of the boat, what is it, live bait well as well.
So that's important to a certain segment of the community there, and it's unfortunate
that we can't figure out how to make that work as well.
So in Ray's world, it'd be great if the competing interest here, even at the end of this discussion,
at the end of this hearing, regardless of which way it goes, can sit down and have some
discussions and possibly say hey let's you know if we tweak this or tweak that
maybe we can make this work because I everybody appreciates the need for
improvements of this marina without a doubt it sounds like it's a dump and
concrete concrete is always appreciated and one question I had about the the
boats that my colleague mentioned. My understanding was that those four slips
for the large boats were for the recreation opportunities for the public.
I think those were for the tour boats or was that correct?
There are currently, we currently have, I thought so, you're hitting me, we currently
have four Ventura Sport fishing boats but we have additional commercial vessels
not just those four. One of the conditions we agreed to with Coastal was that we would
agree to committing to keeping four slips minimum for either sport fishing or another
charter kind of island packers type thing or you know people who were taking a number
of people out on the water and we agreed to that condition. Lighting, we're happy to look
at the lighting. We're a pretty small marina. I mean if you look at the size of marinas
in our harbor alone, we're pretty small compared to those marinas. So putting in
lighting that doesn't affect, you know, pollution is great. We don't have any
problem with that. I wanted to add about the bait. To have a bait well that's in
clear, deep water with good flow ensures the life of the bait. And that comes from
the sport fisherman who uses the bait. I'm not a bait expert, but he is. Having it
located elsewhere in the harbor in collaboration with the sport fishing and
with the Port of Ventura. The Port District would make a lot of sense. It's just a
question of not trying to integrate it in the chokehold between getting small
boats in, having the turning circle. We're just jammed in that corner and it's like
the last place where you want to put more traffic to pick up bait in
conjunction with all the other vessels there. Elsewhere in the harbor where
there's deeper water and better flow would make a lot of sense for a standalone
bait well and there's a lot of harbors that have standalone you know Santa
Barbara you know Channel Islands there's a lot of other harbors that have
floating bait barges and the boats can come up to that floating bait barge and
pick up their bait in clear water and it's much healthier for the bait so I
just wanted to add that. I appreciate that and you know like I said I could be
great if at the end of this hearing as we move on you know those discussions
can be had about how to accommodate accommodate some of those other amenities
that may not be practical for this particular project absolutely and the
sport fishermen we need to keep those folks happy and again there's seven
thousand very inexpensive access to the waters it's the sport fishing guys and
they want their live bait the question is where in the harbor can we can we put
that. Thank you. Thank you. And just the last plug for the
Freedom Boat Club. I'm a fan. So thank you. Thank you. Thank
you very much. Any other comments or questions? If not
I'll entertain a motion. Before we get to the motion, I'm
wondering if we might take a quick break. I've been working
on language for lighting condition. I want to run a
by the applicant before we do that. So if we might take a
five or 10 minute break. Come back at 415. Please. That sounds
great and remember please commissioners don't speak about the item we're in the
middle of the hearing so please keep that in mind. Commissioner Escalante
before we I'm sorry just a quick question is for the for the live bait
thing I mean is there anything else that we can say to kind of advance and make
sure that this conversation doesn't drop off you know the table and then they end
up with no life bait thing could be years and years so is there anything that we can do?
think about that over the break and come back with an answer. Okay 415 please.
Okay. Come back in session please. Thank you. Alright. Dr. Hucklebridge, do you have language
for us to consider? I do. Thank you chair and I will be amending the staff's
recommendation to include two different new conditions for this permit. The first
This is on project lighting and I'm just going to read the condition into the record.
It says prior to the issuance of this coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit
for the review and written approval of the executive director a final lighting plan which
specifies that, a, all permanent lighting associated with the harbor shall be shielded
and directed downward, no light shall be directed onto the water, and bright upward shining lights
shall not be used during construction.
B, specifications for all lighting, including those used for the operation of construction
equipment, if performed at night, shall be included with light temperatures maintained
at 2700 Kelvin, no case shall exceed 3000 Kelvin, and a foot-candle value of no higher
than .01 FC, incident along the property edge.
C, whenever possible, the applicant shall use cover material composed of dark, non-reflective
material demonstrated to minimize the contribution to sky glow and D no
changes to the approved development shall occur without a Commission
amendment to this coastal development permit or a new coastal development
permit unless the executive director determines that no amendment or new
permit is required. That's one condition on lighting and then I'm going to turn
it over to Steve Hudson to describe another condition that deals with
of coordination on the bait issue.
All right, thank you.
And the second condition that we would be adding
would require the applicant to coordinate
with the port district, the current bait operator
and commission staff to pursue development
of an alternative location within the harbor,
which may or may not include within this marina itself.
So with that, that will conclude our staff remarks
and just wanted to again clarify that we've amended
the staff recommendation to include those two conditions.
Thank you, Director.
Commissioner Prociata.
I think that the first condition seemed extraordinarily
reasonable for a new development project,
but I'm concerned about the second condition.
So I'm just wondering, can the project proceed
without meeting the obligation of the pay?
Or is it just requiring that there be some conversation
and coordination because we've heard testimony today
that the bait location is not in the right place.
Other things could be happy and I just don't want,
I just don't think it's fair to the applicant
to assign them the responsibility
of finding where to locate the bait.
But I think it's fair to ask them to,
if an existing amenity is somehow be coordinated
into a future space.
But enough, that's what I, my concern is associated
with tying the project down to you will find.
And if that's not the case,
if the condition is just to require engagement,
then that I can support.
But I just think it's challenging to force an issue
when half the pay dies apparently from where it is.
or all the other requirements that the applicant is trying to meet and deal with that public
amenity. Is it a public amenity or is it a commercial amenity that helps? So I, I, anyways,
that's my feedback. Through the chair, um, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that that can, there
is no timing requirement on that conditions. It does require, um, coordination, but it doesn't
tie, it's not a priority issuance condition or anything along those lines.
So it does just require coordination and wouldn't tie the timing of the development itself to
that, to an outcome of that coordination process.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thank you.
I was wondering if through the chair it would be possible just to have the applicants come
up and tell us, I mean, I personally, with deference to my fellow commissioner, I do think
that the LiveBait part of the improvements is important.
And I'm just wondering if you could respond
to Dr. Hucklebridge, given that it's not a prior
to issuance requirement, is it something
that you will be working with the LiveBait operator
or something?
He's not the LiveBait operator.
Yes, we would work with the LiveBait operator.
It's a company called Bait All.
So Baydall has committed to paying for a live bait receiver
somewhere else other than the back end of our marina.
We are signing off on a condition with Coastal
saying that we will keep sport fishing boats there.
So, yes, we're committed to working with Tucker,
who's the owner of the sport fishing business.
Baydall, who owns the actual bait company.
And the Port District, who has a commercial marina
that could well put a bait well there
to find an alternative to our marina
being the only solution for bait in the harbor.
So yes, we are committed to that
because it is in the best interest of our marina
and the conditions we're signing up for,
which is to keep the sport fishing boats there.
And if I could, through the chair,
I just want to say I used to operate a marina
as part of being a parks director
and I know how challenging it is.
And I just want to express, for me anyway,
gratitude for you all for doing what you're doing.
It's really important.
So-
And it's really hard.
I used to start and sell software companies, and this is so much harder.
Well, hopefully it'll be really enjoyable assuming that we move forward.
Does that answer your question?
Yes, it does.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chair.
Just project sponsor.
You may want to look at some of the lighting stuff that they do in Hawaii because everything
has to be down.
There's all these new criteria that have come out over the last few years to ambient lighting
and all that stuff.
just as a resource look at what they've required and what they're what they're
doing there because they've done great work on that to keep the light yeah yeah
okay it's just as a resource yeah just as a resource yeah yeah thank you
Commissioner Escalante I just want to say thanks to our staff to turn that
around so quickly and for the applicant to be willing to continue to have this
coordination I think it'll be helpful just as we move forward in this process
with the community around you just to continue having that you know setting a
table obviously you know nobody's going to force you to put that thing in there
but I think it'll be a great signal of collaboration with everybody around you
will be helpful so I we really appreciate your willingness to participate
in that thank you thank you and Commissioner Wilson I believe is going
to make the motion. Thank you staff for thank you to the applicant and I just
want to say that if anyone needs good standards Dark Sky International is a
great organization they will help in and you're right I'm sure Bellingham can can
do the job this requirement is not unusual these days so again I move that
the Commission approved coastal development permit number four dash two
24-0422 pursuant to staff recommendation. I recommend the yes vote.
Second.
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson. A second by Commissioner Preciado.
Are there any objections to a unanimous yes vote? Seeing none, the permit is so approved.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Congratulations. Okay. Now that moves us on to item 12, the
Coast District Deputy Director's report. All right, thank you. Item 12, the
Deputy Director's report for South Coast District. This month includes six waivers
and three permit extensions. In addition, the report also includes a
memorandum responding to objections received to two separate but related
immaterial permit extensions that are being reported this month. Four letters
were received from members of the public who were listed in the memo for this
item and they're objecting to the one year time extension of two Ulster
permits by Ocean Avenue LLC and Community Corporation of Santa Monica to
redevelop the Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica with 312 hotel rooms and 16
market rate condo units in conjunction with the new five-story multi-family
residential building with 42 affordable rental units for low-income households.
As explained in detail in the memorandum, the primary contentions raised by the
opponents is that the project would exacerbate traffic, that the previously
approved structures are too large and not conforming to community character,
that the loading dock operations for the hotel will result in noise pollution,
building vibrations, that the projects result in traffic congestion, air quality
degradation from truck exhaust, and also because the project has not yet
commenced that the applicant should not be allowed to do so now. Now staff would
note that the standard of review for the original coastal permits is consistency
with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and the potential effects of the
approved development on traffic, community character views, access and other
coastal resources, those were fully evaluated by the Commission and its
approval of the underlying project. And the Commission found the project would
result in no significant impacts as conditions. Pursuant to section 13-169 of the Commission's
regulations, in order to deny a permit extension request, objections must identify change circumstances
that affect the consistency of the development with Coastal Act or certified OCP. It does
not provide an opportunity to re-hear the merits of the project. In this case, none
of the objections raised by the opponents assert changed circumstances, and thus the
executive director has determined that there are no changed circumstances here affecting
the previously approved developments consistency of the Coastal Act, and we are recommending
that the two immaterial time extensions be approved.
We're not aware of any opposition to any of the other items being reported today, and
we are asking whether three or more commissioners object to any of the items for which action
is needed today in the deputy director's report. Staff is available for questions.
Thank you very much Mr. Hudson. Are there any ex partes on any matter in the deputy director's
report? Seeing none, are there any speakers signed up to speak on any of these items?
We only had one who wished to speak, Armin Nasseri. We aren't seeing them in the Zoom meeting. Armin,
if you are there, can you please raise your hand? And then we had four others available
for questions. Just giving it a second. I'm seeing no hands raised, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chris. Okay, are there three or more commissioners who object to any
item on the DD report? Seeing no objections, the commission concurs. And
with that, I believe we are now adjourning to closed session. Oh, statewide items.
That's actually what we're doing. Please, go ahead. I don't believe we have any minutes to
approved today and then us next would be Commissioner reports and then any
subcommittee reports, Conservancy report if there are any today. I don't think I
don't think we have any today. Is there any report from the AGs? Yes hi, so I'm
Patrick Tok from the AGs office. Just quickly I wanted to highlight two demurs
that we were successful with on May 28th and May 30th in Sandoval and Morro Bay.
We successfully demurred and got the commission out of those two cases and just wanted to have it. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, and now we will adjourn to closed session. Thank you all.