Good morning everyone. Welcome to day two of our coastal Commission hearing here in the Santa Monica Mountains
We'll call this meeting to order and I will ask to start with a roll call though, please
All right. Good morning
commissioner Bocco
Commissioner Dunlal here
Commissioner
Hart present
Commissioner Jackson
Commissioner Kelly here commissioner Lopez here commissioner not off here
Sure Preciado's on his way
Sure Turnbull Sanders here
Commissioner Williams, which I forgot yesterday here
Commissioner Wilson present day
Chair Harmon here. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. Now. We'll move to the virtual meeting procedures, please
Good morning. This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through Zoom.
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at Cal-Span.org.
If you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak on an item,
we recommend you use the CalSpan website.
Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paper lists submittal are available on the Commission staff table just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda webpage, which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. On each day of the meeting
In order to in order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation
You may speak on a specific topic one time only each month
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comment are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion
of the chair
We will accept a request to speak on a 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 staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call and number and instructions for how to participate and provide testimony by phone
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer
When it is your time to address the Commission the organizer will invite you to turn on your video and microphone
Or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone and Madam chair that concludes the virtual hearing procedures
Thank you very much Chris. And now we'll move to agenda changes for today
Good morning chair Harmon and commissioners
We have 10 changes to the agenda noted on the agenda changes memo posted on the online agenda
But are removing two of the items from those proposed for the consent calendar
In response to concerns that we recently that were recently raised
The two items that are no longer moving to the consent calendar our combined item 8b 9a the consistency
termination and CDP application for the Russ Creek and Centreville Slough restoration project and
combined item 17 B
18a the consistency certification and CDP application for the City of Long Beach dredging project
again, that's
combined item 8 B 9 a and 17 B 18 a
The other agenda changes are correctly reflected in the agenda changes memo as follows
first item 11 a
has been moved to consent, a time extension for a county of Santa Barbara
LCPM amendment covering agricultural enterprises. Next, item 11b has been
moved to consent, a time extension for a Santa Barbara County LCPM amendment
focused on cannabis odor regulations. Next, item 11c has been moved to consent
for another time extension for Santa Barbara County LCPM amendment focused on
on telecommunications facilities.
Next, item 16A has been postponed
for an appeal of a City of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works project.
Item 16B has also been postponed for another appeal
of a City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works project.
Item 17A has also been postponed for a CDP application
by the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works.
And finally, item 17C has been moved to consent
for a CDP application involving development
on a bluff in Torrance.
This concludes the agenda changes to today's agenda
and that brings us to item four, general public comment.
With that, I'll turn the mic back over to you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Toyfall.
Okay, thank you Chris, let's begin.
For members of the public,
I'll be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers
and invite you to speak when it is your turn.
Each speaker will be allowed two minutes
during general public comment
at the discretion of the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom,
we will be bringing you in as panelists.
As we bring you in, 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'll be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room,
I'll call your names in the order
that they appear in our signup list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium
and introduce yourself when you approach to speak.
There is a raise your hand function
that will help us find you in the attendee list on Zoom.
If you are using a phone for audio,
you can raise your hand by dialing star nine.
If you are participating by Zoom,
you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item
and are able to do so, please raise your hand.
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.
So looking at the list we have today,
we have a total of 13 speakers for general public comment,
and we have six in person that we're gonna start with.
So we'll have Celeste Rios, Bridleman Daniel,
and Paul Grisanti to start, so Celeste Rios.
My name is Celeste Rios.
I am the first female Latina eel scout
in the 76 year history of Troop 94 in Gilmore.
I am currently a university student at CSUN
studying ecology and evolutionary biology,
and I'm speaking to you all today
because Camp Memorial Bay,
a camp off the coast of Long Beach, changed my life.
My passion for science and conservation
began at Camp Memorial Bay.
It's a one-of-a-kind scouting camp
and one of the only scouting camps in the nation
on an island coast.
The location offers learning opportunities,
not just to scouts,
but to public school students as well.
It was the first place
where I explored marine life hands-on,
hiked through preserved land,
and realize I wanted to become a wildlife biologist.
As a young Latina STEM, that experience
wasn't just educational, it transformed and inspired me.
Camper Mobile is the only facility of its kind
serving youth in Los Angeles, particularly those
from low income and first generation backgrounds.
There are hundreds of stories I can tell you
about how this camp changed lives.
As a Marabesh counselor, I've worked with kids
who were visiting the island for the first time with me.
I've taken ferries with children who have never camped
or ever dreamed of visiting an island
due to their financial circumstances.
And while Emerald Bay may just seem like a camp,
it has become a core memory for so many lives.
It's a place that opens doors
and creates future leaders and scientists.
I can test you that this camp builds good people.
Ultimately, I'm here because camper would change me
for the better and I want others
to have that same opportunity.
I would love to invite you to see all the faces
of the kids stargazing at our astronomy night on the island.
It's a memory you won't ever forget.
Please do everything you can to protect this camp
to ensure accessibility for generations to come.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next.
Bridal McDaniel Paul Grisanti B John John Arjang.
Bridal McDaniel I'm not seeing anyone approach
the mic Paul Grisanti.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, commissioners, and staff.
My name is Paul Grisati, past president
and current director of the board of Smart Coast California,
as well as a longtime Malibu resident, business owner,
and former member of the Malibu City Council.
I appreciate the opportunity
to speak with you in person today.
Smart Coast California is a nonprofit dedicated
to advancing practical science based coastal adaptation strategies that meet both environmental
needs and the needs of the communities along our changing shoreline.
We value the important role the commission plays as California faces growing challenges
from sea level rise, coastal erosion, and increasingly severe storms.
These issues demand urgent action, and we remain concerned that the voices of local
communities and the need for flexible site-specific solutions are not always fully reflected in
the Commission decision-making.
Our mission is to bring those diverse voices and the perspectives into statewide dialogue,
and we welcome continued opportunities to work with you and your staff towards that
goal.
With that in mind, I'm pleased to announce that our fourth annual policy summit will
be held on October the 16th.
This event will be virtual this year, allowing us to engage in even broader range of guests
and speakers.
We're honored that once again, Senior Commission staff and Executive Director Kate Hucklebridge
will be joining us.
We'll be finalizing and posting our full program soon, and I hope that many of you will be
able to attend.
In closing, Smart Coast California looks forward to continued collaboration with the Commission
on planning strategies that protect our coast while supporting vibrant, resilient communities.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Bijan, John, Arjang, Alejandra, Regalado, and then Steve Ray.
Bijan.
Bijan and Arjang are running a tiny bit behind, so I don't know if it's possible to hear the
to zoom comments and then see if they're able to make it
if it pleases the commission.
We can trail them to the end.
Thanks so much.
Steve Ray.
And then our first zoom speakers will be Susan Simon,
Ernie Simon, and Dr. Mark Cram.
Well, good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners and staff.
I'm Steve Ray.
First, let me apologize again for my voice.
My doctors are working on it,
so there's hope for the future.
First order business is good.
I want to, on behalf of me and all of my many associates
out here, welcome and congratulate
Commissioner Notoff on her reappointment to the commission.
Good to have you back for another four.
And second, it's bad news.
Sorry to follow you up with some bad news, Commissioner Notoff.
But I've been talking to you many times recently
about the battery plant issue, especially in Morro Bay.
The bad news is that the developers of that project,
Vista Corporation, are now re-approaching public officials
in the Morro Bay area, and while they haven't announced
what they want to talk about, we can certainly speculate
with a degree of certainty that it's about,
they're coming back for another pass
at building a battery plant on the coast in Morro Bay.
This is what we speculate is that they are going
to announce they have come up with some changes
in the design of the plant.
Hey, my house is in a what construction?
With lithium being part of the major project
and that's just a very dangerous product.
And so that's going to continue to be a problem.
They say that it's safer.
It might be safer, and there are ways in which it is safer.
There are other ways in which it's definitely not safer.
And we'll give you all the details of that in the future.
But we just want to remind you, as you start to look at this
and hear about this again, that safer is not the same as safe.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Now moving on to our Zoom speakers.
We have Susan Simon, Ernie Simon,
and then Dr. Mark Cram, Susan Simon.
Susan, I see that you're in as a panelist.
Sorry, I just, yeah, thank you.
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 six, development.
Code 30250 alpha.
The exclusion of planning districts
with large scale projects such as Chula Vista National City
and the Seaport Project
in the Central Embarcadero Subdistrict.
This did not allow for a proper evaluation of their impacts
to existing developed areas ability to accomplish
or excuse me, to accommodate these new developments.
Without the Seaport Project,
traffic was already determined to be significant
and unavoidable in the adjacent residential community.
With the developer's estimation of 11,000 to 33,000
additional visitors per day to this area,
the impact on the adjacent community in downtown
will be gridlock.
Code 30251, the omission of the Seapart project
from the PMPU does not allow for proper evaluation
of this code.
If it had been included, it would have been inconsistent
with, quote, the scenic and visual qualities
of coastal areas shall be considered and protected
as a resource of public importance.
Permitted development shall be sited and designed
to protect views to and along the coast
and scenic coastal areas, end quote.
The massive scale and density
of the proposed seaport project development
is a radical departure from what exists today.
Today, no building in the central Embarcadero
was taller than 45 feet.
That height will be replaced with buildings
that are 500 feet, 380 feet, 320 feet,
and several other buildings in the hundreds of feet.
Gone will be the only views along the ocean
and scenic coastal areas that exist in this area.
Deviously, the PMPU omitted these current views
when describing the area,
while stating nothing will change
in the central Embarcadero,
and only noted the viewing areas that will exist
once the Seaport Project redevelopment is finished.
I appreciate your time and attention
and support and matter.
And then Ernie Simon, who I believe has indicated that
you're sharing a device?
Yes. Yes.
Good morning, Coastal Commissioners.
My name is Ernie Simon,
and I am a member of the Embarcadero Coalition.
I'd like to continue with the previous speaker's comments
regarding the myriad of ways the PMPU is inconsistent
with the Coastal Act Chapter 3 codes,
specifically regarding Article 6 development.
Code 302-50C, due to the concerns listed in 302-50A,
and to be consistent with this code,
the seaport project should either be
dramatically scaled down to balance the development
and recreation areas or moved to Planning District Two,
Harbor Island, which is located on the water
with some motels and nearest to the San Diego Airport.
The Port of San Diego would advise that plans
to run a circulator through this area,
so this could dramatically decrease VMT and GHG.
Code 302-52-4, the omission of the CPART project
from the PMPU does not allow
for proper evaluation of this code.
In the proposed CPART project currently undergoing CEQA,
parking included 2050 spaces.
However, the developer estimates 11 to 33,000 visitors
per day to the area.
Without the CPART project,
the PMPU traffic analysis determined traffic
be significant and unavoidable. The only way to arrive at the CPAR project by vehicle is through
downtown San Diego. The developer himself has said if something isn't done about traffic it
will be gridlock. This makes the CPAR project inconsistent with this code. Code 302 53 C and D
for the same reasons just stated the CPAR project is inconsistent with these codes
as it will dramatically increase VMT and GHG.
Even without the Seaport Project,
the PMPU findings of significant unavoidable traffic
and no study to increase in VMT due to the PMPU
are fatal emissions.
Increased development in the Embarcadero's
will increase vehicle traffic.
So thank you and I appreciate your time.
Thank you. Next is Dr. Mark Cram followed by Leslie Purcell. Good morning commissioners.
Please display my first slide. Thank you for the opportunity. Okay. Please let me know when you have.
And then we'll start your time when it comes up. And go ahead. Good morning commissioners. Thank
you for the opportunity to express my opposition to the proposed development at 501 Sandpoint Road
in Carpentaria. My name is Dr. Mark Cram and I'm an environmental scientist with over 40 years
of professional experience managing environmental assessment and remediation projects. I visited
Sandpoint Road on many occasions. I was surprised to learn that the Commission approved new
development on the very eastern end of the sand spit next to the outlet of the Carpentaria salt
marsh. That small piece of land is an integral part of the wetland ecosystem. It is the wrong
location for the proposed structure due to the environmental sensitivity and close proximity
to the ocean and marsh channels that will become more important with sea level rise.
Please advance the slides.
In slides two and slide three, we see unpermitted construction activities.
Slide four, the next slide, shows the applicant's makeshift sign that reads restoration in progress.
5 shows the notice of violation issued by Santa Barbara County. How is it that the applicant
was allowed to deploy heavy drilling and testing vehicles, remove vegetation, and cover sensitive
habitat without permits, biological oversight, or cultural resource monitoring? The mission
of the Commission is to protect our coastal environment, particularly sensitive habitats.
This situation is troubling given that Commission staff formally acknowledge that the project
is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
I respectfully request that you reconsider your approval
and require a comprehensive environmental impact assessment.
Due to the sensitive nature of this unique location
and a lack of similar settings in Southern California,
this project requires the highest level
of scrutiny assessment and protection.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Thank you.
Next is Leslie Purcell and then I'll begin calling names
that we haven't been able to find either in person or Zoom.
Leslie Purcell.
Oh, yeah.
Can you hear me?
Oh, yeah.
We can hear you.
Great.
Thank you.
It's Leslie Purcell.
I just had a couple of things.
I appreciated the discussion yesterday on the fireworks and I would support the commission
doing what it can to move our communities away from using these large explosive fireworks.
I believe in Europe they have quiet fireworks which would be much better and also as was
mentioned yesterday the drone shows are a possibility and I do know of a dog that ran
away and actually was hit by a car during our last Fourth of July excursions into the
fireworks in Ventura area.
So the other thing I wanted to bring up, and this is just something I realized yesterday,
as a public member, I'm a little bit not quite clear on the consent calendar.
And I know yesterday there was nothing listed under the consent calendar unless you went
through a agenda changer.
And there's also a listing for consent calendar, which there's something for today, and then
consent calendar removed from regular calendar and I don't know if there's a
way to clarify that for the public but I just find that a little bit just a
little bit concerning to not quite understand that process and when it's
posted and becomes obvious to the public so thank you very much thank you going
back to call names that we have signed up that we aren't able to find. On Zoom, we
have Mike Zurtucci, Sandy Manich, Diana Sandoval. If I've called your name, please
raise your hand. Again, Mike Zurtucci, Sandy Manich, Diana Sandoval. I'm seeing
one hand raised under the name iPhone. I'm going to allow you to unmute. Please
state your name so that we can identify you. Sandy Manich. Okay go right ahead.
Okay you guys ready for me to speak? Yes go ahead. Okay so I spoke oh gosh I don't
know the date it was about two weeks ago and one of the commissioners brought up
a question regarding the way that I had worded. I want to introduce myself.
I'm addressing the mooring issue and the permit discrepancy and
discrimination between moorings and residential peers.
And I spoke a couple of weeks ago
and one of the commissioners brought up
the city of Avalon as a comparison.
And we totally welcome the comparison of Avalon
or other cities and the way they handle their moorings
because in Newport Beach,
we have been a Harbor Commission who,
sorry if you need a call, a harbor commission
who used private marinas as a comparison
for fees to our moorings that have no services.
That's what we have been subjected to here in Newport Beach.
So we really welcome the comparison
that the commissioner suggested
of Avalon and other Tylen uses.
So in any case, what I wanted to say is that when I said
that we own the mooring,
what I meant to say, I clarified later,
but that was not brought up.
We own the permit to operate the mooring,
just like the residential peers own a permit to operate.
I own the gear.
All of this mooring equipment, I'm on my boat right now.
I own that gear.
I pay to maintain that gear every other year.
As required by the city,
it has to be inspected every other year.
That's another discrimination.
The peers, the residential peers,
don't have that requirement of inspection.
But what I'm saying is it's the same.
My equipment on the Tidelands,
they have their dock equipment on the Tidelands.
It's same-same.
It's another reason for discrimination.
So the other thing I just real quickly wanted to mention
is that the city of Newport Beach has been asked
to stop and address the discrimination.
They have done nothing.
We've been waiting for a year for them to address
the discrepancy between the increase in rates on moorings
and not increasing the piers.
And nothing's been done.
Thank you for my time.
Thank you.
Another call for Mike Zertucci or Diana Sandoval.
If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand.
And then back to the in-person speakers that we were missing,
Bijon John Arjang, Alejandro Regalado, and Bridleman Daniel.
If you're in the room, you can come up.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner.
My name is Bijon Arjang.
I'm from Long Beach, California.
I work at Besting Hotel downtown Long Beach.
I'm here to be sure that in phases
of the whole affordable recreation,
options of the importance for the working people
like me in the Long Beach as climate change forces.
The beach of the public pools are so important.
Staying cool and experience the joy of the coast.
The commission should consider the private development
in the coastal zone and do important coastal access
and the lower cost recreation option at the coast.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alejandro Regalado.
Good morning, Commissioner.
My name is Alejandra Regalado, and I work at the Long Beach
Convention Center.
I am here today to ask you to concern
about coastal access and public recreation,
seriously, in our city.
If parking is difficult to find, it really
does make it hard for people to visit the beach.
Visiting beaches in areas like Naples
can be very hard on busy days.
We should carefully consider the impact of private developments
on public access.
I wish I could say for the whole meeting today,
but please keep this in mind today,
especially for families where there's a lot of families,
they like to go to the beach.
I live in downtown, really close by the beach.
And I've noticed that I see a lot of people walking,
especially during the day, especially on vacations.
And it's beautiful to see a lot of families
just walking around with their kids, enjoying the beach.
But with this construction, I'm sorry,
it's not gonna be able.
The parking is not, thank you.
Thank you.
Bridle McDaniel.
Okay.
I'm not seeing any other speakers.
So, Madam Chair, that concludes general public comment.
Thank you, and I'll open it up to my colleagues
for any questions they might have
in response to public comment.
But I just begin by asking our staff
to give a very brief response to the question
by Ms. Purcell about how the consent calendar works.
Thank you.
Sure, I'd be happy to clarify.
There are two types of consent calendar items.
The first are items that are on consent.
There's a little bit of a different staff report format,
and those are noticed as on consent,
and then there's a process for those particular items.
We take that item separately.
Then there are items that are moved to consent.
So those are originally on the regular calendar.
They're noticed as such and close to the hearing.
If we are generally in agreement with the applicant
and there's not significant opposition then we can move
it to the consent calendar.
So that's generally the process.
Thank you Director Hucklebridge.
Commissioner Nada.
That was my question too.
Since I have the mic I just want to say how it's.
It was very nice to see the scouts
from Camp Emerald Bay.
Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders.
Just maybe to have staff further clarify
on the consent calendar, how items are pulled off of the consent.
Because I think that happened in the morning, so that was another twist there.
So, items can move to consent and they can come off consent, and there are a couple of ways
as staff we can pull things off consent if we think, if for example there's opposition
that we weren't aware of that comes in, we can pull it off consent.
Also I believe it's three or more commissioners for CDPs.
Okay, so for CDPs, three or more commissioners can elect
to pull things off consent and hear it on the regular calendar.
For all other items, it's only one commissioner
that wants to have a full hearing
and then it can get pulled off consent.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you.
I too just want to thank the scout who showed up,
the first female Latina from Sylmar, but really connecting
with the ocean meant a lot to me.
Thank you so much for coming and sharing your story today.
It resonated.
Commissioner Wilson.
I might have mentioned that my kids' fourth grade teacher went
to that camp and was their favorite teacher because he
talked about it all the time.
So it inspired him from a science perspective,
a life sciences perspective, and it's had impact on generations
of kids, at least in my community,
I'm sure many others.
Wonderful.
Okay, so now we will move to the consent calendar, please.
Thank you, Chair.
The next item, item five, is the consent calendar
for all districts on the agenda today.
We have one item, agendized on the consent calendar today,
a notice of impending development at the University
of California Santa Barbara main campus for the installation
of gravel paths, shed structures, and associated fencing.
We're not aware of any opposition to this item,
and therefore asking whether four
or more commissioners object to the approval
of the item agendized on the consent calendar today.
Thank you, Mr. Twyffel.
Do any commissioners have any ex parte's to report?
Seeing none, are there any members of the public
who wish to speak on this item?
Are there no speakers for this item?
Do any commissioners wish to remove this item
from the consent calendar?
Okay.
The question was 8A on the consent calendar.
Right now, we're just doing the item
that was agendized for consent,
and then we'll move to those items then.
Okay, perfect.
So questions or emotions?
Just to clarify, the only item on consent
that we are voting on now is the Santa Barbara.
5A, yeah. Okay, thank you.
Move consent.
Second.
Thank you.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson,
a second by Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders.
Are any objection to unanimous consent on this item seeing none the regular consent calendar is adopted and that brings us to the consent calendar for items removed from our regular calendar.
That's right. Thank you for that.
And just to clarify further those items that I noted during the agenda changes portion that we were removing from the consent calendar are going to be heard during the regular agenda.
And so we'll do staff presentations and applicant presentations for those items.
So item six is for items to be moved from the regular to the consent calendar,
as I described earlier, for all districts on the agenda today.
As mentioned during the agenda changes earlier this morning, there are four items staff
recommends be moved to the consent calendar.
And those are items 11A, 11B, and 11C for time extensions of Santa Barbara County LCP amendments.
And item 17C for a CDP application involving development
on a bluff in Torrance,
including an above ground staircase and retaining wall.
Staff is not aware of any opposition to the projects
moved to the consent calendar
and the applicant's are in agreement
with the staff recommendations.
We're therefore recommending that the commission vote
and approve this item.
Thank you.
Are there any members of the commission
who have expertise?
Commissioner Wilson.
Just a question in the process.
Is this also the NRCS project as well?
No, nevermind.
Moving on.
Seeing no ex partes,
I'll ask if there are any members of the public
who wish to speak on any of these items.
Yes, we have speakers for items 17C
for those of you to consent.
We have Jennifer Savage here in person
as well as three available questions.
Jennifer Savage, she's coming up.
I wasn't prepared to jump all the way to 17C.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, commissioners.
Jennifer Savage, California policy associate director
for the Surfrider Foundation.
Regarding 17C, Surfrider commends staff
for their diligent work resolving the overt violations
as outlined in the staff report.
And we are pleased to see the cooperation that now
makes positive gains for coastal habitat possible.
It's hard to overstate how blatant the violations were
on this issue, an unpermitted left-facing access way,
including a massive 736 square foot staircase,
800 square feet of descending footpath,
94 linear feet of retaining walls, and 125 steps,
all constructed without authorization.
Not only violating Coastal Act requirements,
but obstructing natural bluff retreat
and disrupting ecological processes
that sustain sand supply to the beach below.
The recommended conditions balance bluff stability,
native habitat restoration, and public safety.
We are particularly delighted to learn
and that the restoration will include target species
such as sea cliff buckwheat to better support
the endangered El Segundo blue butterfly,
which certainly deserves a moment in the sunshine.
To ensure that these protections are indeed meaningful,
we emphasize our support for the conditions
requiring oversight and annual reporting for restoration,
removal of temporary irrigation, nesting bird surveys,
construction best practices, and deed restrictions.
We just wanted to really thank Coastal Commission staff
and the applicant and all involved parties
for doing the necessary work to land on a restoration plan
that addresses the past violations
to the benefit of coastal ecosystems.
This outcome reinforces the commission's commitment
to restoration, resource protection and collaboration.
In closing, we thank you for approving the permit
with recommended conditions,
recognizing this as more than compliance,
but a constructive recovery that turns a violation
into a victory for the coast.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And then again, we have three people available for questions,
including one in-person April Winnicki.
But there are no other speakers for items moved to consent great. Thank you
Do any commissioners wish to remove any items from the consent calendar?
Hey seeing none. I'll entertain a motion move to approve
Some motion by Commissioner Kelly a second by vice-chair Hart. Is there any objection to unanimous consent?
Seeing none the consent calendar is so adopted. Hey now, mr.
TOEFL will move to your deputy director's report, please.
Thank you, Chair Herman.
That brings us to item seven, the deputy director report
for the Energy, Ocean Resources,
and Federal Consistency Division.
We have two waivers and one immaterial amendment
on the deputy director report this month,
and I believe the only speakers signed up
are applicants available for questions.
I would therefore ask whether three or more commissioners
object to the two waivers and one immaterial amendment
in the deputy director report.
Thank you.
Any ex partes to report?
And seeing none, can I confirm there are no additional
speakers please?
Confirming we just have five online available for questions
and one in person as well.
Thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the report?
Seeing no objections, the commission can curse.
Thank you.
Brings us to item eight A and B.
Thank you, that brings us to item eight A,
the CDP application for wetland restoration activities in the Los
Cerritos Wetlands. I'd like to invite the supervisor of the Energy and Ocean
Resources Division, Dr. Joe Street, to provide the staff presentation on this
item. Thank you. Good morning commissioners. Item Thursday 8A is a
consolidated permit application submitted by Los Cerritos Wetlands LLC
and the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority for phase two of the Upper Los Cerritos
Wetlands Restoration Project.
The purpose of the project is to restore tidal wetlands and transitional habitats through
the expansion of an existing habitat mitigation bank and to provide new public access features
such as pedestrian trails, interpretive elements, and a picnic area adjacent to a future visitor
center.
The restoration efforts are designed to restore tidal influence, enhance ecological function,
reestablish and enhance habitat for special status species, and support long-term climate
resilience. Most of the project is located within the City of Long Beach
LCP jurisdiction, but a portion of the project is in the Commission's retained
jurisdiction. Thus, the applicants, City and Commission have agreed to a
consolidated permit approach whereby the Commission reviews the entire project
under the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act with the LCP as guidance.
Next slide please. The restoration project is proposed at the 154 acre
synergy oil field site in the city of Long Beach. The site is bounded by
Pacific Coast Highway to the west, 2nd Street to the south, Studebaker Road to
the east, and the Los Cerritos Channel to the north. Next slide please. The project
site comprises a portion of the Los Cerritos wetlands, a remnant wetland
complex near the mouth of the San Gabriel River. Prior to the development
of the area, the Los Cerritos wetlands covered approximately 2,400 acres and
and extended up to two miles inland of the coast.
Since the late 1800s, the majority of these wetlands
have been filled for farming, oil production,
and commercial and residential development.
And the remaining wetlands are often
in a degraded condition.
Next slide, please.
The Synergy Oil Field, originally owned and developed
by the Bixby family, has been used for oil and gas
production since 1926.
The southern portion of the site contains oil production
facilities, compacted dirt roads and parking lots,
an office building, as well as limited tidal wetland
areas, non-tidal wetlands, and vegetated and non-vegetated
flats.
Next slide, please.
The northern portion of the site contains steam shovel slough,
a relatively pristine area of intact southern coastal salt
marsh that is separated from the oil field by an earthen berm.
On the northwest edge of the site,
a tide gate and pipes restrict tidal influence
into the oil field area.
Consequently, existing wetlands in the project area
are predominantly non-tidal seasonal wetlands
with much bare ground.
The proposed wetland restoration will
occur on the southern portion of the site outlined in red
on this slide.
Next slide, please.
The project builds on the phase one Los Cerritos wetland oil
consolidation and restoration project
that was approved by the commission in 2018.
While tidal restoration was previously
contemplated for the entire site,
the Phase I project included restoration
in just the northern area shown here,
with a sheet pile wall and berm separating the restored area
from the active oil field.
Approval of the Phase I project led, eventually,
to the establishment of the Upper Los Cerritos Mitigation
Bank in 2023.
The Phase I CDP included the gradual removal
of oil infrastructure over a 20-year period.
The applicants have since accelerated decommissioning
and now propose to restore the wetlands across the full site,
expand the mitigation bank and increase public access
many years ahead of schedule.
Next slide, please.
The main components of the proposed phase two project
include the following.
Construction of new tidal channels shown here in blue,
removal of roads and berms shown in yellow,
and plantings to reestablish an additional 77 acres
of tidal wetlands, as well as transitional
and upland habitats.
It also includes construction of a perimeter berm
along the southern and western margins of the project area,
serving to protect flooding of adjacent lands
and limit impacts to the wetlands.
It also includes post-construction planting,
irrigation, maintenance, and adaptive management
for the restored habitat areas.
To improve public access, the project would raise
the elevation and reconfigure the visitor center complex,
shaded here in purple, and realign a proposed
pedestrian trail and picnic area.
It would also preserve the Bixby discovery well
number two as a historic feature with interpretive signage and a pedestrian trail connecting
to the visitor center.
Next slide, please.
Additionally, the project would expand the already established Upper Los Cerritos Wetlands
Mitigation Bank, which the Commission approved in 2021.
Commission staff have worked with the applicants and an interagency review team for almost
nine years to develop this bank, which includes interim and long-term management plans, performance
criteria and monitoring protocols.
As part of the CDP, the applicant seeks the Commission's concurrence
that the bank expansion and proposed amendment
to the bank enabling instrument are consistent
with mitigation requirements under the Coastal Act.
Next slide, please.
Staff is also pleased to announce that the applicant has agreed
through this permit to fully resolve an enforcement matter associated
with this site, which is fully discussed in the staff report.
Prior Coastal Act violations by a previous landowner included the fill of approximately 3,000 square feet of wetlands and the removal of wetland vegetation.
In June 2007, pursuant to Section 30809 of the Coastal Act, the Executive Director issued a cease and desist order directing the van owner of the property to remove the wetlands fill and work with staff to resolve the impacted area.
A notice of violation, or NOVA, was also recorded against the properties, providing prospective buyers and future owners with notice of the violations located on the property.
While the unpermitted fill was removed, neither the former owners nor any future owner fully restored the impacted wetland habitat,
and never addressed the civil liabilities associated with the violations, leaving the matter unresolved.
The property then changed ownership a number of times.
After discovering the NOVA in the chain of title to the property, in May 2019, representatives
of the applicants, now the owners of the property, contacted Commission enforcement staff in
an effort to fully resolve the enforcement matter and began working cooperatively with
staff.
Unfortunately, delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic slowed resolution.
The proposed phase two expansion of the previously approved wetlands restoration project provided
an opportunity for us and the applicant to find ways to creatively and fully resolve
this matter.
In this case, the applicant worked closely with staff to propose the restoration of an
additional, at a minimum, 0.4 acres of wetlands habitat outside the scope of the mitigation
bank area.
This additional wetlands restoration will fully support wetland functionality, enhance
bio-retention basins and storm water drainage areas to improve water quality and provide
additional native habitat on the property.
We would like to thank the applicant here for addressing this matter quickly and cooperatively,
and enforcement staff are available to answer any questions.
Next slide, please.
Although the proposed Wetland Restoration Project is expected to improve tidal exchange,
ecological function, and regional habitat connectivity, it has the potential to result
and impacts to coastal resources at the project site.
These include excavation and fill
in existing degraded wetlands, impacts
to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and water quality,
disturbance to wildlife, risk of hazardous materials spills
during construction, and exposure to hazards
such as flooding and earthquakes.
And also, there are potential impacts to cultural resources.
To ensure impacts are avoided, minimized, or mitigated,
staff recommends a series of special conditions.
Notably, special conditions 2 and 3 require submittal
of final project plans and a final accounting
of wetland impacts, which are to be mitigated pursuant
to an updated wetland restoration and mitigation plan.
Next slide, please.
Importantly, the final plans must also include detailed plans
for the visitor center area.
And, if necessary, after surveys,
Incorporate project changes to avoid and protect southern tar plant, Esha.
Next slide, please.
Special conditions 3 through 10 and 17 address protection of sensitive habitat,
biological resources, and water quality.
These include requirements to implement several technical reports
and management plans submitted with the application.
Special conditions 3 through 11 and 15 through 17 build on requirements
from 2018 Phase 1 CDP and are now expanded to apply to Phase 2.
Special Condition 17 requires a supplemental restoration plan
to create the bioswale wetlands necessary
to resolve the nose of violation and ensure
that the restoration meets success criteria
over a minimum of five years of monitoring.
Next slide, please.
During the CDP review process,
Commission staff contacted representatives of 32 tribes
with known cultural ties to the project area.
These tribes were from the tribal consultation list provided
by the Native American Heritage Commission, or the NAHC.
A tribal member from the Rincon Band
of Luis Seño Indians responded that the project was not
within the band's specific area of historical interest.
A tribal member from the Gabrielino Tongva Indians
of California communicated that they have been an active tribal
participant in the phase one project and would continue to be involved in the
phase two project. Another tribal member from the Wannanyo band of mission
Indians, Oceaman Nation, Balardes, made recommendations through participation in
the phase one tribal advisory group and would continue to be involved in the
phase two project. Project activities including earthwork and site grading
could disturb or unearth previously unknown archaeological and cultural
resources present at the site.
To address these concerns, an archaeological monitoring and mitigation plan was prepared
as required under the 2018 CDP, and it fully covers the currently proposed project area.
This condition carries forward the provisions included in the plan, and requires that the
applicants continue to implement the required monitoring and resource protections, including
active tribal participation.
In addition, Special Condition 13 requires the applicants to include a tribal educational
component within the visitor center to educate the public on tribal history and culture in
the Los Cerritos wetlands.
This plan is to be developed with direct involvement and ongoing guidance from tribal members.
Next slide, please.
In order to balance the project's wetland restoration and resource protection goals with
the need to improve public access, Special Condition 14 requires the development of a
maintenance program for public access, recreational use and open space areas.
The plan requires applicants to manage the timing locations and intensity of public access
use on the site to minimize disturbance to surrounding habitats.
It also implements a number of public access improvements, including trails and education
programs and signage.
Further, in consultation with tribes, the plan must provide for access for tribal, cultural
and ceremonial activities.
Next slide, please.
Here, I would like to note that we have received one comment letter from Sierra Club, California
expressing opposition to the project.
Staff's response to comments is included in the staff report addendum for this item.
With inclusion of the recommended special conditions, the proposed wetland restoration and public access project is consistent with the chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
Commission staff recommend that the Commission approve coastal development permit
application 9 2 5 0 4 5 8 as conditioned and authorized the executive director to become a signatory to the amended upper Los
Cerritos mitigation bank enabling instrument
motions and resolutions are on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report this for this concludes the staff presentation and we are available for
questions
Thank you very much. Are there any expertise to report on this item?
Yes, Commissioner Lopez
was with a couple folks and I'll share that my thought at the end of the meeting was I don't know why the meeting was necessary. It sounded like most of the issues that didn't resolve. My apologies.
All right, so on the 11th of August, I met with John McKeown, Shana Shafer, and Pete Zach on this project, which mostly just outlined what was in the staff report. I didn't have any questions. It was a 15 minute meeting.
thank you okay now I will open the public hearing and our staff presentation
was incredibly thorough so I propose three minutes that works for folks let
me know good morning chair Harmon members of the commission I'm Shauna
Schaffner chief executive officer of CAA planning and I represent the project
applicant today we do have a joint presentation I'm joined by Chad Overly
from the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority but I think we can be pretty quick I
I was originally going to request seven minutes with two for rebuttal a total of seven minutes
But I think we can do it shorter than that. Let's go with five and we'll just
That sounds great before I hand it over to Chad I would like to thank Coastal Commission staff including
Jonathan Bishop, dr. Joe Street and Andrew Willis for working with us in a very collaborative way. So we appreciate their efforts
Good morning commissioners. My name is Chad. Overly and I'm here
representing the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority,
which is the Joint Powers Authority
comprised of the Rivers amounts Conservancy,
State Coast Conservancy,
and the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach.
And we have joined as co-applicant
for this permit application alongside LCW LLC.
The project before you phase two
of the Upper Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
represents a major step forward
in achieving the LCWA's long standing vision
for the restoration and reconnection
of this critically important coastal wetland complex.
Thanks to accelerated decommissioning carried out
of the 2018 permit, we now have the opportunity to restore both the northern and southern areas
concurrently, advancing ecological recovery nearly two decades sooner than originally planned.
This accelerated project will re-establish tidal channels and reconnect acres of wetlands to tidal
exchange. This is not just a restoration project, it's also a major investment in climate adaptation,
habitat connectivity, and environmental education. It complements the adjacent southern Los
Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project
and aligns with our conceptual restoration plan's priorities.
On behalf of our partner agencies
and the communities we serve,
we respectfully urge your approval of this permit
as recommended by staff.
Thank you.
And again, Shauna Shaffner.
Next slide, please.
Today, we are very excited to be requesting
the Commission's approval
of a significant habitat restoration project,
which is based on the accelerated timeline
of oil infrastructure removal from the Synergy site.
Next slide, please.
Next slide, please.
Staff did provide a very thorough overview of the project,
so I will just quickly highlight the main project components,
including restoration of 77 acres of tidal wetlands,
transitional, and uplands habitat.
Next slide, please.
This project is fully consistent with the Coastal Act
as detailed in the staff report.
Next slide, please.
The project addresses travel and cultural resources
through special conditions 12, 13, and 14,
including protection of cultural resources
through the archeological research plan
and the archeological monitoring and mitigation plan,
the tribal cultural education plan,
which includes ongoing review of educational materials
in the visitor center
and a management and maintenance plan for public access.
Additionally, LCWA has established a tribal advisory group
which meets quarterly
with participating tribal representatives.
This process ensures that tribal cultural values,
access rights and ecological knowledge are considered.
And of course, all construction activities
will include tribal monitoring.
Next slide, please.
As you've heard, this project will expand
the Upper Los Cerritos Wetlands Mitigation Bank
from 69 acres to 138 acres.
The CDP will allow the executive director
to sign the bank-enabling instrument.
However, as detailed in the staff report,
future mitigation credit transactions will be reviewed
by the Coastal Commission on a case by case basis.
Next slide please.
The final project component I wanna review
is the historic violation,
which occurred under prior ownership in 2007.
There was an area of approximately 3,000 square feet
that was disturbed.
We are proposing a six to one mitigation onsite
and outside of the mitigation bank
to address this historic violation.
The violation will be resolved once the restoration
has been successfully implemented and monitored.
Next slide, please.
We have reviewed the special conditions of approval,
including those that are amended in the addendum.
And we are in full agreement.
Next slide.
This project has great ecological benefits,
enhances public access and travel access.
And we urge the commission's approval consistent
with the staff recommendation.
Thank you.
And I'm available for any questions.
Thank you so much.
Okay, now we'll go to public comment at two minutes, please.
All right, I'll just also note that we have two members
of the city of Long Beach who are online
and available for questions.
And then going to public comment, we have five speakers.
We'll start with Anna Christiansen and Anne Cantrell
who are in person.
So Anna Christiansen.
And then following them, our Zoom speakers
will be Tina Calderon, Michelle Black, and Elizabeth Lamb.
Good morning.
Had to get up pretty early today to make it here in person,
but it's good to see your faces.
I want to address the biological and tribal cultural impacts
as reasons why Sierra Club opposes this CDP.
But first of all, I want to point out
that the LCWA and its partner in crime, the Los Cerritos Wetlands
LLC have chosen to piecemeal the restoration of the Los
Cerritos Wetlands.
The CDP talks about the overall plan
by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority,
but you have yet to approve that plan.
It has never been even brought before you.
They have never even requested a CDP for this grand plan.
Rather, they choose to piecemeal.
And both tribal representatives and ourselves at Sierra
I've complained about the many projects or the numerous projects you have approved already
as part of this piecemealing.
Piecemealing does not allow you to address the full cumulative impacts, just want to
keep that in mind.
As far as biological impacts go, we've always opposed this plan because it's based on a
restoration idea of monoculture, a monoculture salt water environment for the entire wetlands.
This was not historic nor is it advisable given the fact that these wetlands are currently
mixed many different environments including seasonal freshwater wetlands.
You might not call them totally freshwater but they're fed by rain and most of them including
this entire project is underwater.
That creates a whole habitat for a number of species that won't be able to be there
anymore.
So what we have is the erase and replace with a man-made environment and this project here
why we oppose it also is that it will rapidly enhance that and along with the southern Los
Cerritos wetlands area, also that you approved flooding and changing, will displace the majority
of wildlife on this site.
With the tribal concerns, don't deny access, give some land back, at least share co-management.
It's about time we caught up with tribal sovereignty.
Good morning, Anne Kentrell, I'm co-chair of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force of
the Sierra Club along with Anna Christensen. Both the current and proposed
restoration plans for the northern Los Cerritos Wetlands involve expanding oil
production, specifically by the applicant on the Pumpkin Patch property adjoining
the Los Cerritos Wetlands. We ask that the CDP be postponed or denied until condition
to address the impacts of this – the mitigation bank and SB 1137. We demand that the Los Cerritos
Wetlands LLC not be allowed to purchase mitigation credits from the bank to offset methane gas
pollution from its oil production, 2, that the LCW LLC comply with SB 1137 and not seek
or receive an exemption due to the involvement or the fact that the Los Cerritos Wetlands
its restoration involves oil drilling on the pumpkin patch.
The CDP should acknowledge that the Coastal Commission has permitted the construction
of three developments housing thousands of people at the same intersection as the new
oil drilling operations.
for the oil spill and prevention plan should involve the impacts of continued and expanded
drilling by Tesoro and others on the additional visitors and residents, and again we ask for
denial or postponement.
Thank you.
Thank you.
speakers, Tina Calderon. I'm here. Good morning. Hello esteemed commissioners. Thank you. Hello
esteemed commissioners. My name is Tina Calderon. I'm Chumash Ngebaleen Otonwa Culture Bearer and I
work for Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples serving as the director of our ocean
protectors program. I'm commenting today in support of the California Coastal Commission staff
recommendation with noted special conditions. I am most grateful for their
comments uplifting special condition 3 for an updated wetland restoration and
mitigation plan, conditions 4 to 9 addressing protections of sensitive
habitat, biological resources and water quality, as well as condition 12 and 13
addressing cultural resource protections. The lands and wetlands in this area have
always been a very important territory and ecosystem to the Tongva peoples. So
restoration while protecting the habitat, waters, and cultural resources of Puvungna
is critical. I trust the interpretive signage will incorporate not just tribal
input but Tongva specific knowledge, language, and historical connection
prior to the harm done to this important ecosystem.
I thank you for the opportunity to comment
on item number 8A for the Los Cerritos Wetlands LLC
coastal permit application number nine dash two five
dash zero four five eight.
Thank you and have a wonderful day.
Thank you.
Next, Michelle Black.
Good morning commissioners.
Michelle Black, Carson's Black and Mintier
on behalf of the Los Cerritos Wetlands still interest.
And we're here in support of staff's recommendation
to grant the CDP for the Southern Synergy Oil Field site.
The project previously proposed restoring 154 acres
of the historic Los Cerritos wetlands in pieces,
beginning with the northern half of the Synergy site
and phasing out oil operations
and restoring the southern half over 20 years.
While we were happy to see plans
to remove outdated oil infrastructure
and to importantly fund the restoration of the wetlands,
let's be honest, 20 years is a pretty long time.
Now, however, the project provides
the simultaneous restoration of both pieces,
all of the acreage with work on the southern proportions,
southern portions beginning as early as next year.
And I think the plan is to have all oil operations
cease by March and pipelines out by April.
We will realize the benefits of this project,
the habitat and ecosystem benefits,
the contributions to sea level rise resilience,
all of this project in our lifetimes,
not just in our lifetimes, but very, very soon.
Thank you for your time commissioners.
we ask you to please support the staff recommendation
to accelerate the restoration of Los Cerritos wetlands.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Lamb.
Hello commissioners, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you for your time today.
My name is Elizabeth Lamb.
I'm the executive director
of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust.
We are a local grassroots organization
dedicated to protecting and restoring Los Cerritos wetlands.
We did send in a letter of support,
but I am afraid we missed the deadline.
But I do wanna communicate with you
that we do support this agenda item.
We do support this project.
And in this case, this is actually an improvement
over the previous iteration of the project
because it removes all oil operations
mitigation bank area.
We've been involved in the planning
and execution of this project.
We are so excited to see the restoration
of title wetlands, wetland, upland transition zones and more.
So we support this project
and thank you for taking the time to hear my comments.
Thank you.
There are no more speakers for this item.
Thank you very much.
I'll bring it back to the applicant.
She'd like to, some closing statements or respond.
Yes, thank you, Chair Harmon.
Again, Shauna Schaffner.
Thank you very much.
Hi, Shauna Schaffner.
Quickly, I would like to point out that LCWA does have a certified program EIR, which allows
for tiering once permits are ready.
So this project has followed those procedures now that we are ready.
We were surprised to see Ms. Christensen here in opposing the project, given that we do
have a settlement agreement with her and a letter indicating that she would not oppose
future entitlements such as this one.
We thank the Commission for their consideration.
And again, available for any questions.
Thank you very much.
I'll turn it back to Dr. Street.
Thank you, really briefly.
We do have an addendum that provides responses to the issues raised in public comment, but
just note that no oil production activities are proposed under the CDP.
The existing site is a highly modified active oil field with degraded habitat, and this
project would restore the wetlands to something similar to the historical state, which evidence
shows was dominated by tidal salt marsh.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Okay, I'll bring it back to the Commission for comments, questions.
Vice Chair Hart?
Thanks. I just want to, having been at earlier hearings on this, I just wanted to express
my appreciation for the applicant, for staff. I am just thrilled that this has been accelerated
and is moving forward at this particular time in history, expansion and restoration of wetlands
is so critically important. So I'm happy to make the motion if no one has additional comments,
I'm just so appreciative of everyone involved.
I'll second if you want to make a motion.
All right, I'll move and I have a comment.
Mike. Yeah, Commissioner.
Commissioner, not if you can make your comment and then we'll go to Commissioner.
Okay, I just wanted to, um, you know, I, I was listened with particular care about the issues surrounding fossil,
continued fossil fuel extraction, and I, um, appreciate the staff and the applicants addressing that issue.
and that it will be phasing out, thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, I just want to emphasize the importance
of estuary restoration.
It's just like the thinnest line of ecosystem on the planet.
It's just all along our coasts, but it's
one of the most bio-productive spaces that we have.
I know some of the critters that is produced in mass
are not necessarily pretty.
They're slimy.
They're scaly.
And for some of us, we really think they're amazing.
But they're the food source and the food web
that supports all of the other ecosystems
that we view as important.
And they're the nurseries of so many
of our important fisheries and stock.
So I am strongly in support, thank you.
Thank you, and I will just join in the chorus of gratitude
to the applicant and to our staff for the work
in bringing us to this point.
This is really, I agree, just a great success.
And I appreciate the work in really taking us through
what it means and how you got there.
So with that, if there are no other comments,
we have a motion by Vice Chair Hart
and a second by Commissioner Nottoff.
I'm gonna go ahead and make the motion.
Chair?
Move the commission approved coastal development permit
9-25-0458 subject to condition set forth
in the staff recommendations.
asking for a yes vote and I'll have a second motion I'll second that first
motion moved by vice-chair Hart seconded by Commissioner not off are there any
objections to unanimous consent seeing none the motion is adopted all right
motion with regard to the mitigation bank amendment I move the commission
authorize the executive director to approve the amendment to the upper Los
Cerritos mitigation bank enabling instrument as described in the staff
report and included as appendix B dated June 2025 asking for a yes vote and I'll
second the second motion moved by Vice Chair Hart seconded by Commissioner
not off any objections to unanimous consent seeing none the second motion is
adopted thank you very much okay that brings us to item 8b and 9a which have a
combined hearing. Thank you. That's right. Thank you chair. Item 8B and 9A have a
combined hearing and it's for a title wetlands restoration project in Humboldt
County. I'd like to invite senior environmental scientist Deanna
Christensen to provide the staff presentation for this item. Good morning
commissioners. The Natural Resources Conservation Service or NRCS has
submitted a consistency determination and the Wildlands Conservancy and Rush
Rhamson Timber LLC has submitted a coastal development permit application
for their joint efforts to implement the Russ Creek and Centreville Slough
restoration project. The project is located west of Ferndale and just south
of the mouth of the Eel River shown on this slide. The project area is over 1500
acres and it's outlined in yellow here. Next slide please. The applicants
proposed to restore full tidal connectivity to an approximately 4 mile long extent of
current and historic areas of Centerville Slough Channel and thus reconnect a significant
area of former tribe lands to the Eel River estuary. The expanded area of tidal influence
and tidal marsh habitats is expected to significantly benefit native fish, wildlife and plant communities
Including a number of special status species such as salmon steelhead and tidewater goby
an earthen setback berm with an access road and trail on top
Would serve to bound the restoration area and protect surrounding agricultural properties from tidal flooding
The proposed project also includes dune riparian and wetland habitat enhancement activities
Next slide, please
New and improved public access amenities are also proposed shown on this slide
including two kayak launches over three miles of trail with overlooks and interpretive signage and
dedicated beach access easements
next slide, please
Almost all the project area and surrounding
Area are agricultural and non agricultural wetlands
Under coastal acts section 302 3 3 the diking filling and dredging of open coastal waters and wetlands
May only be permitted for certain uses of which restoration purposes is one
The proposed project is similar to other projects approved by the Commission within the Eel River estuary and Humboldt Bay
Which include dredge and fill within former tide lands for habitat restoration
With the construction of berms to establish the boundary of the restoration area
Next slide, please
One of the unique challenges with the proposed project is its proximity to a dynamic shoreline environment
The site is lowline and the beach fronting the project area is one of the fastest eroding
shorelines in the state
These images show that the position of the shoreline relative to the barn structure located on the upper beach
has changed dramatically in the last 10 years by about 300 feet.
Next slide, please.
Over the past two decades, the site has also been subject to more frequent and significant
dune overwash events during which high storm waves from the ocean wash over and through
sections of the dunes along the project's western boundary and extend far inland in
some areas inundating large portions of the project area as can be seen on this slide.
Next slide please. Given the existing and projected coastal hazard conditions within
this agricultural landscape, the location and configuration of the proposed setback
berm was carefully considered by the applicants and commission staff to ensure it primarily
supports allowable habitat restoration purposes and will avoid functioning as a structure
that alters natural shoreline processes or inhibits the natural migration of the dune
system over time under changing conditions including sea level rise. However, there remains
some uncertainty with how the project will function over time. It is possible that the
proposed setback berm bounding the restoration area could eventually create an artificial
barrier for wave overtopping and prevent the natural migration landward of the beach and
dune system. Beaches and wetlands disappear if they are squeezed between rising sea levels
and a fixed line of development on the shoreline, resulting in loss of important coastal resources
such as sensitive habitats and public access. Staff is recommending special conditions to
limit the permit authorization term and require annual monitoring and reporting on how the
proposed habitat restoration area and project components are functioning and what post-construction
maintenance activities are necessary.
This will ensure the project setback firm and other features continue to function as
intended for restoration purposes and do not result in adverse impacts to coastal resources
or shoreline processes.
In addition, a lease from the state lands commission is required to use public trust
titlands for the proposed project, and their commission is expected to take action on that
lease application this fall for a 20-year lease term.
Commission staff is recommending special conditions to require the applicants provide evidence
of lease authorization prior to construction and to limit the term of commission authorization
to the same 20-year timeframe of the lease to make sure authorization remains in place
and to provide opportunity for the commission to evaluate the status of the project and
affected area over time and at that time.
Another challenging aspect of this application is that violations of the coastal acts and
the Humboldt County local coastal plan exist on the subject property, including various
channels berms and levees within wetlands that had not received all
required authorizations. Commissioned Fortsman staff conducted a site visit
and work cooperatively with applicants toward resolution. The applicants are
proposing to fully resolve these violations through the subject permit and
CD action by including additional restoration and public access
improvements that mitigate impacts to resources resulting from the violations
and also address the Commission's claims of monetary penalties. The applicants are
proposing to remove and restore all identified unpermitted development
within the project area and take additional action including but not
limited to the restoration of approximately 15 acres of sand dune
habitat, removal of dilapidated pre-coast select barns, the creation of three miles
miles of new walking trails and offer to dedicate a four and a half mile 100 foot wide public
access easement from Centerville Beach to the south to the mouth of the Eel River and
an additional 20 acres of public access directly adjacent to Centerville Road and Centerville
Beach. Staff is recommending a number of special conditions to memorialize all of the applicant's
commitments, ensure they are implemented, and to ensure coastal resource impacts during
construction and maintenance activities are avoided, minimized, and adequately mitigated
consistent with the relevant coastal act policies.
In conclusion, staff is recommending that the commission conditionally approve the subject
coastal development permit and conditionally concur with the consistency determination.
The motions and resolutions can be found on pages 7 and 8 of the staff report and we are
available for questions and that concludes our presentation.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Okay.
I'll ask if there are any ex partes on this item, Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah.
So it wasn't in here, but I think it was this one came to us before and it was pulled.
So I did have an ex parte in July of 31st of 2024 meeting with Nathan Key from NRCS,
Dorian Hanson and Jill Demers from Humboldt County RCD, Connor Shea from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife, and Jeremy Shaliba and Andrew Hilton with the consulting firm GHD.
It was just an overview of the project, what was going on.
There was some general questions and answers to clarify project components from me, and
we discussed some of the effects on the adjusted agricultural properties as they relate to
the reclamation versus restoration.
So it was just general comments.
So I just wanted to make sure it was in the record.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Seeing no other public comments, I'll open the public hearing and ask the applicant how
much time they would like.
And then we have in-person Nate Key and Emily Afria.
So yeah, I think we'll take 10 minutes between the two of us and then save five for rebuttal
if we needed.
Thank you very much.
So yeah, thank you.
I think Deanna did a pretty good job covering a lot of the project components.
I have a presentation that's coming up here.
Sir, could I ask you to speak as closely into the mic as possible?
Yeah, sorry.
issues thank you this better much all right good morning commissioners and
staff and thanks for reviewing this project with us today again my name is
Nathan Key and I represent the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
next slide please so yeah we've been working with a great team here for over
a decade to bring this project before you those project partners include the
Humboldt County Resource Conservation District, who is our CEQA lead agency.
We have the Wildlands Conservancy, Rust Ranch, and Timber as the landowners, and then we
have a technical team of GHD, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Mike Love and Associates.
Next slide please.
All right, so real quickly we're going to cover the project site, some existing conditions,
goals and objectives, and then try and fill in some of the project components.
slide, and I'll go one more please. All right so this map here provides kind of
an overview of the Eel River estuary. So there's been multiple landscape level
kind of conservation efforts in the estuary. Up at the top in purple is the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife's ocean ranch unit. Directly
below that is the Cannibal Island restoration, which I believe was approved
by the commission in September of 24 and then the yellow at the bottom is the salt river
restoration project which is ongoing with the Humboldt County Resource Conservation District
and then directly adjacent to that in green is the project we have before you today.
And so some of the reasons why these larger projects are needed in the Eel River estuary
is 90% of the tidal wetlands in the lower Eel River estuary were diked and drained by
the 1900s, contributed to a decline of some modded populations. Tide gates
currently block anadromous fish habitat access to historic spawning areas. The
north coast of California has the highest rate of sea level rise on the
west coast of North America, which is compounded by local ground subsidence.
Regional collaboration efforts are ongoing to control the spread of
Spartina throughout the Eel River and Humboldt Bay. And then all these
These multi-benefit projects restore tidal and fluvial connectivity that reestablish
ecological processes, beneficial to native species, and improve water quality drainage
and resiliency to sea level rise.
Alright, next slide please.
So this is an overview of the project area.
So approximately the black line outline up there is the approximate project area.
Then the area in blue is the area that's encumbered by a, I guess by five NRCS easements.
And so NRCS started this process back in 2015, acquiring our first couple easements.
We're now up to five, making up that blue polygon.
And so with those easements, we have perpetual conservation easements that essentially eliminate
all development.
are completely habitat focused, focusing on wetland functions and values, and then also
restoration.
As an agency, we have, you know, this is a voluntary program, so land owners come to
us and apply for voluntary conservation easements, which they're compensated for, but they're
essentially retiring this land from ag production and allowing us to move forward with a restoration
design.
And nationwide, I believe, NRCS, I think we hold about 3 million acres under this easement program.
This is really a great example of a public-private partnership.
You know, we've had a great relationship, a great team here that's kind of pulled this project together.
We have a conservation organization in the Wildlands Conservancy, a traditional ranching family in Russ Ranch and Timber,
and it's really been a collaborative effort to bring this project together.
Alright, next slide please. Actually, let's go to slide 11 to save Emily some time.
Next slide, next slide. Yeah, right here. So this is kind of the existing site conditions.
This shows the picture there in the lower left is kind of a great illustration of
the waters from the eel and you can see kind of that dark stained sediment rich water and then our project area there above it
which is
separated from the Eel River by an existing dike that prevents sediment from from reaching our project site and
with that
you know, there's the the land outside the levee within the eel is quite a bit higher than the land that's sediment starved behind this
current dike system
All right. Next slide, please
Just another view looking kind of northwest
And the brown line there is the existing
berm that separates the Eel River from the from the project area. The red triangle is the existing tidegate and then everything to the
left of that red triangle is the section of levee or section of berm that will be removed to reintroduce
tidal functions to our project area.
Next slide please. Next slide.
Alright, so
real quick the project goals are to
improve geomorphic and ecosystem function that will enhance habitat for native fisheries and aquatic species,
support water burden wildlife species, increase resiliency to changing
geomorph and climatic conditions,
enhance existing tidal wetlands, restore marginal
pasture land to a mosaic of natural habitats, including estuarine and tidal slough channels,
freshwater streams, all within the context of promoting the resilience of the project area. Next slide, please.
So the specific objectives restore natural functions and processes of tidal cycles, riverine inundation and sedimentation,
and tidal channel connectivity by removing or modifying existing infrastructure and reestablishing historic tidal channels,
increase the resiliency of the project area to sea level rise by
reconfiguring dikes and enhancing dune function that promotes natural dune formation processes that reduce dune overwash during high tide and storm events,
improve access to restore aquatic habitat for salmonids and other aquatic dependent species by
increasing migratory access between estuarine and inland waters and by restoring overwintering
rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids. In addition, enhance native plant communities,
expansion of rare plant habitat throughout through active and passive habitat development
and eradication of non-native species. The projects can include over 69,000 native dune plants,
over 7,800 native riparian plants and 125 acres of a wetland seed mix. In addition,
we're going to improve the drainage efficiency and sediment transport by reestablishing
connectivity of Rust Creek and Shaw Creek to a restored Centerville Slough channel.
Next slide please. All right, I think Deanna covered these project components pretty well,
so I'm going to leave this slide up for Emily, and she's going to take it from here.
I'd just like to thank Cassidy and his staff and the local office for all their help getting this project here. Thank you
Good morning commissioners
My name is Emily Afriat and I am the California North Coast regional director for the wildlands Conservancy
My office is located at the eel River estuary preserve
Which wildlands acquired in 2008?
Specifically to enhance free coastal access and restore critical habitat in the eel River estuary
The Wildlands Conservancy believes that free access to nature is a birthright.
Our preserve system, which includes 23 locations in California, including four on the North
Coast, was created to preserve and restore biodiversity, build climate resilience, and
to provide space for all people to immerse themselves in nature at no cost.
Through these preserves, Wildlands is also a leading provider of no-cost outdoor education
in California.
A key objective of this project is to improve public access for passive outdoor recreation
and nature study, activities that are at the heart of the Wildland Conservancy's mission.
The Rust Creek and Centerville Slough Restoration Project represents over a decade of diligent
and strategic planning a design by dedicated partners and landowners and with input from
the community.
Once this project is complete, the Ill River Estuary Preserve will finally be able to host
year-round access for passive recreation and free outdoor education.
To achieve that goal, Wildlands is committed to developing a public access plan that meets
the needs of the diverse populations to recreate in this dynamic environment.
Wildland staff will also engage in various local outreach activities to promote the enhanced
access opportunities and more broadly within the entire Eel River watershed through our
Eel River Emerald Necklace Project.
This great western river deserves a landscape protection program as inspiring as the ancient
redwoods on its banks and the magnificent landscapes that rise from
its shores. The Rust Creek and Centerville Slough restoration project
will get wildlands one step closer to achieving our goal within the watershed.
To acquire a system of preserves along the Eel River between Dos Rios and the
Pacific to protect and restore biodiversity and to provide well-managed
recreational opportunities. Visitors will approach magnificent forests and
breathtaking views by way of the river, and so change the dynamic of their nature experience.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, now we'll move to public comment please.
Yes, for public comment, we have first three members of the Weyot tribe who wish to speak.
Brian Mead, Michelle Vassel, and then Ted Hernandez.
And they're on Zoom, they're moving in as panelists right now.
when you're ready go ahead Brian Mead first. Morning. How are you? You can hear you. Can
you hear me? Yes. Okay. My name is Brian Mead. I am the chairman of the Wiyot tribe. Our
people have lived in relationship to the land and the waters here in Humboldt County since
time of the memorial. Long before settlers we've had transportation systems which included
trail systems on land and water on the south end of the Humboldt Bay. Trails
connected to the bay and Table Bluff to McNulty Slough. The Wiyot people used
redwood dugout canoes across the Hill River and up to the head of Centerville
Slough to the villages like to Takkawak. These sloughs were our highways which we
used to access substance fishing on our grounds. Our tribal members today
They include myself and my sons fish for eels, salmon and surf fish and settle fish and hunt
waterfowl species who depend on these waters.
Cultural resources are not just archeological sites, they are also access to traditional
food through the waterways and healthy ecosystems that allow our food to grow.
We have a traditional story of how the Curlew shorebirds saved their people through great
sacrifice to restore tidal flows. In this story, the tide stops and the animals, fish,
and birds, and humans all starve. This story teaches us that salt water, marshes, and tidal
influence are necessary for us all to live. Counter that with the settler colonial perspectives.
I quote from an 1884 article in the Ferndale Enterprise. In order to make the land of any
value whatsoever it is necessary that all salt water should be kept off it.
It is to this end of this work is being done. The land is intersected by many
small sloughs and through the western end of the district runs quite water
known as the Centerville Slough. It is the intention to dam all these small
sloughs near the point of where they branch from the main body of water
putting floodgates in the dams best forming a complete system of drainage which
beneath the large body of the marshland as dry as the land on the adjoining hills.
In the recent years we have partnered and participated with local, state and
non-government partners to restore our salt marshes like in the Hill River
Estuary, on the Osoon Ranch and the Guilty Slough. The Rest Creek and
Centerville Slough Project through BUILD as a restoration project is more of a reclamation
project and we will relocate a slough opening up for more grazing land. We do oppose this project
for that reason. Thank you. Thank you. Michelle Bassell and Ted Hernandez. Not what though.
My name is Michelle Bassell and I'm representing the Weyotte Tribe as the Tribal Administrator.
The Weyotte tribe opposes the Rust Creek and Centerville Slough restoration project.
We are concerned that the proposed restoration efforts are not adequate to restore and preserve
wetlands that are an important cultural resource for the tribe. The Weyotte tribe is a sovereign
Indian tribe located in Humboldt County. The tribe's ancestral territory includes the
Il River estuary. This section of our territory contains the tribe's southernmost village sites
and traditional hunting and fishing grounds are located directly within the project area.
The Eel River is central to our cultural identity. As a matter of fact, the word wia,
the name wia is the Salalik word for the Eel River. The river and estuary provide water for
fish and sustained tribal traditions and ceremonies. Approval of this project would
significantly harm important tribal cultural and natural resources. The proposed restoration
efforts do not adequately address the significant and long-standing violations of the coastal act
from the project site. We are
concerned about the wetland
reserve easements that are
protective of wetlands. In
fact, they permit to quote
limited livestock grazing and
suitable habitat types on 1,200
acres of the property. We have
not seen the easements. The
details are important. We know
only the amount of grazing that
will be permitted under them is
troubling. The use is
and wild condition.
So we strongly oppose any continued grazing on the property.
For these reasons, the Wiatt Tribe urges
the Coastal Commission to deny the request
for the consistency determination
and deny the coastal development permit application.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Ted Hernandez.
Oh, hello.
My name is Ted Hernandez.
I am representing the Wiatt Tribe
of the Travel Historic Preservation Office.
The Wiatt Tribe opposes and rescs,
and center to smooth restoration projects
Our sovereignty and our interests were disrespected
during the development of the project.
The Natural Resource Conservation Services
as a federal agency has a duty to engage
in the Government Regarding Health Station
will potentially affect the tribes.
The Commission's policies also require
meaningful consultation with affected tribes.
True consultation means engaging in early meaningful
discussions with affected tribes.
This requires meetings with the WIA tribe
and understanding the tribe's interest
concerns regarding the project and its potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. Before
taking any action, the single letter sent by the applicant over three years ago, informing the
We R Tribe of the project did not satisfy these consultation partners. The staff report fills the
account for the We R Tribe's aboriginal use of the project area. For example, when discussing
the baseline for whether the project qualifies as restoration under the COSO Act, the report
important details of the history of agricultural use by so-called pioneers but unexpectedly
fails to include the we have tried use of this area long before and after this time.
This omission shows an lack of respect for the we have tried.
It demeans the importance of the wetland to our culture.
If the Commission intends to approve this project, despite our strong help position,
We accept this proceeding be paused so that the Commission can investigate and understand
that we are tribes' ancient use of the document of this property.
That understanding, if necessary, first step in developing adequate measures to protect
the tribal culture and natural resources and cultural resources should be identified to
protect before any restoration efforts begin.
Thank you.
Moving on to organizations, we have in-person Jennifer Savage.
And then we'll go back to Zoom for Alicia Hammond.
Hi, Jennifer Savage, Surfrider Foundation.
We were going to speak in support of this particular item,
but given the objections of the Wiyat tribe,
I am going to instead urge the commission to direct applicants
to engage in consultation with the Wiyat
and hold off until an acceptable path forward is found.
It's really critical that the tribe support restoration
efforts and projects that are taking place
on their ancestral land.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And then Alicia Hammond, when you're able to unmute, go ahead.
Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
to address the commission today.
I'm Alicia Hammond, Executive Director
of Friends of the Eel River.
As a conservation group focused on Eel River fisheries,
we are keenly concerned by the loss of public trust
tie lands in the Lower Eel.
We're also increasingly focused on the need
to restore the ecological functions of damaged wetlands
streams in the Lower River which are critical to juvenile salmon and steelhead.
We approached this project initially with reservations about existing coastal act
violations within the project area as well as the amount of dredging and wetland fill the project
will entail. And to be honest we are still skeptical about the long-term prospects of
this project in a landscape as dynamic as the Lower Eel. Sea level rise compounded by a seismic
subsidence is higher here than anywhere else on the west coast. Unpredictable weather patterns
due to climate change mean that storms will increase in intensity and the eel will flood
again causing significant sedimentation and other impacts. Having just heard the comments
from the Wiyat tribe, I support their concerns and urge the Commission to direct the project
proponents to conduct a meaningful tribal consultation. I will note though that we are
impressed by the work that the commission staff has accomplished here. This project is greatly
improved from the version that we saw about a year ago. The redesign and special conditions
which will reduce the impacts of the setback berm are appreciated. Wetlands replacements
to ensure no net loss of wetlands will be based on verified assessments and proponents have also
agreed to dedicate a public access easement along the entire shoreline that will be ambulatory
continuing to provide unrestricted access as sea levels rise and the beach sinks.
This project as proposed to you today contains many carefully considered performance measures
and restrictions that should ensure coastal compliance on the landscape in the future.
But to secure the benefits of all the public money spent on this project, we're counting
on the commission staff to uphold these commitments.
And I urge you to ensure that commission staff have the resources to continue.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have no more speakers.
Thank you very much.
And I will return to the applicant.
I believe they've requested five minutes to respond if they'd like to do so.
Yeah.
Thank you for the opportunity.
So I had to respond to those comments.
So we have as a federal agency we are required to complete or comply with Section 106.
And how our agency typically does that is we as we acquire easements and in this case
They were done in the five easements were done over three phases and we did
We did complete our section 106 consultation
Specific to the we ought tribe we sent letters to Ted Hernandez on May 29th 2018 for the first round of easement acquisitions
again November 16th 2000 or 2022 for the third round and April 12th
2024
Letting them know that we are acquiring easements on the property and that we were planning that we were working on the restoration
and inviting public comment.
Also through our permit with the Army Corps of Engineers,
we worked with them and they did a separate,
as a federal agency, they have to do their own separate
section 106, so that was done again.
And then the Humboldt County RCD through our CEQA process
also had both tribal consultation and several public meetings
where we open it up for any public comment.
On the mention of the additional grazing of lands,
the area currently planned for tidal restoration
is currently, is either currently grazed or was grazed
up until we purchased the conservation easements on them.
As far as grazing on the lands out there,
only a small portion of the easement can be grazed
outside the planned tidal restoration area,
and it's subject to an NRCS written grazing plan
that's focused strictly on habitat objectives
and in this case, short grass habitat for migratory birds
which is a very similar practice used on both state
and federal wildlife refuges in the area.
Yeah, and then as far as the channel,
again we're restoring four and a half miles
of Centerville slough which will be opened up to the eel
and all the public access components
that come along with that, that's it.
Thank you. I'd just like to add in addition to what Nate said that we are fully committed
to engaging with the Weyot Tribe and other area tribes who are interested in this project.
I think, you know, like Nate explained, it's been done through tribal consultation. I think
what I'm hearing is that they would like something more meaningful, and that is absolutely something
that we are open and dedicated to making happen. So throughout the rest of the planning process
and implementation and well into the future.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That will close the public hearing
and I'll return to our staff.
Yeah, thank you Chair Herman.
So yeah, we take our tribal consultation process
very seriously and we really appreciate
the perspective and expertise provided
by tribal representatives.
As we summarized in the staff report,
We reached out to the tribes via letter and email in 2024
when the project was previously moving forward.
And again, in June of this year, via letter, via email.
And we did hear back from Mr. Hernandez of the Wiyot tribe,
historic preservation office, via email in June,
stating that they were satisfied with the proposed
activities and requesting
that protocols be followed for inadvertent discoveries.
So we we ensured that those protocols were included
in applicants proposal as well as reflected in our staff
recommended special condition 14.
And we understood that that was satisfactory.
And we also notified the tribe in when the staff report
was published and when this hearing was finalized.
the agenda set, and as the applicants explained, they also conducted tribal consultation.
And then regarding the comments about reclamation versus restoration, we just wanted to note
that we understand the concern about the balance between the benefits that the project provides
for agriculture or restoration within this really heavily modified landscape. Existing
levees have really restricted, you know, the natural tidal inundation across the site for
a long time. And this project would open up over 500 acres of historic tidelands to full
tidal connectivity, restoring over four miles of slough with public access included. And
And over 200 acres of existing agriculture of pasture land would also be converted to
restoration purposes.
So we believe that the berm constraining the restoration area is really incidental to the
overall restoration projects.
We also believe this is a really unique opportunity to restore a significant area for natural
habitats and connectivity and without the project we believe that the ad hoc natural
dynamics will continue in a way that's not really planned and won't really connect a
significant area of habitat.
So I think that concludes our comments unless there's anything else.
Thank you Deanna.
to note that the review period for this project provided by our NRCS expires at the end of
this month. So if the commission were to decline to act today, it would be deemed concurred
when that review period expires. And that, yeah, we feel like we've adequately addressed
the concerns raised by the Weyot tribe in their comments this morning and as they notified
us late last night and yeah it's my cause thank you I would just also quickly
note that the CDP would also be deemed approved by operation of law if the
Commission did not act today and it would be approved without any conditions
right could you repeat we can't hear you could you repeat that yes I just wanted
to add that the CDP would also be approved by operation of law if the
commission does not act today and if so it would be approved without any conditions.
Okay, thank you. So we will bring it back to the commission and start with Commissioner
Preciado. I'd actually like to wait to hear from Commissioner Wilson but I do have a comment
about the communications related to the Native American peoples and well then I'm just curious
In terms of moving forward, this seems to be a historic opportunity to recapture public
land and public resources and restore them.
The only thing that surprised me is the opposition from the tribe in the context of they were
looking for more meaningful as one of the applicants described.
And I don't know if the project then has opportunities for additional phasing.
And I've been looking at it from a Google, the Google Earth map.
And I keep seeing the proximities and those kinds of things related to where the Wai'at
tribe is and where the Eel River is.
And so I'm just trying to see if there is potential in part of the permit for continued
engagement.
Federal law prescribes some of these things, but I'm just wondering if it can be part of
the CDP, that there be continued engagement, and you already described the ongoing relationship
related to traditional resources and those kinds of things.
So I'm just wondering if staff could comment further, so what is two years from now, look,
or three years from now in the engagement with the Native American groups?
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Presiado.
I think we've heard from the applicant from the Wildlands Conservancy desire to continue
to engage with and involved that we ought and their perspectives in this project.
I would note that it's a significant project will be carried out over a number of years
before it's completed.
And so I would imagine there's certainly that opportunity.
We'd be happy to do what we can as a staff to facilitate that, but you may be interested
in hearing from the applicants in terms of what they plan to do and what they may be
able to do to further engage with the tribes as the project proceeds if that's the direction
the commission goes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks.
All right.
So a couple things here.
One is this is an extremely important piece of the ecosystem of the Eel River Basin, which
will soon be undammed, added to the list of undammed river systems in the state of California.
And I mentioned before, estuarine systems are extremely important, bioproductive, we
on salmon and agnogamous species of fish, but it's all the other critters and biomass
that are extremely important, as well as even for our crustaceans and lampreys and other
important species.
So this restoration is one of those places where, you know, we're balancing and we sometimes
have maddening conversations around balancing housing and access, right?
This is one of those where we have the maddening conversation around balancing agriculture
and restoration.
These are two tenants within the Coastal Act that we're supposed to uphold, and they are
often intertwined and conflicting at every level, and so it just doesn't make these processes
easy.
They're just not easy and there's always different perspectives, and trust me, both
sides of this conversation are uncomfortable with this outcome, and that's just, this is
where we're at.
And I'm talking from an ecosystem perspective and an agricultural perspective.
Hello to Brian, Michelle, and Ted, it's nice to see you,
or not hear from you, and this perspective.
And I share it in many respects.
I definitely have a lean towards the interests,
both from the access perspective that the tribe mentioned
sort of at the end of their comments,
but from the perspective of,
Part of this is, if you read in the support,
is making some ag lands better drained,
so they're better for grazing in exchange for creating
and putting aside areas for restoration
and that have come out of production.
And in my mind, the biomass and ecological and even food
production of estrogen systems is actually produces more food for more people than grazing
in these highly sensitive areas.
That being said, we have a lot of legal parameters and ownership constructs that have been created
over hundreds of years.
And so that creates this sort of, it is just not a, it is what it is, I guess what I would
say.
What I heard, I think Ted's last comment in there, Ted, Mr. Hanna's last comment was around,
was it around use and access, was that what they were getting at?
Because I didn't quite get that and I'm just wondering if there was any specific request
in writing.
Because I looked in our staff report, I don't see anything.
I don't have anything to draw from,
and bring it up in front of me, to be like,
this is what it is.
These comments that we heard just now
are the first time I've seen anything in reports,
and this has been going on for some years.
So we do have to take that into account.
Also, I think what Louise, our attorney,
said very clearly is, this CDP will move forward
whether we make a decision or not.
What we're gonna make a decision on today
is whether it moves forward with conditions.
And are those conditions better than the existing,
what's written there now, and is that better
for the ecosystem, for the, you know,
all the things that we're trying to get going,
and even for the resources that the tribe has mentioned
is important to them?
And from my perspective, that's a yes.
But at the same time, if there is a condition
that we can elevate both, not just the interface,
with the tribe, with the Ouyat tribe, which by the way, when you're talking about association,
it encompasses the entire region. It's a very large space. It's not just where you might want
to see on the word Ouyat on a map there. It's much, much bigger. So it's not just the interface
and sort of discussion, but I think what they're asking for is something around access. And I
don't know if that's negotiable in this moment, in this space necessarily, but I would sure like to
hear what we might have, or what the wildlands conservancy
might be able to propose that could move us in that direction.
Because I think access really matters.
It's not just access along the beach for everybody,
but there's resources in those spaces.
There's fishing, and eeling, and harvest of materials,
those sorts of things.
And I just want to make sure that we in this moment,
Because we have our time frame is like I'm sort of stumbling through this a little bit
to give you a little time, which is this is the moment when we can kind of squeeze
that out if it's possible.
And that's what those are my comments.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
So I similarly struggled a little bit to catch all of Mr. Hernandez's comments,
but I did hear that similarly to you, the desire for access.
and we have a requirement for a final public access plan
to be submitted for executive director review and approval.
We could include language in there that would specify
that that executive director review and approval
would occur with input from the Wiyot tribe.
So in other words, we could share that plan
when it's submitted to us and solicit their input on it
prior to the executive director's approval.
And would that be in a motion from this commission
or would it just be a nod from the staff
that that's what they're going to do?
No, I think we would revise our staff recommendation
to include that component.
OK, please do that.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
I want to start by quoting from the staff report
that this project represents one of the largest and most
ambitious coastal restoration efforts ever proposed
on private land.
And I want all of us to take a moment to recognize
how important that is.
And yesterday, you know, we had a complex issue
where we talked about 10 or 15 years of work
going into something.
My best understanding is that a similar amount,
from the time wildlands became involved,
and I'm very familiar with wildlands.
I've worked with them on many projects,
and I can talk about that in a moment.
But I know from the time they got involved,
the goal was to arrive at where we are today
on the brink of finally addressing
this critically important project on a river,
as Commissioner Wilson said, that it appears
is soon to be a river without dams, a free-flowing, eel
River. Hard for those of us that live on the north coast and have been on the
eel like I have. It's just amazing. And and I'm just so grateful. I'm so
grateful to all the partners to NRCS to wild lands to all the funders. We
didn't talk about them today. But W. C. B. The Coastal Conservancy. I'm sure
there's been private entities. This is a project that is not just large in
scope, but it's large in heart.
I mean, people really have cared so much to get to this point.
I know from my work with wildlands,
particularly in the Eel River Canyon,
that they are dedicated to outreach to the tribes.
I've seen what they've done on the Eel River ranch
that they own.
These are complicated issues.
A lot of horrible things went on along the Eel River
to native people.
It's critically important that the outreach continue,
not just mandated outreach, but the kind of outreach
that I know Wildlands is capable of,
and I heard today they're committed to do.
So I want the We Out Tribe to know
that we are also committed to that,
that we are going to make a specific requirement
with regard to access, but I'm hearing from Wildlands
that they will accelerate and intensify
the tribal outreach.
So, saying that, I just, again, want to just state how excited I am to be on the brink
of approving, I hope, an absolutely incredible
and critically important restoration effort.
Commissioner Nada.
I just wanted to share that when I was on the Coastal Conservancy,
there were many projects that came before us addressing this, the Delta area,
the Eel River Delta area, restoration of the Salt River there, and others.
So I too think that this is a long time in coming, and I'm glad to see that it's come
together.
I would also just note that in Monterey County, Wildlands Conservancy owns the Rauner Ranch
that connects the Salinas and Carmel River Valleys.
And they most, they recently,
with the help of the Coastal Conservancy,
got a joint operating agreement for some of that land
and with the local tribal representatives there.
I think, I believe it was the Esalen tribe.
So there, I have seen firsthand the commitment
of wildlands to authentic tribal engagement.
And I just wanted to share that.
And I think that the conditions that the commission staff
has proposed get a long way to getting there.
And we can also beef up that, require the commitment
to having that tribal engagement.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
I just want to say in my time being brief on this Commission, digging into this particular issue was the deepest I think I had to go, going back pulling pieces apart and finding all these little unique details so the complexity to get to this point is appreciated.
And with that, I want to share the same concern as Commissioner Wilson and Commissioner Notoff about making sure that as we move forward, we continue to encourage that collaboration and inclusion of the native peoples of this region because it is so important to make sure that success.
I know what how we define it from the conversations I've had individually with commissioners
and I believe that that is where we should be headed and I believe we can get there in the continued conversation as the
Direction has been given from the Commission for the minor changes in staff's report
But large picture just want to say bringing so many different complex parties together in a way that we're sitting here today with
Majority of folks. I'm ready to support this today. So thank you for all the work. That's gone in
and continue to look forward to the collaboration being fruitful. Thank you.
And I will just associate myself with many of the comments particularly those of Vice Chair Hart. This is a
really quite remarkable,
quite remarkable feat that we're talking about here today. So I'll turn it over to Commissioner Wilson to make a motion if
I'll make a motion, but I want to hear what the modified
Condition is before I do so
So I can read that the relevant part of condition 11
Which is for the final public access plan
Within 30 days of commencement of construction the permatees shall submit for the review and written approval of the executive director
And with input from the way out tribe a final revised public access plan that substantially conforms with the proposed public access technical
memorandum
etc
Appreciate that and just a reminder that you're not moving forward with this today would mean that that
Condition would not happen as part of the project which will move forward. So I think that's a
Benefit I'm just going to have to
Have some trust and the authenticity of those efforts, but I've seen some I've seen good rapport
with these organizations before and
And hopefully there will be some very positive outcomes.
So with that, I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit number 1-17-0328
pursuant to the staff recommendation, and I'm recommending a yes vote.
Thank you.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Preciado.
Are there any objections to unanimous consent?
There's one more motion.
Yes.
objections to unanimous consent on the first motion. Seeing none the first
motion is adopted. So the second motion is I move to the Commission conditionally
concur with the consistency determination CD-0004-24 on the
grounds that is modified with the conditions recommended by staff and
this board. The project described herein is fully consistent and therefore
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of the California coastal management program CCMP and I recommend
a yes vote on this motion okay so there's a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Presiado to the motion say
in the mic please so I love that we all have a life experience that allows us to
make comments on the organizations we've worked with before in my county there
19 recognized reservations and many other individuals who have Native American backgrounds.
And so I just implore you to balance your remarks or at least as you characterize the
benevolence of certain groups you're familiar with, that you also acknowledge that there
There might be benevolence in the American Indian groups that are seeking a foot at the
table.
And so I'm not trying to be disrespectful or minimize the valuable comments that were
made.
I'm just trying to make sure that as we project the commission's work with and our extended
relationship with Native American tribes that we all have, that we value them in the same
manner.
And sometimes they're fighting just to survive.
And so maybe they don't have the largest of rebuilding natural habitats or things of that
nature.
But I just wanted to make sure that as we talk about our experiences with organizations
that we don't pit one organization that we're familiar with, with the evidence of the others.
And that doesn't minimize in any way the historic thing that's happening today with these votes.
I think that is a very important recognition.
And I think everyone involved should be applauded and lauded.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
We have a motion by Commissioner Wilson, second by Commissioner Preciado.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none.
Okay.
Thank you.
And I think now we are going to take a break, and I'll ask that commissioners please return
at 1130.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I will call this meeting back into session, and I'll start by announcing that I'm going
to be recused from this item, and I'll be reading a very brief statement.
So I'm recusing myself from the hearing on CD number 006-25,
United States Space Force, due to a potential conflict
of interest under Government Code Section 87100.
Turn the mic over to Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much, Chair Harmon.
We'll give you just a moment to step
out before we take on item 9B, item involving the Department
of the Air Force and US Space Force.
Who will be presenting on this?
Mr. Horn, I can't see yourself.
All right.
First of all, I'll ask if there are any ex partes on this
matter.
OK, seeing none, I'll take to staff for staff presentation,
please.
Thank you, Chair Hart.
Good morning, commissioners.
This next item is 9B.
Item 9B is a consistency determination, or a CD,
the Department of Air Force's United States Space Force for SpaceX to increase its space
launch activities on two launch complexes it leases at Vandenberg Space Force Base.
The proposed project would increase the number of annual SpaceX rocket launches from 50 to 100,
including up to five launches of its larger Falcon Heavy rocket. SpaceX would also begin
operations at a second launch complex and would modify it for use, including through the
the construction of two new landing zones. The project would also include up to 12 additional
landing events at the base beyond the current level of 12, including five Falcon Heavy
missions where two boosters would land simultaneously. The remaining first stage booster landings
would occur at sea on a drone ship offshore of Mexico for those rockets that SpaceX can
recover. On this slide, you can see an image of the relevant area of the base shaded in
dark gray, and the location of one existing and one proposed SpaceX launch facilities
identified with white circles.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see a comparison of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets.
Both are approximately 229 feet long and include reusable two-stage rockets with deployable
legs and grid fins for reentry and landing operations.
The main difference between the two is that the Falcon Heavy consists of a center core
with two side boosters rather than a single booster
that the Falcon 9 rocket has.
During landing for Falcon Heavy missions,
the two side boosters would return to Slick 6 to land
while the center booster would typically be discarded
into the Pacific Ocean.
Next slide, please.
At SpaceX's new proposed launch complex,
Space Launch Complex 6, or Slick 6,
several existing structures would be demolished
and replaced with new facilities,
including storage tanks, a rocket erector,
water towers, hangar, transport road with rail system,
and various other support facilities.
No construction is proposed at Slick 4,
where SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets currently lift off and land.
Under the proposed project, Falcon 9 rockets
would continue to use Slick 4 and Slick 6,
would be added to support additional Falcon 9 launches,
as well as Falcon Heavy operations.
Next slide, please.
Construction at Select 6 would also include two new landing pads and a fuel break for landing the first stage boosters from Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches.
At the top of this slide, you can see Select 6 and the proposed landing pads and the fuel break located to the south.
Construction of the landing pads and fuel breaks would require clearing approximately 16 acres of vegetation.
During the proposed launches and associated static fire tests, rocket engines are estimated
to produce noise of up to 150 decibels for approximately 30 seconds.
On the top of this slide, you can see figures for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy showing modeled
engine noise and sound levels at various distances from SpaceX's launch complex.
At the bottom are figures of modeled engine noise and sound levels from landings.
Page 22 of the staff report includes several tables to help provide context on levels of
sound associated with the project.
The project has the potential to adversely impact marine resources, including the biological
productivity of marine waters in marine areas and species of special biological significance
due to marine debris and noise from rocket engines shown on the previous slide as well
as sonic booms shown here.
Landing activities generate sonic booms that primarily affect the base and immediate surroundings
while launch activities generate sonic booms that can affect the Channel Islands National
Park, the Chumash Heritage and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries, and areas along
coastal Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties.
This slide shows the anticipated impact area of sonic booms during on-base landings as
well as locations of several pinniped haulout areas, which are mapped with magenta circles,
on the southern part of the base.
Areas along the south-facing portion of the coast are used by southern sea otters and
would also be affected by noise and sonic boom levels
from the proposed launches and landings.
For Falcon 9 landings, sonic booms
could be up to five pounds per square foot, or PSF,
at the haul out areas.
While for Falcon Heavy landings, sonic booms
could be over 10 PSF.
These levels have been shown to result in damage
to buildings and structures and to cause marine mammals
to abandon resting and sleep while on shore
and to flee into the ocean.
The project also has the potential
to adversely impact environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or Esha, including those that
provide habitat for rare and especially valuable species such as the endangered and threatened
western snowy plover, California lee's turn, California related frog, southwestern pond
turtle, pallet and western red bats, and monarch butterfly.
Such effects may include regular disruption of habitat uses roughly every three days as
rocket launches and or landings occur. This may result in habitat abandonment and or reductions
in wildlife productivity and populations. However, because the methods used to date by the air force
for monitoring the effects of launch activities on wildlife and habitats have not been adequately
designed or implemented, we cannot quantify the scale and scope of these effects. Additionally,
the air force has not specified what conservation and protection measures it would implement to help
avoid and minimize project impacts to terrestrial wildlife and habitats.
Instead referring to a yet to be completed consultation process with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service that it expects to result in measures focused on species protected
by the Endangered Species Act.
The California Coastal Management Program, or CCMP, ESHA policies are not solely focused
on endangered act species.
However, and the Air Force has not included in its consistency determination an analysis
of the project's compliance with those ESHA policies.
Without these three pieces of necessary data information,
which would be results from properly designed
and implemented monitoring programs,
details about the specific impact avoidance
and minimization measures that would be implemented,
and the Air Force's analysis of project consistency
with the California Coastal Management Program's
ESHA policies, the Commission does not have sufficient
information to fully evaluate the Air Force's determination
that SpaceX's proposed doubling of launch and landing activities would be carried
out consistent with the enforceable resource protection policies of the CCMP.
Next slide, please.
Similar to those impacts that would occur close to the launch and landing sites,
noise and blast waves from launch-related sonic booms could result in impacts
to off-base ESHA and marine resources over a broad area spanning the mainland coast southeast
of the base and Channel Islands National Park, as well as numerous marine protected areas,
parks, and coastal recreation areas in the region.
This slide shows a compiled set of model outputs provided by DEF broken into several
overpressure ranges above 0.5 PSF.
These models clearly indicate the potential for widespread sonic booms at overpressure
levels well above 1 PSF across the southern central coast region.
For context, studies by the Air Force have shown damage to buildings and structures can
occur with exposure to sonic boom pressure waves of 0.5 PSF and above.
These levels of sonic booms are also associated with high levels of sound and have been shown
to trigger reactions by marine mammals at haul-outs, such as alert behavior, flushing
into the water, and decreases in hearing sensitivity.
These reactions are disruptive, energetically expensive, and carry a risk of injury or stress,
particularly to young and smaller animals that may be trampled or separated from their
While acclimation to these noises is possible, the unpredictable nature of sonic booms and
engine noise, and the proposed increase in the number of disturbances from launch and
or landing activities to once every three to four days increases the risk of effects.
For the sensitive pinniped hollow areas on the Northern Channel Islands and the mainland
coasts of Santa Barbara, the Air Force has stated that it will be implementing monitoring
required in the National Marine Fishery Services updated five-year authorization for rocket
and missile launch activities from the base,
which was issued in April of 2024.
These requirements reduced the protectiveness
of monitoring measures previously called for
by the National Marine Fisheries Service
and identified as necessary by the Commission
as part of its conditional current concurrence last year
for 36 SpaceX launches,
including eliminating regular launch event-based seal
and sea lion monitoring near the launch complexes
and reducing monitoring and avoidance requirements
for haulouts at Channel Islands National Park.
Although the Air Force previously committed to the commission that it would carry out
these efforts, it has not provided sufficient information in its current consistency determination
to determine that they would be continued with the higher number of launches SpaceX
seeks to carry out.
SpaceX's proposed increase to 100 launches per year, also occurring well before sufficient
monitoring data has been collected from a 36th launch per year cadence and made available
to commission staff to adequately evaluate the Air Force's determination that marine
resources in areas of special biological significance are not currently being adversely affected
by launch activities and would not be impacted as a result of the proposed increase. In fact,
the Air Force is still developing and has yet to begin several wildlife monitoring programs.
Further, the Air Force has not conducted comprehensive statistical analyses to determine if concerning
trends can be identified in existing monitoring data or explained how implementation of monitoring
after increased launch activities are already occurring may prevent impacts from being recognized.
As such, the Air Force has not included sufficient data and information in its consistency determination
to allow the Commission to properly evaluate its conclusion that the proposed project would
not adversely affect marine mammal habitat on the Channel Islands and mainland coast
and would provide special protection for marine areas and species of special biological significance
as called for in section 30230 of the CCMP.
Commission staff would also note that the figures
on this slide were generated for Falcon 9 launches.
In order to evaluate the potential impacts
of the proposed addition of the larger Falcon Heavy rocket,
Commission staff asked DAF to provide figures showing modeled
sound and sonic boom over pressure levels specifically
resulting from Falcon Heavy launches.
DAF declined to provide this necessary information
and instead responded that Falcon Heavy launches are expected
to be similar to those of Falcon 9.
Without providing an explanation
of how this could be the case
when Falcon Heavy includes firing three booster rockets
simultaneously to achieve nearly three times the thrust
and lift capacity of Falcon 9's single rocket.
Next slide please.
Regarding the concerns previously raised
about the appropriateness
of reviewing the commercial space launch activities proposed
to be carried out directly by SpaceX
under the Coastal Zone Management Act's regulations
that were established exclusively for federal agencies.
Commission staff agree that the proposed project is not a federal agency activity.
This slide graphically presents approximate launch and payload information
for SpaceX launches at Vandenberg from 2018 through the end of July this year,
with those shown to include U.S. government payloads in orange and all others in dark blue.
Commission staff prepared these graphs using publicly available information about payloads.
DAF's position is generally that, because it is a customer of and reliant on SpaceX launches and satellite network, SpaceX launches are a federal agency activity.
However, this does not align with how federal agency activities are defined in the Coastal Zone Management Act's regulations or the manner in which the Commission has historically implemented those regulations.
SpaceX is a privately owned company rather than a public federal agency and the air force has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that its activities should not be reviewed by the Commission under the established regulations for private entities carrying out development and affecting California's coastal resources.
The Air Force has also not explained why SpaceX is not undergoing Commissioner review directly but is required to do so with other agencies.
and not the Air Force, is directly seeking authorization for the project from other local,
state, and federal agencies, including the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District,
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Federal Aviation Administration,
and the U.S. Space Force. In the 1990s and more recently, the Commission has directly reviewed
previous commercial space launch projects on Vandenberg and has not considered those to be
federal agency activities and the Air Force has not provided sufficient information to
indicate that a similar approach would not be warranted here as well.
Next slide please.
This slide includes a general list of some of the additional key data and information
that the Air Force should provide to allow the Commission to properly evaluate its consistency
determination, the sonic boom assessment and minimization measures that would be implemented
by the Air Force, the sensitive species and habitat avoidance and minimization measures
from the pending U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion and the results from comprehensive
monitoring analysis at the 36th launch per year level.
Without this information, we recommend that the Commission object with DAF's consistency
determination for the current project, finding that the consistency determination does not
supply sufficient information to determine if the project is consistent to the maximum
extent practical with the enforceable policies of the CCMP.
staff reached out to DAF to ask if DAF would be attending today's meeting to provide a
presentation to be available for questions. DAF briefly responded that they will not be
attending or presenting at the hearing for SpaceX. Also, commission staff have received
approximately 31 comments on the project which are included in a correspondence package that
was added to the agenda earlier this week. The motion resolution can be found starting
on page 10 of the staff report and staff is available for questions.
Great. Thanks so much, Mr. Horne. Although I understand that you did reach out to Department
of the Air Force, U.S. Space Force, the applicant on whether they would respond and they indicated
that they would not be. Nevertheless, I will ask, if anyone is here in the room or on Zoom
representing the applicant, Department of the Air Force, U.S. Space Force, is there
anyone in the room representing the applicant? Doesn't appear to be. Is there anyone on Zoom,
I'm not seeing any indication of that.
Anne, is there anyone in the room or online representing SpaceX?
I'm not seeing anyone either.
All right.
In that case, we'll move to public comment.
How many speakers do we have here in the room and how many online?
We have a total of 16 speakers, seven in person.
All right.
So let's begin with the folks that are here in person.
If you could call the first three names, that'd be great and everyone will have two minutes.
All right.
Susan Jordan, Jennifer Savage, and then we'll
have the Sierra Club group present.
Just before we start that, Chair Hart,
can you ask for ex partes, please?
I think I did that at the beginning of the hearing.
My apologies.
No, it's normally after the staff.
Yep, you did.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No, I think there are none for this hearing.
Thank you.
I never will turn down legal advice, though, just one.
There you go.
Okay, Susan Jordan, California Coastal Protection Network.
This application concerns me in several ways.
First, in just one year, the DAF intends to triple
the approved number of launches from 36 to 100 per year,
going from an average of three launches a month
to roughly one launch every three days.
This is a significant increase that morphs
from intermittent impacts
to almost constant repetitive exposure.
The anecdotal experiences that have been communicated to me who I live here that when these rockets launch houses roughly 11 miles away in lampoke shake cabinets and pictures go askew in carpenteria.
Roughly 75 miles away and it's heard as far as oh oh hi, which is 97 miles away and myself at 63 miles away was vaulted out of bed one morning by a launch.
So, it's critical that we understand more about the impacts in the coastal zone before
more launches are approved.
Second is the lack of information.
The last time you concurred to increase the number of launches from 6 to 36, the DAF agreed
to conduct monitoring and provide data to you and they confirmed that commitment in
at least two letters, yet you have not received the information that might help you better
understand the impacts of the DAF increase in launches.
As it stands now, you can't evaluate that.
Third, the DAF's insistence that all of these launches are federal agency activities when
they clearly are not means that the vast majority estimated to be roughly 77 percent of all
launches that do not carry any federal payload, do not receive the appropriate level of environmental
review that California is legally entitled to conduct under the CZMA.
I fully recognize the legal right of a private for-profit company to lease facilities and
conduct private commercial activities on Vandenberg Air Force Base that directly benefit their
company, which in this case is a company that operates globally, is still expanding, and
is valued at $4 billion.
But I also believe our coast is priceless, and once resources are damaged or worse destroyed,
they cannot be restored.
So I urge you to object to this application.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jennifer Savage.
Hello again.
It feels a bit like we're speaking into a void given the circumstances, but your staff
works really hard and you work really hard and I believe that this item merits some discussion.
SurfRider supports staff's recommendation to object to Space Force's proposal to nearly
double launch activity at Vandenberg.
Space Force is planning to move forward with this increase without providing the biological
monitoring, sonic boom modeling, or mitigation tracking needed to assess impacts.
Space Force frames this increase as essential for national security, yet, as staff notes,
many of these additional launches would actually be conducted by SpaceX for commercial purposes.
The Coastal Act review must be based on the project's real scope and purpose, not just
its stated rationale.
More launches also mean more closures at Surf Beach, Ocean Beach, and Halama Beach, these
These are beaches that are widely used by inland communities during the hot summer months,
and especially in the case of like Kalama Beach, it's not a place where you can just
kind of dip in and out easily.
And these closures have a real impact to beach access for many Californians and visitors.
It threatens Californians' right to access their coast.
Staff analysis is thorough, consistent with the law, and grounded in sound science.
firefighter urges you to uphold their recommendation and require complete data enforceable protections
and a plan that safeguards both coastal resources and public access to truly be able to evaluate
a consistency determination.
Our coast is too important to trade away for incomplete data and commercial gain.
Thank you for your ongoing efforts to protect it.
Thank you.
And now to the Sierra Club group, we have four people in that group, starting with Nancy
and then Leslie Purcell on control and Anna Christiansen, and then Nancy is
joining via phone. You should be able to unmute now. Oh hi can you hear me? Yes we
can hear you. I'm gonna have a double thing here just a
Yes, OK, we can hear you now.
I left the room.
National Public Queer Club, we submitted to the commission
a document that we also prepared at national level
regarding the DEIS that they issued.
and there was a deadline in early July.
That document somehow did not make it into your packet.
It's quite extensive.
It covers many, many areas of why we object to this.
And we fully support the staff report
and the staff's recommendation.
So we are trying to find out what happened to that document
that was supposed to be submitted by national.
And hopefully you will be able to add it
to your packet at some point.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Leslie Purcell.
Hi, all.
Yes, I am hardly in support of what the staff has recommended
and all the work that they've done.
I think that it is exemplary that they
have looked into these proposed launches in such a throwaway.
I think one issue, and I submitted a comment late on Friday, one issue that's important
to include is that the U.S. Navy is increasing their activities in the areas offshore.
And this is possibly something that should be considered as cumulative impacts with the
the Navy's surface and underwater and explosive activities, that's going to be a lot of debris
and air quality issues as well as water quality issues in our offshore areas that will affect
the marine mammals, the cetaceans, and the habitats offshore as well.
So I would like to have that looked at in conjunction
with SpaceX's proposal is the increased Navy activity.
Also, their proposed launch increases
will have cumulative climate impacts in terms
of the construction, demolition, grading,
trucking, transportation, and energy uses,
Create heat and pollution.
They use fuel for energy, create heat, greenhouse gases,
and should be cumulatively addressed also.
I'm also concerned with the volumes of water
that would be used and are already
being used in the launches for cooling,
and they're then put into the local groundwater
and I just appreciate your work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Kentrell?
Yes, I am also speaking for the Sierra Club.
I'd like you to look at SpaceX's record, especially
with this body.
As I remember last year, when they
wanted to increase their launches to 50,
This was denied, and the commission said it should stay at 36.
As I understand it, SpaceX went ahead and did those 14 launches last year in defiance
of what you had told them.
So looking at their record in Texas where they have had several misfires, one rocket
blowing up on the launch pad, others going into the Gulf of Mexico and the debris washing
up on the beaches there. I think with a hundred launches, we can expect similar results here
in California. I'm very concerned about the effect on wildlife, especially the marine
mammals and the sensitive whales and dolphins and also I think it has been brought up before
about the public getting reservations for the state parks and having to pick up and
to evacuate their campgrounds, all of this is affecting the public's access to the coast.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
Anna Christiansen followed by Teresa Brady, Leah Yannanton, and then James Yarbrough.
So how does it feel to be ignored by your federal government
and the kazillionaires?
Not good, not good.
And I think that's one of the most important things
that we have to say here is that this is our world.
These are our lands, our beaches.
And we're here to be responsible for them.
We want to be responsible.
All of us here.
We want to protect.
We're protectors.
This can't be said for SpaceX.
I'm sorry.
They are exploiters.
And they're exploiting the power and the relationship
they have with the current administration
and perhaps with the US military to hurt us,
to hurt our environment, and to hurt our world.
And this is a public safety issue.
Turns out I just googled what happened
with that last space launch in Texas.
It was fine on the site.
But it was when something fell out later, a booster fell,
and scattered debris in Mexico, the size of refrigerators.
So who knows where the boundaries lie,
maybe beyond California.
But I think the boundaries of the assault on our human rights
and our rights as Americans are clear right here
in this room today.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Theresa Brady, Leanne Anson, James Yarbrough.
Hi, I'm Theresa Brady.
And I want to thank you, the Coastal Commission,
for your protection of the coast.
I understand the staff is recommending a no action
because more information is needed,
and I support their position.
I support the no project alternative
of no additional launches because marine mammals
and other wildlife are already harmfully
impacted by every launch that already occurs.
An increase in launches will make this impact worse.
I also question if all tribes that will be affected
were consulted.
And there was a recommendation among your communication
packet that to limit the launches, the time of year
for launches, to require that as a condition if and when
these do happen.
To avoid breeding season of seals,
which is January to June and to prevent all launches during those months.
I especially appreciate the staff report aspect enumerating the deficiencies of the EIS addressing
impacts on endangered species habitat of 100 launches a year.
This being every three days, that there is a likelihood that endangered birds like snowy
Plover will abandon the habitat as unsuitable if they're disturbed every
three days. The SpaceX launches are commercial as well that in your report
and several people have said it because of this the launches should be subject
to the Coastal Act and thank you. Thank You.
Leah Ian Ensign. Hi thank you. Thank you so much for defending our coasts. Thank
Thank you for your important work and thank you for your objection to the consistency
determination made by the Space Force for this proposed project, finding that the consistency
determination does not supply sufficient information to determine if the project is consistent
to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal
Management Program.
I attended the hearing that Vandenberg conducted for SpaceX in June.
And I got to go to their info session before the hearing and speak with the Colonels who
are present there.
And I asked the Colonel, I don't understand, like, what is the purpose of launching so
so many rockets. And it was my experience that he kept saying it's just important that
we do this. And I was like, but what is the reason I came here, took time off from work,
I'm not paid, you are, why are you doing this? This is causing so much degradation.
And finally he said that it has to do with what he called satellite resiliency, that
instead of having one big satellite that could be a target in a war, jamming by jamming or
kinetic means, that if we put a ton of satellites in the orbit, then that means constellation
of satellites and resiliency. So an enemy could not shoot down 40,000 satellites as
easily as one. This reminds me of space, baseballs, literally, it's ridiculous. Where is the logic?
Where is the numbers, quantifiable information and data? On what planet is it a good idea
to infuse our atmosphere with junk.
These satellites are akin to single-use plastics.
I would love to go on and on.
I thought I had three minutes.
Is my time up?
Two minutes.
Okay.
Thank you, if you could wrap up.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
James Yarbrough, and then we'll move on
to our Zoom speaker, starting with Marilyn Garrett,
Kim Aikman, and Peggy Okie.
Thanks for the staff analysis.
Has free prior informed consent been obtained
from the Chumash Nation and any other indigenous groups affected.
Not just consulted, has free prior and informed consent been obtained?
SpaceX is a private entity and must go through the entire process
for a coastal development permit.
This has not happened.
No to the Falcon 9 launches, no to the Falcon Heavy launches,
no modification of Space Launch Complex 6, and no construction of two new landing zones
in Santa Barbara County. National security has been cited as a reason for an increase
in Falcon 9 launches. This is inaccurate. In fact, in fact, these Falcon 9 launches
are endangering the health, privacy, and security of California and of the entire planet. We
do not need more satellites, surveillance, or weapons in space. We need international,
Mutually Verifiable Reduction, Reduction of Satellites and Weapons in Space.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now moving on to our Zoom speakers, we have seven left.
Marilyn Garrett, you should be able to unmute now I see you're on the phone.
I'm calling you on a landline and I want to thank the two women at the Coastal Commission
office who facilitated this because I don't have a computer or a cell phone. I want to
commend the staff for their excellent report on the destruction involved in these projects.
It was really outstanding. I concur with their objection to the project. And as I listen
to people, I'm thinking of how the U.S. military is the biggest polluter
in the world statistically.
We have over 800 bases around the world and all kinds of military activity.
This should not be allowed at all, more launches, no, more destruction, no.
There should be no permits, no launches at all,
and projects should be proved safe and not contaminating
or polluting prior to any approval.
The Coastal Commission has a sacred responsibility
to protect the coast and all its inhabitants
and wildlife creatures.
And I want to give one reference here on ozone effects.
In a 2020 paper titled, The Environmental Impact of Emissions
from Space Launches, a Comprehensive Review,
Jessica Dallas and her colleagues at the University
of New South Wales wrote that, quote,
ozone depletion is one
of the largest environmental concerns surrounding rockets
from Earth, unquote.
They need to stop what the military destruction is
causing, and I thank you again for that outstanding staff
report.
Thank you.
Next, Kim Aikman, followed by Peggy Okey and then Nina Beattie.
Kim, go ahead.
Thank you for taking my call.
I have been monitoring harbor seals along the Central Coast
for 15 years, and my husband has been monitoring them
for more than two decades.
We all know how sensitive the harbor seals are
to loud noise disturbances, and certainly these rocket
launchers more than qualify on this.
Seals are losing habitat to climate change.
Erosion is taking away their haul-out sites,
and so there is less places for them to be.
They are where they need to be.
NOAA has coordinated with groups up and down the coast
for the past two years counting the harbor seal populations
because it has become alarmingly to us
that their populations are dropping dramatically.
These counts go on still and that work is going on today.
There is no mitigation for rocket launches
that can protect harbor seals and other wildlife.
They are sensitive to noise.
And we have documented the negative and deadly effects
of loud noise to harbor seal populations.
The only mitigation would be to move these launch pads
far inland out of the sound reach of harbor seals.
But even then it would be devastating
to other populations in those areas.
I support your objection to this proposal.
Please protect our harbor seals which are declining at an alarming rate and the population
is not even yet aware of this.
Protect our coast.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Peggy Okey, Nina Beatty, and then Anna Citroen.
Peggy Okey.
Good afternoon.
afternoon, Peggy Okey Odigami-Wales project. After careful review of the summary of staff
recommendation and staff report, I support commission action, which is an objection due
to lack of sufficient information to determine if the project is consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program.
Despite Coastal Commission requests, the Department of Air Force has not detailed sufficient
measures regarding significant specific effects that expanded launch activities would have
on sensitive endangered marine and terrestrial species and habitats exposed to more frequent
elevated levels of engine noise and sonic booms.
With up to 100 Falcon launches and 24 landing events, that means 124 sonic booms annually.
Landings produce even more powerful sonic booms to the level of up to 13 PSF, pounds
per square foot.
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are predicted to produce noise of over 4.17 PSF, typical source
jet aircraft at 25 meters. During first stage landings at SLC-4, modeling has predicted
that landing sonic booms would reach up to approximately seven PSF in the area surrounding
SLC-4 and heavy missions at SLC-6. Sonic booms of up to 13 PSF in the immediate area
would result, though sonic booms would be directed entirely
at the ocean surface without impacting any land,
I would like to point out from CCC table two and maps
in previous reports indicating sonic boom levels.
Humans and pets sent sonic booms on land complaining
about violent impacts at sonic boom levels between 0.5
to 1.9 PSF, that's on the map.
0.41 PSF, typical source, human pain threshold.
So that is even below what's reported.
Sonic boom levels are indicated at 2.21.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next, Nina Beatty.
Nina, I see that you're on a phone.
You should be able to unmute now.
Yes, I have a PowerPoint.
Yes, give us a second to bring it up.
And go ahead.
Okay, my name is Nina Beatty.
Please support staffs recommendation to object.
Next. Next slide please.
SpaceX disrespects the earth and the ocean.
Next. As well as Mars.
Next. Some examples.
Next. Next.
Safety is ignored.
Next. The in-house EIS has a conflict of interest.
Next. Explosive sonic booms damage buildings
and impact wildlife and humans.
the rockets explode. Their pollution are contaminating communities and farms. SpaceX 5G radiation
injures animals, plants, trees, and humans. Causing cancers and short and long-term impacts
to DNA damage, like DNA damage and sterility. Night sky impacts, debris, fallout, next.
The basic rockets increase climate change, next.
They damage the ozone layer with immediate ozone holes, next.
Long-term ozone destruction, next.
Their pollution blocks the sun from making more ozone, next.
And de-orbiting causes ozone destroying nitric oxide, next.
Next.
The ozone layer repairs itself, next.
But not with the growing rocket pollution,
including water vapor, next.
This is Ozone now versus 1979.
The orange, red is thick Ozone,
the dark blue is very little Ozone.
Next.
The Air Force said no significant impact.
True or false?
Next.
The Air Force is sacrificing this living Earth interest.
Next.
Thank you, Nina.
Thank you.
Will we choose life?
Thank you, Nina.
And I will say that's impressive,
fitting that all in two minutes.
Next is Anna Citrin, the Kristin Northrop
and then Susan Malo.
Anna Citrin.
Good afternoon, Vice Chair Hart and commissioners.
I'm Anna Citrin, Legal and Policy Director
for the Gaviota Coast Conservancy
in a Barbara County based nonprofit
dedicated to permanently protecting the rural character
and environmental integrity of the Gaviota Coast.
We support the staff recommendation on this item.
The Gaviota Coast is a global biodiversity hotspot
and Vandenberg has some of its highest quality habitats.
We recognize that a robust space program
can benefit our national security
and economic competitiveness.
But it's important that activities at Vandenberg
are carried out in a manner that preserves
the ecological integrity of the base
and the broader Gaviota coast.
Our main concern over this proposed increase
in SpaceX Falcon launches
is that we still don't have adequate information
about how the existing frequency
of launch noise and sonic boom events
is affecting populations of rare species,
including the threatened western snowy Plover
that nests on beaches near the launch sites,
as well as California red-legged frog,
monarch butterfly, harbor seal,
and many other protected species.
Full implementation of the protective measures
identified in the Commission's prior conditional concurrence
is essential to understand these impacts
and to develop effective mitigation strategies
to reduce them.
Further regulating SpaceX as a private company
is appropriate based on the facts presented
and would help ensure the enforceability of conditions
that safeguard coastal resources.
We urge all parties to work collaboratively
to determine whether new impacts are occurring
from the existing launch cadence
and whether new measures are needed
to avoid significant coastal effects
before proceeding with this new SpaceX proposal.
Again, we support the staff recommendation
that there is insufficient information
to concur in this SpaceX project.
Thank you.
Thank you, our last two speakers,
Kristin Northrop and then Susan Maleu.
Kristin Northrop.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Kristin Northrop
and I'm here as policy advocate
for Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation,
also known as SURF,
SURF is founded by a group of surfers
for protection of California's coastal resources.
I'm here to voice support for staff's recommendation
to object to the Department of the Air Force
consistency determination for SpaceX's
proposed expansion at Vandenberg Space Force Base.
The project would nearly double launches from 50 to 95 Falcon 9 launches per year.
Add up to five Falcon Heavy launches and construct new landing zones.
Yet the applicant has not provided the information needed to ensure consistency with the Coastal's
acts protections for marine life, sensitive habitats, and public access.
Most launches would serve SpaceX's private starly network, not federal missions and significant
gaps remain in biological monitoring, noise and sonic boom data, and mitigation measures.
Public access impacts are also substantial, with up to 17 annual beach closures and demolition
events affecting nearby communities. Approving this expansion without missing data and proven
safeguards would be premature and inconsistent with the Coastal Act. I urge you to adopt
staff's recommendation and object to CD000625.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
Susan Malu.
Ooh, that was...
Susan, you should be able to unmute.
Okay, can you hear me now?
Yes, we can hear you.
Great.
The California Coastal Commission has previously determined
that there were insufficient findings
for SpaceX environmental impacts of increased launches,
particularly regarding sensitive marine and terrestrial
species.
I've previously submitted videos exhibiting an extreme response
by harbor seals when a sonic boom occurs.
It's their characteristic response
of flushing out into the ocean.
From the standpoint of noise generated
by the rocket launches and landings
not being adequately studied by SpaceX groups
and complete failure to monitor deep sea effects,
it should be acknowledged exactly what
impacts can be anticipated.
It is known that the expected sound level
will be damaging to marine mammals
from two different impacts.
Hearing, the physical aspect, sound propagation underwater
as being much louder and carrying much farther than
on land, would impact both the hearing
and being above the pain level detected by humans.
And the tactile sensory perception,
and that is the vibrisi, the whiskers,
that are highly innervated.
Studies have shown that harbor seals
and their close relatives' elephant seals
depend on the ripple effect of water movement
for prey and object location,
while in the darkness of the deep sea.
The increased cadence of space monsoon will be affecting them greatly.
Thank you.
We have no other speakers.
Okay.
Thanks so much, Chris.
All right.
In that case, we'll bring it back to staff, Mr. Horn or Mr. Tufel?
Thank you, Chair.
We don't have any comments.
No further comments.
Okay.
Thanks very much.
All right.
Commission. Open it up for any questions or comments? Anybody? All right. Commissioner
Bocco followed by Commissioner Escalante.
Yeah, just very briefly. I really do appreciate the staff report. I thought it was very detailed,
very informative, and I must say I'm just a little disappointed that the Air Force didn't
want to participate with us.
I mean, I guess they were disappointed in the last ruling.
So I truly, truly hope that we can persuade them
to conduct the monitoring, to do the work that it takes
to understand how this rapid increase in launches
is affecting not only the environment, but in this case
now, the citizenry of the peoples that live around there,
sonic booms can be desperately unpleasant.
I personally am old enough to when
the jet airplanes in San Diego could break the sound barrier.
And it was a very, very upsetting experience.
And luckily, they've solved that problem.
Anyway, I think in the name of defense
is an important aspect, obviously, of life.
But who are you defending?
And I think the people of Santa Barbara
might say, we're not defending me.
And obviously, the environment is very special.
So I do hope that they change their minds
and do start the monitoring and provide us
with the information, especially since there's
this great, great acceleration in numbers.
Thank you.
Commissioner Scollante.
Thank you, Chair.
And I'll be quick about it.
Thank you, staff, again, for doing a thorough job
on their analysis.
And it does feel a little bit like deja vu.
But I feel like I need to reiterate the points that have
always stuck out to me about this fast acceleration
and having been there and taking the tour
and actually having had conversations
with the officers there.
And now, I don't know if the commissioners
have gone through the correspondence filed,
but there's a few letters from some impacted community
members that are just incredibly compelling and worrisome
as to how dire those impacts are on their lives.
So the sonic booms and their impacts on California's people,
wildlife, and property are extremely concerning.
The environmental pollution from the debris and the fuel
are also significantly concerning and the negative impacts on public access,
natural resources, and environmental health warrant our scrutiny under
California's standard of review. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Nodoff followed
by Commissioner Wilson. Thank you and thank you for the public input. I
believe we were in this room when we concurred with the consistency for 36
launches and at that time we asked for monitoring to allow us to evaluate going forward and
without that monitoring the commission lacks critical information necessary to determine
whether the proposed project would be consistent with the enforceable policies of the California
Coastal Management Program. Particularly those focused on protection of sensitive marine
and terrestrial species and habitats as we've heard from testimony today.
Certainly national security is of utmost concern to all of us, but there's, and I am confident
that our staff will continue to work with the Department of Defense as much as they
can to identify a path forward.
But given the lack of information that we have, I too support the staff's recommendation
to object.
Commissioner Wilson.
Thank you.
Notwithstanding, I think, you know, the framing of space exploration and communication systems
and defense is all important and we play a role in that.
I just want to back up to the last time we voted for something around this was I voted
in concurrence based on the commitment of our staff and Space Force to work together
to gather information to address the issues.
I felt there was a positive trajectory for collaboration of environmental stewardship
but then with this particular expansion in activity,
the data gap has really widened.
I felt we were narrowing in on some data, getting there,
but really, the expansion that has just gotten bigger.
And so the ecological and access issues
that we're trying to get the information for and address
It's just this is getting, we're not moving in the right directions, I guess what I would
say.
So, but I think there's also a little bit of context, which is globally, there are,
well, 40 years ago there was like 75 launches a year.
Right now we're at 250 globally.
We're talking about 100 in this framework.
So the California coast is getting a disproportionate impact of this change that we're talking
about.
It could be 25 to 30% of the internet global launches.
So I think focusing on those impacts to the coast is pretty important.
And I think it's relevant.
the citizens and the ecology of California's coast is ground zero for knowing what those
impacts are.
And so I think that the staff's concern about that and documented, well, in their report
I think is very clear. The trajectory is the growth of launches is to up to a
thousand in the next 20 years, which is pretty significant. It speaks to what was
brought up around the you know the large amount of the need for satellites in
in this construct and it's so, it's unprecedented.
There was, although the burden or the, I would say
the overwhelming consideration in my analysis
to come to the place where I concur
with the staff's recommendation is based on the staff's,
staff report and everything that's in there,
I will note that in exhibit nine of the,
attached exhibits was the EPA's letter, which I thought was important, and within that,
it spoke to the gap in information around the stratospheric, atmospheric and ozone impacts.
And I was trying to look at that through the lens of section 30253A, B, and C as well as
section 30270 of the Coastal Act and the impacts that that may that associated
potential climate impacts might have I didn't see how that might it was it was
in there but it didn't move me in the same way that the that what was put
forth by the staff but I will say that that the associated documents and
references from that letter in the EPA's letter that they submitted for this project are something
that I found concerning, not necessarily for this project, but just in general interesting
and something I thought was in need of more information.
Because frankly if this does have a climate impact, it's not just on our coast, it's
on all coasts, right? And so I think that in looking at the trajectory of what is predicted
for this industry, I think it's something that could have relevance and the fact that
the California coast is such a significant portion. It's not like we're talking about
one car that's either gas or electric. We're talking about a whole industry of which a
huge portion of the impact is concentrated on the California coast.
And so I think it's something worthy of sort of future discussion out there, but in this
moment and in this place, the analysis is just on this expansion and the lack of information
that we have to analyze those impacts very specifically to our coast, and I concur with
staff in their assessment and I'll be voting likewise. Thanks. Great, thanks.
Any other commissioners? Commissioner Lopez? Yeah, I just want to say that
obviously I'm new here since the last time that issues regarding this
particular operation were brought up but that for me I hope as we move forward
there's a continued willingness and openness to foster and rebuild the
relationship that once existed because I'll share that about four and a half
years ago a tractor cut a single piece of fiber in my community right the piece
of AT&T's fiber optic network running down my valley got snipped and we found
out that day that everybody ran on that 911, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, everybody
just rented everybody else's line and that meant for three days my community
was out of all communication except for those people who were early adopters
right of Starlink's services. And so that is to say that I understand now since then
obviously Ukraine as a war issue has risen right and we've seen how important
communication is but when you're out of communication for four days as a
community you understand how alone you feel when nothing works right that
inability to communicate but we don't have enough information I agree with
staff's outcome on this and so as we move forward I want to learn more I want
to know more, I want to engage as a commissioner in my capacity to better understand that where
these potential impacts are, but given the lack of information we have today, I concur
with staff but again understand the importance of the conversation as it continues to evolve
and so look forward to continuing to communicate from this position that the door is open for
continued collaboration as we move forward in my capacity and I see staff nodding their
So I know that it's an openness and a willingness from staff as well that as we move forward
Hopefully we can somehow foster a renewed relationship
So that we can make the best balanced outcome possible for the coast or the people we represent for the act
Thank you. It's Commissioner any other comments
Commissioner Jackson
Thank you doctor. Thank you to everybody. Thank you staff for your hard work on this. Thank you for the report
Thank you for everybody's input today
The thing I've learned over the last few months since being appointed is how much staff gives and reaches out and wants to get to yes in a collaborative manner.
And that is important. Prior to my appointment, I had thoughts of the Coastal Commission and it was a bad word.
from a municipal standpoint but I two words well where I'm from it's one word
but I've come to learn how much the Commission or how much the staff works
in a collaborative way and we've seen that over the last couple days just with
the decisions that have been made and how much time and energy goes into you
know, getting to a place where both sides are relatively happy. And we saw that
play out when in May when we had the hearing with regard to the Navy. And so
they as we know the Commission is responsible for protecting and
safeguarding public access while like everything else balancing development,
conservation and recreation and it depends on
decisions grounded in accurate, reliable information.
Science, environmental assessments,
meaningful public input, are not optional.
I mean, it's essential to what we do
to ensure that our beautiful coastline
remains sustainable, accessible and thriving
for generations to come.
And that ties into your point in terms of,
Okay, what's the bigger impact, not just necessarily to our coastline?
Anything less than full due diligence undermines our mandate.
And there's a possibility of causing irreversible harm to our coastline and our coastal resources.
We owe it to the public and to the future to insist on data-driven, transparent decision-making.
For those reasons, I fully support staff's recommendations.
Thanks, Commissioner.
All right.
Not seeing any other commissioners that like to speak.
I'm going to do something that I don't normally do.
I'm going to read some comments in.
There was a very long staff report on this,
and I think it's important to call out
at least what I consider to be the key elements of the staff
report so that it's clear that the decision today
is the decision of this commission.
the staff wrote a report and we are here to make a decision and based on that I want to
give what I consider to be the key points.
So first of all I think it's important to note that it is a federal regulation, 15 CFR
Section 930.43 that does provide for a state agency objection based on lack of information.
The State Agency objection must make specific findings.
So what are the bases for the lack of information?
First, whether SpaceX launches are a federal agency activity, and as such, appropriately
qualify for the limited review authority provided to the Commission under the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act.
That's one.
What specific effects expanded launch activities would have on coastal resources, particularly
the sensitive marine and terrestrial species and habitats that will be exposed to much
more frequent elevated noise levels and more intense pressure waves from engine noise and
sonic booms?
Third, would these effects be consistent with the enforceable policies of the CCMP that are
focused on the protection of marine and terrestrial biological resources, particularly sections
302-30, 302-31, and 302-40.
So staff has reviewed, and the Commission today is making a decision that the CD as
presented us by the Department of Air Force does not include sufficient information to
resolve these issues, and therefore to allow us to adequately evaluate the determination
that they have made, the Department of Air Force has made, that SpaceX's proposed increase
and launch activities are consistent
with the enforceable policies of the CCMP.
We just don't have information that on whether
or additional information on whether the SpaceX space launch
activities on Vandenberg are a federal agency activity
and we also do not have sufficient information
as my colleagues have said on what the impacts are with regard
to wildlife in this area and beyond.
I think it is very important to note and our speakers have noted that this area, the Santa
Barbara Channel, is known as a region of remarkably high biodiversity of marine organisms, including
marine mammals, seabirds, fish, invertebrates, plankton, and algae.
And this high biodiversity is a result of this particular location.
I don't think we can overstate the importance of Vandenberg in terms of its biotic resources,
both on land and in the coast, not to mention the Channel Islands, all of which have been
shown to be impacted by this.
It appears that this project has the potential to adversely affect marine biological resources
through the exposure of the marine species and habitats to very highly elevated levels
of engine noise. We've just heard up to 150 dB sonic booms generated during rocket launches
and landings. This would occur now based on this accelerated launch proposal of 100 every
three days in anticipated sound and sonic boom levels at haul-out sites and high-use
areas will exceed 130 decibels. Marine mammals are sensitive to sound and are often considered
to be indicator species to understand noise impacts on the marine environment and yet
the studies, the collaboration, the monitoring just has not occurred as agreed upon in our
earlier concurrence discussions.
So as the staff report details, the commission lacks critical information based on determining
whether the proposed project is consistent with the CCMP,
focused on the protection of sensitive marine
and terrestrial species and habitat.
There are a number of unanswered questions
that make it really quite impossible for us to engage.
And here today, once again, we see no appearance
by U.S. Air Force, U.S. Space Force, or SpaceX
to answer the questions that we have,
further indications that there just doesn't seem to be willingness to provide further
information so that we can make our decision today.
So given this lack of information, my position, it sounds like my fellow commissioners agree
that objection to the DAF consistency determination CD-006-25 must move forward and so I would
turn to the commission for a motion.
All right.
Yes, I move that the commission concur with consistency
determination CD000625 that the project described therein
is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies
of the California Coastal Management Program.
And I'm asking for a no vote.
Do we have a second?
Second.
Commissioner Kelly, so we have a motion and a second.
We have a question by Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, there has been, in the past,
some confusion about the difference between a concurrence
and a permit in the public's perception.
And I was just wondering if maybe staff could just outline
that so that we give those people in the public,
including the press, the opportunity
to have accurate information.
All right.
Sorry.
Who would like to respond to that question?
Mr. Tukle?
You understand the question?
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
And you're inquiring about the effect of no vote and objection.
And actually, I think when there was a vote in the past,
there was some controversy about it.
There was a lot of misinformation
about what this is.
And I think we should probably let
people know what this is specifically
in terms that non-nerds like ourselves might understand.
You know, one thing that concerns me
having that kind of statement of making an assumption about the vote I prefer to
have the vote and then have staff describe the results of the vote if
that's okay with you commissioner I am totally fine with that I just I just
want to make sure that the standing is understood absolutely understand what
you're saying so I'll turn to the commission and ask if there is any
any objection to unanimous approval of the objection to concurrence here?
It's a unanimous no vote.
So it would be a unanimous no vote.
Thanks Council.
That makes a lot of sense.
So is there any objection to that?
All right.
Seeing none, the commission votes no on the request to concur.
And now I turn to Mr. Tufel to describe what that represents.
So very similar to the Commission's decision in May with the Navy's project, the Air Force
under the regulations that the Commission's reviewing this under has the ability to determine
despite the Commission's decision that the proposed project is consistent with California's
coastal management program and may proceed with the activity by transmitting that determination
to us in a letter.
So effectively the result of this vote does not prevent SpaceX from continuing launch
activities.
Okay.
Does that satisfy?
That satisfies.
All right.
All right.
Thanks, folks.
That concludes this item, and I think we are going to have lunch at this time.
How long do we need?
Are we having a session about one hour?
An hour, I think, should be next.
Okay.
So we're back at 1.45.
Thanks, everybody.
Did he say today?
Look at us.
All right, everyone.
October 14th.
Let's get back into the agenda, please.
Thank you.
Okay, we are on item 10, the deputy director's report for the South Central District.
Excuse me, Chair.
Before we do that, could I report out a closed session, please?
Yes, please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The commission met briefly at lunch in closed session.
It received information and advice on Friends of Oceano Dunes versus California Department
of Parks and Recreation at all and Space Exploration Technologies Corp versus Coastal
Commission. It also received information and advice and took action on Friends of
Oceania Dunes versus Coastal Commission and that concludes my report. Thank you.
Now we are on item 10. Mr. Hudson. Thank you and good afternoon Chair Harmon,
Vice Chair Hart and commissioners. I will now go over the Deputy
Director's report for the South Central Coast District which includes one
permit waiver, five permit extensions, and one emergency waiver. In regard to
that emergency permit waiver. I would note that it was issued to the Galita
West sanitary district for the necessary repair of a defective 18-foot segment of
an existing 24-inch force main wastewater pipeline and that pipeline
was an imminent danger of failure along the access road adjacent to the airport's
runway and within Galita, Slough and Santa Barbara County. In addition, staff
received objections from members of the public in regard to one of our
immaterial permit extensions being reported today and that's CDP extension
4-13-0401-E11 that's the Bandale application and that's for a single
family residence in the Santa Monica Mountains area of LA County. Because that
objection was received within our 10-day period for public comment after our
report was published this item will be brought back at a future Commission
hearing for Commission action with additional information from staff to
address the issues raised in that objection. Staff is not aware of any
opposition to the other items being reported and we're asking whether three
or more commissioners object to any of the items in the Deputy Director's
report. I am available for questions. Thank you. Are there any ex parte's to
report? Seeing none, are there any public speakers? There are no speakers. Great.
Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any of the items on the
directors report seeing no objections the Commission concurs so now we move to
item 12 a yes we move on to item 12 a and if we could pull up the PowerPoint
presentation for this please so 12 a and 13 a is a combined presentation for a
request by Ventura by the Ventura County Harbor Department to amend the
Channel Islands Harbor Certified Public Works Plan, or PWP, and its related notice of impending
development, which allows for redevelopment of a parcel within the harbor known as the
Fisherman's Wharf site, and it's located within Channel Islands Harbor in the city
of Oxnard.
The PWP amendment includes several minor technical updates and, most importantly, the removal
of a previously designated but not actually realized or constructed view corridor.
And the related notice of impending development is for demolition of various existing, deteriorated
commercial structures that exist on this site and construction of a Carl's Village, which
includes a mix of visitor serving and retail, restaurant, recreational attractions, including
children's rides and playground areas.
The standard of review for this proposed amendment is conformance with the City of Oxnard's Local
Coastal Program or LCP.
The standard of review for the impending development is conformance with the certified PWP for
Channel Islands Harbor as amended.
Next slide please.
Existing development on site includes various commercial buildings that were built in the
1970s and they have reached the end of their expected life.
A waterfront promenade and commercial fishing wharf along the western border of the site
is present and there's a public parking lot and restroom to the south.
Additionally, a public dock beyond the promenade is accessed through the southwestern portion
of the site.
The existing waterfront promenade, northern parking lot of commercial buildings are in
a relatively deteriorated state and are not well utilized today by commercial development.
Next slide, please.
The proposed project includes demolition of all the existing structures on site, which
control, commercial in nature and demolition of the northern parking lot, and then construction
of this new visitor serving development.
That would feature 60,000 square feet of retail space, dining and recreational attractions.
The project includes preservation of a historic lighthouse or lighthouse appearing structure.
It's not an actual lighthouse, but it looks very cute.
Replacement and expansion of the existing public waterside promenade and improvements
to the public park and Southern parking lot on site. There is no water related construction
as part of this project and the commercial fishing wharf access would be maintained
by the Harvard department throughout both the construction process and after the project
is built. Access to the public docks would also remain open. This project includes several
circulation improvements to address traffic impacts. These were proposed by the applicant
and coordination, close coordination with the City of Oxnard and they're subject to
Special Edition 8, which requires continued coordination with the City
prior to implementation. The next slide please. Now this proposed amendment would
incorporate those various changes that I mentioned and would move a future
designated view corridor that doesn't actually exist on site. It's designated
in the PWP as segment 48 and it's shown here on this slide. Now the PWP requires
There's a minimum of 25% of the water fronting views of the
harbor be maintained.
This elimination of this particular view corridor would
reduce the percentage within the harbor from 31.83%.
It would just be a fractional reduction to 31.18%, which still
exceeds that 25% requirement.
Given that this view corridor doesn't presently exist and has
never provided public views. We don't believe that the elimination of this view corridor
will be a significant impact to public views. And the increase in the public visitor serving
amenities would have a great benefit to visitors to this area. Next slide, please. There is
an addendum for this item. It includes 53 letters that were received following publication
of the report and 47 of which expressing support of the project and the staff recommendation.
letters of interest with neutral comments and there were four letters of
objection now the letters of opposition did not raise specific concerns with
the exception of potential traffic increases associated with redevelopment
and I would note that there was the appropriate traffic analysis that was
completed we have that report which found that this project would not result
in any significant changes to traffic patterns in the area regardless the city
City of Oxnard reached out to the county and requested several new improvements.
And the county has worked closely with our staff and the city and they have incorporated
all of the city's requested changes, which primarily include new turn lanes, road and
intersection improvements, bike lanes into the proposed project.
And so we have special conditions that memorialize that commitment.
believes that the proposed project is consistent with the City's LCP and with
the certified PWP as amended and we recommend approval as submitted of these
the amendment and the notice of impending development subject to 11
special conditions listed on pages 8 through 12 of the report. We are
recommending approval of the PWP amendment as submitted with no
suggested modifications. There are two motions necessary to accomplish the
staff recommendation and those can be found on pages 7 and 8 of your staff reports.
That concludes my presentation.
Staff is available for questions.
Oh, and before I conclude, I should be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity just to
thank the county and the Harbor Department specifically and their director Michael Tripp.
They have been very helpful in working with our staff early and thoroughly to address
potential issues, and that's why we're able to bring this PWP amendment forward without
suggestive modifications.
And just by way of a little bit of background and for perspective, this project has been
subject to previous applications to the commission, and it was just a few years back that we had
a wildly controversial application for redevelopment of this site.
did not include new visitor serving amenities. Those would
have been lost. The city was very opposed to that and there
was a requirement for an LCP a member to this to the city and
that never came before the commission because the whole
process died on the vine. Just five years later we're living in
a very different world. The city and the county have come
together on this application and I believe we've addressed all
those issues. So I just wanted to thank all the parties
involved and note that this project has become much better over the years and
Commission staff appreciates that help. So thank you that concludes my comments.
Wonderful. Thank you. Are there any ex partes to report? I have one to report.
On Monday morning at 9 a.m. I spoke briefly with Andy Culbertson and Michael
Tripp and representatives from the Channel Islands Harbor. They were very
very positive, excited, grateful, the entire length of our conversation was
pretty much about how excited they were that this was coming forward and how
well that they had worked with our staff and they particularly noted that it was
such a positive experience that the teamwork was incredible and they just
were really grateful and thrilled to be bringing this forward so it was a it's a
really wonderful conversation. Commissioner Wilson. I'm happy to make a
motion if there's no discussion. I think. Oh we haven't had public comment. Is there
any public comment on this item? I guess we have in person Michael Tripp and
Alex Stilter with the applicant as well as Andy Culbertson online and then we do
have 12 speakers. How much time would you like sir?
Five minutes. Five minutes for the two of us. Sure. I'll be quick because your staff gave a
excellent presentation and we concur with all the the conditions. So first off just to thank
you all. It's been a long time for the county giving getting here. Now I did have a powerpoint.
Could you thank you. Can you go to the next slide please. This site out in the Channel Islands Harbor
it was once a thriving place with good restaurants and shopping. As you can see in this this old
newspaper you know I said you know what what's hot in Ventura County and so this
lasted for a couple of decades and then unfortunately the gentleman who was the
driving force behind all this Bud Smith you know he got older and this passed
away from his company and the county next slide please the county basically
for the last 20 years has been trying to figure out what to do with this property
and as if you can see on the slide there we had several people come forward who
We wanted to do mixed use projects with retail and residential combined and there was a lot
of opposition from the public, a lot of opposition from the City of Oxnard who we share at LCP
with them.
And so for all these years this property just got more and more deteriorated.
Next slide.
And this is the current conditions of it.
You know, it was once vibrant came Codlooking Village.
Next slide.
And now it's, you know, in this condition.
Next slide.
And so this is what the site currently looks like.
One other thing I just want to mention about this is as this was built in the 70s, all
the buildings were facing the parking lot and that was one of the things that we wanted
to address when we did a new development here.
Next slide.
And so basically this started back in May 2022 and from this time from the start we
wanted to involve the public in the process.
So we had public meetings to determine who was the future lessee we were going to work
with.
We also had several public meetings where we went over what the project would be.
We listened to people.
And originally we did get some opposition to the proposal that we chose because people
didn't understand what we were doing here.
They thought it was going to be Magic Mountain by the Sea, which is not that at all.
This is going to be retail, restaurants, and it's going to have small rights for children,
but basically this is going to be something that anyone can go to.
It's free to enter, and people can spend as little as they want or as much as they want.
So we had to have about a dozen public meetings where we talked to people and really explained
what we wanted to do.
And we listened to them and we took back their feedback and we modified the project based
on that.
We also, of course, met with your staff early on and we met with the city of Oxnard.
And through all that we brought us to here and we have a project that we're very proud
of.
Next slide, please.
And so this is the proposed site.
One thing you'll notice here is, you know, instead of having a bunch of buildings facing
a parking lot. There's one building and a lot of open area and it's facing the ocean.
That way people can come out to the coast and really enjoy what we have here in the
harbor. Next slide. And as far as what we're planning on doing in here, there'll be an
artisan market where people will be able to buy both things from the company Carl's and
also objects from local artists. Next slide. There'll be restaurants. Next slide. There's
going to be a bakery shop and a coffee shop. That's something I'm looking forward to coming
and then they're early in the morning.
Next slide.
Yeah, there'll be communal dining areas
so people can get the different kind of food they want
but still sit with their family and friends.
Next slide.
There's gonna be some nautically themed playgrounds,
free playgrounds for kids to come and enjoy.
Something that we really need out in Ventura County
is more options for parents to bring their kids to.
Next slide.
And also, of course, some small rides for children.
And I'm gonna wrap up what I'm saying right now
because I do want to give Axel some time to speak as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Michael.
Good afternoon, commissions and staff.
I have a computer here so I can read off.
I'm not that good at free speaking.
Well, my name is Axel Stelter.
I'm the representative for the Carls Project
at the Channel Islands Harbor in Oxnard,
and we are truly grateful to be here today
and speak with you.
We were really delighted to read the staff report.
It made us very happy to see how the staff
understood the project and the CAHLS concept and how they also appreciated the development and the process of how we went through the
development altogether.
We will make it our further commitment now that the project aligns with the Coastal Commission's vision for a visitor serving and
also accessible coastline. That is really important to us. Our goal is to transform this
underutilized area into something that is more vibrant and is also a welcoming destination.
We are very excited about the prospect of creating a space for the visitors of Ventura
County, but also the residents of Ventura County who can then access an affordable and
family friendly destination.
So we are very eager to get this done and bring this wonderful vision to life.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
We'll move to public comment, please.
All right.
12 speakers, it appears that everyone is in support of the staff recommendation, so if
you can keep it short, that would make us very happy.
We'll start with Steve Kinney, Jackie Pinson, Robert Dahl, in person.
Steven Kinney, Jackie Pinson, Robert Dahl, Patricia Eunice.
Okay.
Noted.
Go ahead.
Hi, I'm, excuse me, hi I'm Jackie Pinson. I live at Silver Strand Beach. I'm not
smart. I support the staff reports for the two updates, number 12 and 13, before
the Coastal Commission today. The Carls Project developers have been very
transparent and flexible in supporting the needs of our beach community around
Channel Islands Harbor. They have had many meetings to inform us about their
plans for Fisherman's Wharf along with, and along the way, and have made
adjustments to meet for their plans based on input. At this time the view
corridors proposed may be adjusted a little from the road but no more than
now and the promenade walkway the project along the harbor will more than
make up for it. The buildings proposed are no taller than now and are very
open and appealing from the street as well as the harbor side. We support this
impending development as it meets the needs of our community, the harbor, the
the city and Ventura County as a whole. We have been looking for years for a
venue that would attract visitors to the harbor as well as serve the community.
The Carls project will be just that. A visitor serving, gift, marine, and
culinary place for all to enjoy. Please approve this project. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Robert Dahl, Patricia Eunice, Sandra McLaughlin, Renee Ayu. If any of
if you've heard your name, please come up.
Please come to the mic.
Good afternoon, honorable commissioners.
My name is Patricia Eunice, and I'm speaking on behalf of myself
and as a direct neighbor to this project.
It is such a delight to honor, I'm so delighted to honor,
I'm so delighted and honored to ask for your positive vote
on this project.
I've represented many projects before this commission
over decades and this is the first project that I can tell you really comes with true
community support. This is just like unheard of. And it's the result of what your staff
has already told you. The absolute wonderful coordination between the City of Oxnard, the
the Harvard Department and the developer all willing to bend and take what they needed
to do to get this project moving forward.
And I think from your standpoint, it's really wonderful to see a project that conforms with
just about everything there is in the Coastal Act.
Density, height, view quarters, traffic, it checks all the boxes, including equity and
social justice. Thank you very much and please make there's a positive vote.
Thank you. Sandra McLaughlin, Renee Iu, Debbie Mitchell, Diane Delaney. Good
afternoon Commissioned. I'm Sandra McLaughlin, a resident of Channel Islands
Harbor. As you've already heard the community is very excited about this
project, and it will be a destination attraction for all. It will expand and
attract a more demographically and economically diverse range of visitors
to the harbor, as well as local community members. It will provide affordable
recreation activities with outdoor landscaped areas, playgrounds, seating
corners, some small activity areas for young children, small food stands, and a
large central indoor market hall entrance and parking will be free as
well as access to most of the facilities for many years the community and
visitors have advocated for a recreational visitor serving development
at Fisherman's Wharf that maximizes free public access for residents visitors
individuals families and children for these reasons I encourage you to approve
Thank you. Thank you. Renee Iu, Debbie Mitchell, Diane Delaney. Good afternoon. My
name is Renee Iu and I'm with the Harbor and Beach Community Alliance, known as
HBCA. Well I want to tell you that we're happy to be here for the first time. We
can wholeheartedly come to the Commission and say we fully support this
project and there's good reason why. One, it is consistent with the Coastal Act
and that it maximizes public access. Two, it is it is consistent with the
imperative of your environmental justice policy because it provides low-cost
recreation facilities on the coast. And third, it is consistent with the local
coastal plan. This is a wonderful project for our community. Entrance is free,
parking is free, and it's something that we don't have right now, which is it
provide something for families with children to come to the harbor and enjoy.
We ask you to support your staff's recommendation and approve these
proposals. Thank you. Thank you. Debbie Mitchell, Diane Delaney, and then we'll
move to our Zoom speakers. Ditto to everything that has been said. And thank
you to the Coastal Commission. I had no awareness of what the local Coastal plan
and was about before we started fighting the prior plans
for the harbor.
And Sarah 1 had talked to us about your emotional stuff
doesn't matter.
Get to the policies.
Get to the local coastal plan.
You have to understand that if you're
going to go talk to the coastal commissioners about what you do
or do not want in your area.
And had we not taken the time to understand that and respect
what you do, we wouldn't be where we are today.
that we would be looking at high-rise apartments there
because nobody would have spoken up
and nobody would have been concerned about it.
And so I thank you for protecting our local coastal area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Diane Delaney.
I ditto ditto to everything Debbie just said
and my fellow neighbors.
I would just like to say thank you to Coastal Commission staff
and Steve Hudson and mainly the developer for being so wonderful and being involved
with the neighbors and explaining the project and I would like to thank our late, great
Sarah Juan who was our consultant and was your past chair of the Coastal Commission
who helped us protect that beautiful piece of land from greedy developers who just wanted
to put up massive apartment buildings.
So thank you very much for everything that you guys do.
Thank you. Now moving to Zoom, we have Steven Kinney, Dave Kolker, Robert Dahl, and Audrey
Keller. Steven Kinney, you should be able to unmute now. We can hear you. Go ahead.
Okay, good. Thank you. My name is Steve Kinney. I'm the President of the Channel and Charitable
Lessons Association. We're the group that represents virtually all of the private investment
in the visitor serving commercial developments
all around the Harbor.
We've submitted a letter of support on the project.
So I'll just come in on two points there.
Number one, we love the product.
It's something new, different from anything
that's in the Harbor now.
So we expect it to attract more and different clientele
and come to the Harbor now,
which is always great to see.
All income levels can find something of interest there
and get more exposure to the harbor.
Secondly, we love the process
that the developer has gone through,
really sensitive to a lot of feedback from the community
and has done his best to make a product
that he has sort of refined and perfected in Germany,
One that is very reflective of the local priorities
and local interests through spending a lot of time
listening to people come to the feedback sections.
So developers have done a great job
and we would love to see this project move forward
as soon as possible.
We encourage your yes votes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next, Dave Kolker.
You should be able to unmute now.
Dave Culker. Yeah, are we there? Yeah. Dave Culker, Ventura County Commercial
Fishermen's Association. I'm actually standing right in front of Fishermen's
Wharf right now. Wish I could go video with you guys, but at any rate, my name is
Dave Culker. I'm the executive director of the Ventura County Commercial
Fishermen's Association, or known as VCCFA. We represent more than 80 members of
our local commercial fishing community, including the majority of active
working fishermen in the region. First I want to recognize and thank the Coastal Commission
for its consistent proactive commitment to upholding the Coastal Act of 1976,
especially in protecting commercial fishing infrastructure and maintaining access for our
coastal dependent industry. Sorry, I'm a little out of breath. I just tied the boat up.
First I want to recognize, or sorry, today I'm here to express our strong support for the
redevelopment of Fisherman's Village in Channel-ounce Harbor into Carls Village. From the start, the
the Ventura County Harbor Department and Carl's group
have shown a genuine commitment to community engagement.
There has been multiple workshops, site visits,
and open conversation with stakeholders.
Importantly, they didn't just listen, they acted.
The proposal was modified to reflect community concerns
and ideas, showing that public input
truly shaped the project.
This approach should be a model for future developments,
not only here in Channel-Once Harbor,
but anywhere seeking to balance growth with community needs.
Carl's and the county have been present
at our member meetings and responsive to every invitation.
Based on our experience, VCCFA is optimistic
about the future of Carl's Village
and its dedication to preserving and strengthening
the commercial fishing infrastructure we depend on.
I'm available for any questions
and my contact information
is on our submitted letter of support.
We respectfully encourage the Coastal Commission
to approve the NOID.
I believe if that's 13,
I'm sorry if I'm out speaking out of turn on 12.
Just wanna make sure we got the comment in
at Fisherman's Wharf in Channel-Ons Harbor.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Robert Dahl, then Audrey Keller.
Robert, you should be able to unmute.
Good afternoon, commissioners and staff.
A big thank you for having me here today.
My name is Robert Dahl. I'm the founder of CARLS.
I'm calling from Germany today.
It's already almost midnight here.
And thanks to your lunch break,
I have seen three shooting stars outside.
And of course I made a wish for today
because right now is a perfect time to see shooting stars.
But back to CARLS in Oxnard.
This is a very special moment for us.
have been working toward it for many years. I'm very grateful for all the amazing people
we have worked with along the way. At Karls it's always about one thing, giving people a great
experience and that takes a clear direction and strong partnerships. So we fully support
your staff's report and every single condition in it. You have really understood our vision
and also the Karls spirit, creating a place where everyone feels welcome. We have spent a lot of time
with the people of Oxnard, with the fishermen, with the local community, listening, adjusting,
making sure this project works for everyone. Our goal to turn the old fishermen's wharf
into a vibrant, open, family-friendly spot on the water with lots of love in the details,
and yes, a little bit not of the strawberry, to the strawberry. We want to create a place
that brings joy today, tomorrow, and for many years to come. Thank you for your time
and for your trust. Thank you. And Audrey Keller. Audrey, you should be able to unmute now.
Thank you very much. Audrey Keller, for the record, I'm voicing my 100% joy and support
for the Channel Islands Harper developer, Carl's. Congratulations in advance of your vote,
but it is well earned by Mr. Dalton and Mr. Stutler. They have worked tirelessly
since the formation of the county's vision plan, which I participated in and was created by the
Harbor Department at the time under then Harbor Director Mark Sandoval and now finalizing and
bringing this project to the people Michael Tripp. I want to thank the City of Oxnard Management,
the elected officials, and over many many meetings that the public experienced and participated in.
I think this meeting is the culmination of a developer listening to what the guidelines are
from the California Coastal Commission and for what the people want and what the city need.
So it is again my pleasure over 10 years of work and refusing the apartment development.
Thank goodness, thank goodness for the harbor. Thank you to the Coastal Commissioners for your
wisdom and especially for your staff's support for this project. Of course, I say vote yes.
Thank you. And last but not least, Matthew Levi or Levi. Matthew, go ahead.
Hi, that's me. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Hello. Okay, good. Hi, my name is Matthew
Levi. I'm a longtime resident of Hollywood Beach in Oxnard, California, and I want to offer my full
support of this project that the Carls Organization is planning to build towards the revitalizing
of our long deteriorating Fisherman's Wharf area. I'm very excited to see this project
come to fruition. At the same time, I want to make sure that the Carls Organization is
aware of the plan of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Coastal
Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to permanently disfigure and ultimately
destroy Hollywood Beach, bulldozing a small area of existing natural dunes, building close
to 20 acres of manmade dunes surrounded by permanent fencing and the use of the chemical
Roundup all under the guise of conservation and restoration.
If you, the Carl's organization, don't know about it, you need to because this beautiful
beach as it stands now is one of, if not the single biggest draw that brings locals and
tourists to our community. And if this was my business and I was planning to spend tens
of millions of dollars or however much you're planning to spend, I'd be going out of my
way to make sure it gets shut down before I spent another nickel. Thank you for your
time. Thank you. There are no more speakers. Okay, thank you. We'll close public comment.
And before we go to a motion, I just want to say that I too am very excited. I share
the enthusiasm of many of the commenters, and just my gratitude for all the parties
who came together to make this work.
Our staff in particular, of course, the folks from the city and county, this is such a good
thing for Oxnard, and it's such a good thing for the whole region.
I said earlier, I just I can't wait to take my own kids on these rides.
I mean, it's so unique, and it's so unlike, it's unlike anything we have in the area.
I'm really, really excited about it and that it was such a community success as well as
a testament to all of you and your commitment and your love of the harbor and the coast.
So I'm very excited and Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Chair.
And I just wanted to reflect every time I think about City of Oxnard and this part of
the world. I think of County Supervisor and former Councilwoman Carmen Ramirez, who was
always one of my favorite people to hear from. Right now I was just asking myself what would
Carmen say about this, and I know because we saw her many times come before us where
she really tried to prioritize maximizing public access to her community where there's
a lot of environmental justice challenges as well.
And it's very industrialized areas, so quite necessary and nuanced to be so supportive
of this type of plan.
So I'm excited to support and shout out to the great memory of Carmen Ramirez.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah.
as she was going to be speaking here before we lost her,
actually, the day of.
So that was a blow, and a wonderful, wonderful person
and a community activist, and organizer, and politician,
and all of it.
She did.
She was the best.
I'm happy to make a motion unless there's
more comments on this.
Please, go ahead.
Yeah, and notwithstanding the discussions
that we had before about the projects
before in terms of housing is still
a crucial need in this community.
But so is, and is real vibrant public access
to our coastal resources.
And this is definitely, I apologize
for having jumped the gun on the motion before.
It was just, I just have to say the renderings of it
were just so cute.
I just like oh gotta get in there and support this right away. This is the best so
With that, I'm happy to make the motion
Yeah, and it
You can even hear the laughter when you look at the pictures I kind of feel like you can you can hear him
I move that the Commission certify the Channel Islands Harbor
Harbor Republic Works Plan amendment number PWP dash 4 dash C1 H or excuse me
CIIH-25-002-1 as submitted.
I recommend a yes vote.
The first motion is moved by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Escalante.
Is there any objection to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the first motion is adopted.
Motion number 2, I move that the Commission determine that the development described in
notice of impending development number CIH-NOID-005-25 as conditioned is
consistent with the certified Channel Islands public excuse me Channel Islands
Harbor Public Works plan and I recommend a yes vote.
Second. Motion by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Escalante. Any
objections to unanimous consent? Seeing none, congratulations. Okay that brings
us down to item 14 the deputy director's report for the South Coast
District. Mr. Hudson. Thank you. And item 14 is the deputy director's report for
our South Coast. It includes three waivers and two immaterial amendments
this month. We're not aware of any opposition to any of the items being
reported and we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to any of
the items in the report.
I am available for questions.
Thank you.
Are there any ex partes?
Okay.
Seeing none, how about public comments?
No speakers.
Okay.
Do three or more commissioners object to any of the items in Mr. Hudson's report?
Okay.
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Now we will move to item 15A, please.
Thank you.
And item 15A will be presented by Jeff Palm, a Coastal Program Analyst in our South Coast
District.
with the city's housing element update.
Next slide, please.
The proposed amendment would modify the city's land use map
and zoning map by increasing the allowable density
at one residential site, circled in blue on this slide.
The proposed amendment would modify the city's land use map
and zoning map by increasing the allowable density
at one residential site, circled in blue on this slide.
The proposed amendment would modify the city's land use map
and zoning map by increasing the allowable density
at one residential site, circled in blue on this slide.
The site currently allows for up to four dwelling units per acre, and the proposed amendment
would increase the allowable density of the site up to 22 dwelling units per acre, effectively
allowing for multi-family residential development on a parcel that currently allows for single-family
residential development.
Additionally, one LUP policy would be amended to eliminate the restriction that all new
housing within subregion IV be of single-family nature, and be modified to require all new
housing within subregion IV to be strictly residential, with densities noted on the amended
land use map shown on this slide.
Next slide, please.
The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the LUP is that the proposed LUP amendment
meets the requirements of and is in conformance with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal
Act.
The standard review for the proposed amendment to the IP is that the proposed IP amendments
conform with and are adequate to carry out the provisions of the Roundtruck Policy Fair
Days certified LUP.
The subject parcel highlighted in yellow is a 68,098 square foot vacant lot surrounded
by residential development, a fire station and Palos Verdes drive south to the north
of the site.
According to the certified natural environment element of the LUP, the subject site is located
in a low fire hazard area, low geological hazard zone and does not contain any active
landslides.
According to the certified corridor element of the LUP, the subject site is not located
within any view corridors, therefore any relevant corridor element policies do not apply to
the subject amendment request.
The Commission's staff geologists reviewed the current California Geological Survey landslide
maps and concluded there are no active landslides in close proximity to the subject site that
would present geological hazards to future residential development.
Next slide, please.
The natural environment element of the city-certified LCP identifies existing wildlife, habitat,
a hydrological factor, and a flood hazard on the northern portion of the subject parcel.
Coastal Resource Management Districts 8 and 9, as identified in the LCP and where the
the project site is located, emphasize the importance of protecting natural
drainage courses and existing wildlife habitat. Specifically, policy 7 and 8 of
the city's certified LCP-prohibit activities that would increase erosion
within districts containing hydrological factors and require development to
provide mitigation measures to fully offset impacts of districts containing
wildlife habitat. These policies offer coastal resource protection measures but
do not restrict residential development from occurring in these districts.
Therefore, any future projects at the subject site are required to conform with
Policy 7 and 8 of the City Certified LCP to ensure adequate protection of natural drainage
courses and habitat areas.
As previously stated, the northern portion of the subject parcel includes a flood hazard
according to the certified LUP, which is generally represented by the blue dashed line on this
slide.
Policy 6 of the natural environment element prohibits grading or structural encroachments
into areas within a flood hazard district.
Therefore, approximately one-third of the site along its northern boundary would likely
be restricted from development pursuant to the certified LUP.
Regardless, as can be seen on this slide, approximately two-thirds of the site would
be located outside of the identified flood hazard area and could be potentially developed
with residential development.
Furthermore, this site is currently zoned to allow for single-family residential development
and the proposed amendment request would simply increase the allowable density at the subject
site, which is currently surrounded by a suburban neighborhood with existing roads and utility
infrastructure within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Therefore, staff believes the proposed amendment to the LUP and IP as submitted would be consistent with the applicable chapter 3 policies with the Coastal Act and the certified Rancho Polisferiis LCP.
Staff would like to note that an addendum was posted which includes responses to correspondence received after publication of the staff report and minor edits to correct and air in the staff report.
The correspondence received includes 10 letters objecting to staff recommendation in part due to concerns regarding fire, flood, and geological hazards.
Although the certified LUP identifies the site as a low-fire hazard area,
updated CAL FIRE maps identify the site as a high-fire hazard severity zone.
Opponents assert the increased density would increase the fire risk and impede evacuation
routes. New development in fire hazard areas is not prohibited pursuant to state law and
is subject to more structural requirements and defensible space requirements. However,
staff would note that in this case, the CAL FIRE designation of high-fire hazard would apply to
to all residential properties within subregion four
as identified in the city's certified LCP
and approximately half of the city's coastal zone.
Moreover, the subject site would constitute
infill development within an existing
urban residential neighborhood
and would not be subject to greater fire hazard
than approximately half of the other
residentially developed properties within the city.
Furthermore, the city would be responsible
for reviewing future CDP applications
in consideration of building standards,
defensible space, and ensuring adequate evacuation routes
for any future development on site.
In addition, the addendum provides additional findings
regarding geological hazards in the area,
including analysis from the city staff geologist,
which the commission staff geologist has reviewed
and concurred with, concluding the site would be safe
from geological hazards.
These concerns would similarly be further reviewed
through the local CDP process
for any future development proposals.
Many concerns raised by opponents
are related to a development plan
that is currently before the city.
However, that plan is not before the commission,
and the subject amendment request
specifically to increase the allowable density of the subject site.
Next slide, please.
In closing, staff is recommending the commission approve the LUPNIP amendments as submitted.
The motions and resolutions can be found on page five and six of the staff report.
This includes a staff presentation and staff is available for questions.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes to report?
Okay.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
On Tuesday I spoke with Dana Ireland, he is a Hermosa Beach business owner and a resident
of Palos Verdes Estates and we had a discussion about his concerns over the agenda item that
we are now discussing.
In particular, the fire and the safety concerns is one of his biggest concerns.
I also have an ex parte to report that took place on Tuesday the 12th at 8.30 p.m. very
briefly via phone with Don Schmitz who indicated that he is in agreement with the staff recommendation.
With that we will open the public hearing and I'll ask if there's a representative from
the city.
We have a representative for the applicant, Brandi Forbes.
Hi, I'm available for questions.
The city does support the staff.
OK.
Thank you very much.
And then we have a total of 10 speakers, seven in the room.
We'll start with Don Schmitz, Scott Piotter,
and then Janet Yamamoto.
Good evening, commissioners.
I have a PowerPoint.
My name is Don Schmitz.
Next slide, please.
What is before you today is a local postal program
and nothing more.
It's not a project application.
A few minutes.
I'll move it along.
So the city and this commission has demonstrated
that the housing needs has been promulgated by legislature
to exactly the same.
Next slide, please.
This is the only site in the coastal zone
in Rancho Palos Verde.
It's the only one.
all the others are outside the doses.
Next slide please.
There's a number of things for us to be aware of.
Assembly Bill 686 prohibits local governments
from segregating or concentrating affordable housing
to just a few neighborhoods.
Fair Housing Act requires cities to eliminate segregation,
foster inclusive communities.
And the COSLAC itself under 30604 H
require cities to consider environmental justice,
to ensure fair treatment and equitable distribution
environmental benefits such as the coast. Next slide please. Again what this is not
is a application for actual development. All of this will be vetted at the coastal
development permit process with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I will very
briefly touch on a couple of the issues which have been raised by folks who live
in the neighborhood and just simply do not want to see an increase in density.
For instance the fire safety issue. This is a clear lot surrounded by residential
development, immediately adjacent to Palsbury's Boulevard,
a four-lane road, the biggest road in the city,
directly across from the fire station
with adequate fire throws.
So I don't want to be drawn into debating
the merits of the project.
But again, it's also far removed from any geology issues.
There is a geology report that was analyzing this property that
was vetted with the coastal commission geologists as well.
Of course, biology, traffic, detection
of public view sheds this will all be addressing
the person from the process.
This is a good LCQ, and I'm gonna have to urge you.
Thank you.
Scott Piotter.
Okay, I also have a PowerPoint there for you.
My name is Scott Piotter, I'm project manager
and architect for the owner of the property.
I just wanted to highlight a couple of the items
that I know have been issues in the past
and have been brought up by some of the neighbors.
There is no blue line stream to this property.
Next slide.
We have a deficient land use.
And that is, it's a highly disturbed site.
Evidently, there was a lot of construction and dirt
brought on from the road construction adjacent to it.
All this where it is south, there's
about 8 to 10 foot of uncompacted fill on it,
which we would resolve with development.
Next slide, please.
I threw this picture in.
This is looking towards the clipper drive across our site.
You can see the site is a big vacant site.
But the four houses there that are across the street
are four complexes, 16 units, not about a total
of about a half an acre.
This is in character with the neighborhood, as far as density
of the coastal areas.
Next slide, please.
This is a slide looking towards the white building there
there's the Paul Sverismaness Nature Conservancy Building.
Defense there is residential on the other side,
but it's downhill, maybe as much as 20 feet over
than our site.
And the green area between the Conservancy Building
and the there's Bazaar Drainage Facility.
Next slide.
I wanted to bring up that, of course, we
would be following when we go through the CDB,
the development process.
We would comply with Chapter 3.
We would make sure that the drainage facility
is dealt with appropriately in accordance
with that Chapter 3.
Next slide, please.
It's already been hit a little bit on new corridors.
Next slide, please.
And the last thing is we are consistent with the Coastal Act
as we pointed out the density and the neighborhood
is consistent with the density.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Janet Yamamoto, Dana Ireland, Jennifer Savage.
Council Commission members, thank you for your service.
And Commission staff submitted an addendum just yesterday
hardly enough time for the public to review or respond,
respond, and quickly address one key point.
Regional housing needs assessment.
The addendum claims that even though the state's housing
and community development HCD staff
in terms of the site is not needed to meet the city's
minimum or above medium income house,
the city can still choose to exceed those minimum.
But let us be clear.
This isn't about meeting state mandates.
It's about the city pushing forward,
development the public doesn't want.
The city council has repeatedly said
they are mandated by the state.
Yet here the addendum admits
We are not under 8C, the mandate for this site.
That means the decision is entirely discretionary.
Why move forward against the will of the people?
This addendum isn't justification, it's a spin.
The residents are the city and our voices
are being ignored in favor of a developer's interest.
Item three, under the addendum, additional changes
to the staff report.
Since this is such a late and middle,
this should be denied as it was not properly or timely
introduced to the public to read and comprehend the ramifications of this change.
Our community has long opposed over-development of the zero proper site.
Even before it was sold, we voice concerns.
Since 2020, emails, meetings and public records have shown an unusually close
relationship between city officials, especially the former mayor and
the developer, including early discussions about luxury condos rezoning and
project design.
The community was kept in the dark.
Notices were buried in obscure publications
while the developer received personal alerts
from city staff.
At public meetings, concerns about landslide risk,
fire hazards, flood channels,
and the absence of affordable housing were raised.
HCD has confirmed that zero-clip per lot
is not needed for the housing element
and that the city already has a surplus of housing sites,
all of which are outside the coastal zone.
Despite this, the city pushed three zoning to R22,
which benefits the developer
but brings no affordable housing, only market rate units.
State law like SB9 and SB330 do not apply here
due to the high fire zone restrictions
and the lack of affordable units.
Zero Clipper remains zoned RS4
until the postal commission improves the up zoning to R22.
However, the city has been working
with the developer the same day
and even before the planning meeting of March 26, 2024
where the housing element was approved
prior to City Council's approval.
Thank you ma'am, please finish your thoughts despite the fact that the city
Commission approval has not been yet obtained. Please do not give up your rights as
Thank you
Dana Ireland Jennifer Savage Sharon Cowley Dan Breidelman
I'd like you extra minutes. I'm going to be answering to the amendment. We just saw
Sorry sir two minutes, please go ahead. My name is Dana Ireland. I'm a commercial developer. I reside very close to this site
We have gone through and through with the developer
the city I'm sorry, the Coastal Commission has
Whitewashed the report to you they're relying on
1984 fire data to substantiate
the low fire risk
we have a I'm sorry I have a slight I thought you're gonna give me some can I
go to the next slide please this is our line of defense 1967 fire station one
truck or respond we need more we've added 1,500 homes to this area in the
last since this fire station was built we've added terra naya which is a 400
room resort 100 acres we need to rethink zoning on this property keep it at RS4
then let's have a discussion about taking it to institutional so we can
actually get a legitimate fire station to support this. Next slide please and now
you're gonna make me run. So this is the area of service the blue dot is the fire
station actually live right next door to it so all of that bowl area that's all
high fire danger, right? All of Palisferdy. I tragically had some friends who lost their
homes in the Palisades. I went there in April. When I came back, I was devastated. And you
have the same reaction. So when you come to Palisferdy's, it's identical to Palisades.
Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Next slide, please.
So this is a canyon that has, at the big gray area in the center, I thought I was going
use a really huge Edison's facility in there it's a two mile long canyon it's
400 feet deep the pride that the subject site is at the upper left hand corner of
that slide it is it's right and the really need to do better I'm sorry I
Thank you.
Jennifer Savage.
Hi.
Good afternoon commissioners.
Noting that this item really doesn't fall strictly with Tensor Fighters mission, but
it was interesting to us as an example of how the Coastal Commission can thoughtfully
move forward with increasing housing density in the coastal zone.
While this amendment in Rancho Palos Verdes affects just one parcel, the question is meaningful.
It opens the door to increasing housing without harm to coastal resources, and it's consistent within cities and elements.
This provides greater opportunity for more people to live near and enjoy the coast.
And as someone who gets to live near and enjoy the coast, I'm really grateful for more people able to come.
Approval provides a clear signal that the Commission can strive to accommodate.
California is urging how urgent coastal needs are staying true to the Coastal Act mandate to protect our coast.
Surfighter command staff for a well-reasoned analysis
and we support certification of this commandment.
Small steps like these at examples and help move us
for more resilient and equitable discussions.
Thank you.
Sharon Cowley and Dan Breidleman, followed by Anzum,
Kendra Carney-Mayer, and Dr. Shahzad Kallig.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Thank you for having us.
I live right across the road from this proposed site.
And one thing I haven't heard yet from anyone is the fact that within a mile of this site we
have just lost Wayfarer's Chapel recently. It's been totally dismantled because of the
landslide. We have an active landslide going on right now. We have houses just on the other side
of Wayfarer's Chapel that have no gas and no electricity
because of the landslide.
And we have Catalina View Gardens, up above this area.
And he's somehow, I don't know who approved it,
but he has a vineyard and he has an orchard that he waters.
So he's watering while the city is trying to drain water
from the whole area around the Wayfarers Chapel.
So my view on this is that the city does have property
where they could build multiple family housing.
And there are some beautiful sites.
You haven't heard about them, but they do exist
and they wouldn't be a problem like this particular site is.
So nobody really has looked into this, I don't think.
And if I think we need more time,
and we would appreciate finding out more information
about this, and thank you very much.
Thank you.
Dan Bridleman.
First, I know you must be fired.
You got up at 5 this morning to come here,
and I live at 9 Cliffover Road, just opposite of this site.
This is about my house 30 years ago,
knowing that there could be a fortress.
We have to know how dangerous I think this is for me.
I'm disappointed.
I'm hoping I'm going to get your attention.
Because this is really not.
It is not about it's purely a thought.
Just a couple of facts pointing to me
how quickly they slipped over it.
Yes, there is a landslide a half a mile away.
Is it going to slip or not?
I don't know.
There's a level of risk.
It's just up to you to decide.
This site is just below the Barkington Hill.
Barkington Hill is 800 feet above it.
I took data right from the Halsfordy site.
And in a 20-year event, in one day,
a 10-year storm 27 million gallons of water.
Through that ravine, if they want to put a culvert and concrete
over it, they put Halsford to it.
In a 25 year event, 33 million gallons of water.
Do you want to have houses there?
The reason I was owning this was four homes.
This guy showed you four houses that were right there
in front of you.
But the rest of the neighborhood is single family.
This one's designed for you.
Here's a proposal of 14 units, 3,100 square feet,
36 feet tall, 500 yards from the ocean,
500 yards from the landslide just below the bathroom.
Everybody says, let's go do this.
Realistically, 500 to 600 bucks to build these houses,
14 units, the builder's going to make anywhere
some six and a half to 10 million.
Not about anything else.
The proposal's here for you guys.
I hope you deny it.
I would ask you a question.
Every time we do something like this, one thing at a time
think is small as 1.5 acres right. If I said I'm gonna work for you for a penny
a day for 30 days would you hire me? Thank you sir. I know you're gonna say
thank you but I'm saying no you wouldn't because it cost you ten million dollars
in 30 days. Your time is up, thank you. You need to reject this proposal because it's nothing but a play on fire. Thank you.
Next is Kendra Carney-Mayer followed by Dr. Shahzad, a colleague. Kendra go ahead.
Thank you. Good afternoon chair and commissioners my name is Kendra Carney-Mayer.
mayor. I am a land use attorney representing Tom and Shannon Hartman, residents of Rancher's
Palace Verde's, who live in the residential community adjacent to the Clipper Laudit issue
here. I'm speaking in opposition to the Rancher Palace Verde's LCP amendment for the Clipper
Road property. Yes, this land is vacant. Yes, it is surrounded by residential development,
but there's a critical reason it remains undeveloped that the staff report fails to adequately
address. 30% of this parcel is encumbered by flood hazard designation according to the
recorded assessor's map. The city's own coastal plan designates this site as containing extreme
geological hazards and identifies it as prone to flash flooding from heavy winter rains.
Policies 3 and 7 of the natural environment element prescribed safeguards to guard against
these hazards which staff ignored. The property sits just half a mile from the active Portuguese
Bend landslide area. The city's coastal specific plan identifies this site as within a natural
vegetation and wildlife corridor that would be destroyed by development. The proposed zoning
strips away view protection standards and neighborhood compatibility requirements that
currently exist. Protection specifically required by the local coastal plan. The report in addendum
ignored the following sub-region four policies. Policy one to require new housing within the
confines of sub-region four to be single family. Policy two to develop a budding natural drainage
forest to maintain the natural character of the course. And policy three to require the subdivision
of large parcels within the confines of the region be designed in a manner that will blend
with the existing community pattern. The change proposed eliminates the city's ability to comply
with these policies. Lastly, the Dudek Feasibility Study referenced in the Addendum, indicating that
22 units could still be accommodated, is cursory as it ignores topography, view obstruction,
neighborhood impacts, and the requirement to maintain the natural drainage course.
the commission cannot make the required findings its amendment conforms with the coastal act section
302-36 and 302-50a when it fails to obtain information. I just ask that you deny or at
minimum direct staff to actually review and analyze these fatal inconsistencies. Thank you.
Thank you and Dr. Shahzad Khaliq you should be able to unmute on the phone. I see that you're on
Shahzad Khaliq. You can unmute yourself on the phone by dialing star six if you need to do that.
Say yo.
Awesome.
Good afternoon.
On a roll, Madam Chair, members of Costa Commission, staff,
and participating audience.
I'm Shasta Khalid, member of Opera Abalone Co.
We have submitted our opposition five pages,
followed by 17 to 18 pages of exhibits,
mainly containing crucial emails that
are self-explanatory to the facts of this application
and how it has evolved to its current state.
I'm certain that you all have read it.
Bottom line upfront, this SCPA is not
to meet the estate housing element requirements,
but to fulfill obligations to a wealthy developer having
shared interest perhaps with the city.
And most importantly, it does not meet the requirements
by Coastal Act Chapter 3 policies.
In addition to our fine phrase, that
points out all the violations of Chapter 3, Article 6
Of course, the regulation, I want to be clear, please.
The coastal staff gets to submit a last minute addendum
trying to so vulnerable reasoning to our opposition
by an ill geological report,
flood control, fire hazard risk,
but not us, the public, can be equally have
the same opportunity to formally respond
and address the submitted addendum.
One of the points in the addendum states,
even though HCD did not require this large for compliance
with housing element, but city would like to submit
in excess of the requirement.
What?
This is not the highest school history class
that you like to get a grade higher than minimum for faculty.
This is endangering people's housing and living
and not a stated in the objective of the S EPA.
The second thing that I would like to add this in the addendum
this SCPA involves increasing the intensity of a lot in a very risky region.
Firstly claiming to meet the SCB housing.
I do have 20 seconds, I mean 10 seconds, can I?
Thank you.
We did have one more speaker but we aren't able to find them in the list.
Michael Unger.
Michael Unger, if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand.
Okay, I'm seeing no hands raised.
Madam Chair.
Okay, thank you very much, so we will close the public hearing and return to staff for
the response.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a few brief comments that I'd like to make.
And first off, I'd just like to mention that many of the concerns that were raised today
by members of the public were addressed in the staff report and addendum.
And I did already discuss a little bit in our presentation some of the concerns regarding
fire risk.
elaborate briefly regarding some of the concerns regarding geological hazards
on site. Again as briefly mentioned the presentation today the city staff
geologists as well as the Commission staff geologists did review the site
that include a review of active landslides in the vicinity as well as the
probability of those landslides expanding towards the site. Those
conclusions being that the site is in fact safe and that those landslides would
not expand towards the site. I would just note the staffs Commission's
geologists Phil Johnson is available online should you have more technical
questions regarding that. In addition to this I did discuss briefly in our
presentation today concerns regarding flood risk associated with the existing
drainage course that's identified on the site and there was a reference to
policy 2 which would potentially apply to the site through a future CDP
application with the city. That's all just to say that these concerns are not
related to the LCP amendment request but rather future development on site and any
Any future development on site would have to fully evaluate site constraints, including
a full comprehensive environmental review that also includes geological hazards, and
there may be additional constraints on site, but that's all part of the Coastal Development
Permit Review process and not the LCP amendment process.
And then finally, I'd just like to mention there's a couple points I wanted to correct
that were raised in public comment.
One was that this amendment would not be consistent with policy one of subregion four because
that policy requires all parcels within this area to be of single-family nature.
Policy one is being amended through this LCP amendment request and so therefore associated
with the amendment request of policy one as well as the changes to the land use map it
would be consistent.
I hope I said that clearly.
And then finally the city is not proposing any subdivision of the site at this time so
those policies regarding subdivisions do not apply.
I will wrap up my comments there and turn it over to Mr. Hudson should he have any additional
Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. I'd just like to make one overarching observation as well,
which is of course the you heard a lot of concern about fire and staff shares all concerns
about fire and all our development review or development projects. But we would like
to note that the action before us today is for an LCP amendment only. The actual development
of the site will require a closer development permit and close analysis by the city to address
exactly those sorts of issues.
And while we acknowledge that this site, like many areas in Southern California, is within
a fire hazard area, in this case, staff believes it is still an appropriate site for allowing
multifamily development.
This parcel would not extend into wildland areas where such development should be limited.
But it constitutes infill development within an existing developed residential neighborhood,
and it's surrounded on all sides by other residential structures.
The CDP in our opinion is the appropriate avenue to deal with those sorts of details
relating to fire safety and there are many different mitigation and adaptation measures
that the city will need to evaluate and that includes locating, right sizing, design, building
materials, fire safe landscaping, sprinkler systems, and many other mitigation measures.
So I just wanted, as a reminder, to note that we don't disagree with any of those concerns.
What we do believe that the appropriate avenue for those to be addressed will be the city
CDP process.
Note that staff, this will conclude our comments, but we're available for questions.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Are there any comments or questions from commissioners?
Commissioner Nada?
Um, so I just want to thank the city of Rancho house rates for bringing forward this, um, rezoning, uh, and land use plan amendment, because this is precisely the type of partnership with local jurisdictions that the coastal commission is looking for.
as we address the state's housing crisis.
And up zoning and increasing density in areas
as infill areas is actually one of the hallmarks
of the Coastal Act because the Coastal Act
is designed to direct development
within already urbanized areas.
So this I think is just as Mr. Oateson just said,
I think it's important to recognize
This is just zoning, it's not a project application
at this point, and those details can be worked out
as we move forward, but for the city of Rancho Palos Verdes
as a high resource area with good schools, good libraries,
these are the kind of communities that providing more
housing opportunities within those communities
is precisely what the people of California
are looking for these days.
So I wanted to thank the city and thank the staff
for their recommendation.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Chair.
Having lived in LA County for 35 years,
I will speak about LA County as if I know what I'm talking
about.
In this last fires, I was looking at my son.
My whole family was in LA and in the San Fernando Valley.
And I was looking at the maps.
And I'm like, OK, well, how are they going to get out of there?
The San Fernando Valley, pretty much you get trapped.
And I was looking at it.
I'm like, well, you guys are going
to have to go to the South Bay.
Go towards Long Beach, go to that area.
Hasn't been as scary as some other areas around the county
that we're still, we need to continue developing.
I mean, I think that anywhere in Southern California,
wildfire risk is a significant factor.
And we are going to have to figure out
how to balance our need for more dense housing in infill,
where we should have it, where we can have it.
And of course, through these processes,
ensure that we'll do it as safely as possible.
I did this panel at UCLA about sealable rice and wildfire
risk and how we're thinking about developing.
And folks from the fire department,
they just said places that have burned severely
will continue to burn again.
And we are going to start having to look at that.
And I don't see this particular area as significantly
high-risk as some other parts in the LA County region. So again it's, I mean, safe
would be not to build anywhere I suppose and you know not sure nowadays with
climate change if there's anything foolproof but hopefully you know City
of Palos Vals Bertas will do what it needs to do to protect those residents
and everybody has to play their part in increasing housing availability
throughout the county so thanks. Commissioner Wilson? I don't really have
anything to say beyond what Commissioner Nodoff expressed I think I'd just mirror
that 100%. Commissioner Presiado. I wanted to concur with Commissioner Nodoff's
comments and wanted to express my support and I'll second your motion.
Commissioner Lopez. Yeah before the motion I'll just state that the
the importance of housing right now is the greatest crisis we're facing and I agree there's
so many others right as a state there's wildfire there's flooding global climate change is
definitely impacting us as Californians but my hope and this is going a little further
is that we see a project soon right now as we're talking about it this was the point
of the coastal act was to look at absolutely to look at how we can reduce the impact to
the greater environment by consolidating and really creating denser areas.
I just hope this is, I want to encourage the city now that they've taken this step to keep
going, right, because all these sites I saw on the map, including those outside the coastal
zone, are exactly what we need.
So to that point, right, I hope that we see a project sooner rather than later and happy
to support the proposed motion.
Commissioner Kelly.
Thank you, I just want to align myself with the comments of my fellow commissioners on
this issue and as someone who lives in a county up in northern California where we've had
a number of megafires, I don't want to discount the concerns and fear that is real that residents
all across the state are facing with respect to wildfires.
And we can do both things.
We can mitigate our risk.
We can do vegetation management.
we can do home hardening.
We have seen the state update building standards
to ensure that all new construction is safer
and less prone to fire risk than older structures.
And that is the law of the land,
especially in areas that have been deemed high fire severity.
And so we are doing, as a state, I think,
to the best of our ability, given climate change
and other extreme challenges we're facing
to ensure that the housing that we are building
is safer than the last generation of houses
that we have seen become more prone to fire risk.
I want to support the residents of this community
in that they feel that they are under-resourced
with respect to their fire response.
And that is something that they absolutely have a right
to feel and should be talking to their local elected officials, their city council, their
county and others about how do they ensure that their fire resources meet the moment
that we're living in, whether that's up staffing, passing local tax measures to ensure that
they can fully fund fire resources, all of those things are real and all of those things
are happening up and down the state to ensure that we are meeting this moment with the appropriate
resources to combat the wildfires and extreme events
that we're experiencing.
That said, we also are in a housing crisis.
And that is extreme and real.
And we have people living on the streets
and in shelter and in overcrowded housing
up and down the state.
And those people deserve shelter, too.
And so we are trying to balance these two competing issues.
And I think we are able to successfully do
both of those things effectively up and down the state
where it's appropriate.
And I see this site as being an appropriate site within our purview to allow for multi-family housing to move forward.
And so I want to concur with the comments of Commissioner Lopez and that we do want to see a project move forward in in our lifetime on this site hopefully much sooner than that.
And so thank you for everyone's testimony today and the real feelings that are valid that you are experiencing.
And I just want to acknowledge that and also say we look forward to continuing to partner
and support your community in ensuring that the safety of everyone and that there's secure
housing for more people in our state.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Excuse me.
Sorry.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, everyone, for being here today.
Thank you, staff.
has been mentioned by Deputy Director Hudson the city of RPV is requesting an
amendment to its LCP that is the matter that's before us today so my neighbors
on the hill I feel you I understand exactly how you feel I look up at that
beautiful hill literally every single day it is I've driven those roads I've
I've seen the impact of the landslides.
I understand the fire concerns.
I remember we first moved here in 2014.
I look up on the hill during that drought
that we were experiencing.
And I said, man, that hill is one amber away
from being engulfed.
And we had record rains.
And everything was green.
It was just absolutely beautiful.
And then, with those record rains, in the landslides,
I saw the Wayfarers Chapel, that if those who haven't seen it
was beautiful, when a Frank Lloyd writes,
beautiful, beautiful structures up in the hills.
I've driven those roads.
I've seen the impact of the landslides.
I understand your fire concerns.
The city understands your concerns.
We certainly get it.
The developer hears those concerns, and those concerns will be considered, respected, and
vetted during the entire permitting process.
So nothing you said today is lost on anybody here.
And as my colleague mentioned, you know, the city is going to have to figure out how to
to reconcile all of these concerns during this process.
So thank you for being here.
We understand, we get it.
Again, I'm a neighbor and I understand
what you're going through.
I understand your concerns.
And those will be reconciled and dealt with
during the process.
So thank you for being here.
And thank you again, staff, for your hard work on this issue.
Thank you.
Okay.
So I move that the Commission certify land use plan amendment number LCP-5-RPV-24-0017-1
as submitted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
And I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
It was the first motion by Commissioner Nodoff, second by Commissioner Preciado.
Are there any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the first motion is adopted.
»» Okay.
There's a number 2.
I move that the Commission reject implementation plan amendment number LCP-5-RPV-24-0017-1 as
submitted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
And I recommend a no vote.
»» That is a motion by Commissioner Notoff, a second by Commissioner Preciado.
Any objections to unanimous no's is probably a better way to put that.
Seeing no objections, we unanimously disagree.
Louise, can you help me with that?
Yes.
The IP is approved as submitted.
Perfect.
Thank you.
So unless anyone needs to take a break, I'm going to suggest we continue.
We've got quite a few items left on our agenda.
So that brings us to item 17B and 18A. Yes thank you and that does bring us to
item 17B and 18A. If we could pull up the PowerPoint presentation for these
two items please. So these items share a combined staff report and combined staff
presentation. The city of Long Beach has applied for a coastal development
permit for up to 150,000 cubic yards of material a year that would be dredged
over a ten-year period from various channel bays, bays and harbors in the Long Beach and
Alamitos Bay to maintain existing navigation channels and that material would be placed
at public beaches in Long Beach.
There is also, the second item before us today is the related federal consistency certification
for the same project and that's the disposal of some of the dredged material that wouldn't
qualify for beach disposal and that would need to be placed offshore within two basins
that are EPA approved.
That's LA2 ocean dredge or one basin called LA2 ocean dredge material disposal site.
Now the proposed dredging would amount to a continuation of the city's now expired but
previously approved maintenance dredging operations, beach nourishment program and ocean dispersal
program that has been approved by the Commission previously over the past 31
years and was most recently approved by the Commission with a 10-year
authorization period in December of 2014. Next slide please. The maintenance
dredging will be conducted in various channels, bays, and harbors in the city of
Long Beach including but not limited to the LA River estuary, shoreline marina,
Rainbow Harbor, Alameda Bay, Marine Stadium, the southwest portions of the
Cerritos Channel and other areas. Dredged sediment deemed suitable for disposal
will be or deemed suitable for beach nourishment will be used along the
city's ocean fronting beaches at Alameda's, Cherry, and Peninsula beaches.
And those locations are shown here in yellow on this slide. Dredged material
unsuitable for beach nourishment. So if that was contaminated material it would
be disposed of at the LA 2 basin the EPA approved LA 2 basin and that is
located about six miles offshore the city of San Pedro now if the dredge
material is determined unsuitable for disposal and does not meet the criteria
for beach nourishment the dredge and if it wasn't didn't qualify for disposal
the LA 2 that would need to be disposed of at an upland disposal area pursuing
to the conditions of approval and as proposed by the applicant.
So there's three potential solutions depending on how clean this material is.
Next slide, please.
The proposed dredging and disposal program is largely identical to those approved by
the commission previously, pursuant to our previous CDPs and previous consistency determinations.
Key elements include the annual limit of 150,000 cubic yards of material over a 10-year period.
General sediment analysis, chemical testing and characterization for each dredging episode
will occur.
Limits on dredging and beach replenishment to ensure the no eel grass is adversely affected.
And Clerpa taxifolia, that's the invasive vegetation, marine vegetation surveys are
also required for each and every event.
The city's currently proposed dredging and disposal program updates the prior programs
in several ways.
First, the expiration date is set to 2035 granting a 10-year authorization period compared
to the previous five years.
I think I may have said the previous one was 10 years, but that was incorrect.
Previously we had a five-year term.
This would extend it to a 10-year term.
And that's because after 31 years we believe we have adequate information to allow for
that extension with the additional surveys that would occur for each event.
And third, it proposes to use hydraulic dredge and hopper dredge methods for maintenance
dredging, so just a different method of how dredging occurs.
Then fourth and finally, minor knockdown or minor activity for small shoals to redistribute
material without actually removing it from the water, and that's called a knockdown activity.
And that's to facilitate boat traffic within these channels.
Dredge quantities of specific areas in the project range will vary widely, ranging from
200 to the 100,000 cubic yard max of dredging per year.
The maximum dredge quantity is requested to remain unchanged for the period of 10 years,
though the city may actually do just a small portion of that in any individual year.
Now, the primary issues associated with this are, of course, potential impacts to recreation
Water Quality and Sensitive Biological Resources.
And this CDP has been conditioned with all the typical conditions the Commission has
required for all other similar dredging CDPs that the Commission has approved up and down
the coast.
And that's to avoid impacts to recreation, water quality, and biological resources.
Now I would note that there is an addendum to this item, making some minor revisions
and corrections to the report and responding to a letter of interest from the Sierra Club.
And their letter requests four changes to the required conditions.
First they would ask to modify the eelgrass mitigation ratio from 1.38 to 1 to a 2.2 to
1 mitigation ratio.
Second they would like marine resource surveying before dredging activity and mitigation for
for adverse impacts, three, extend the period of time
the beach nourishment activities are prohibited
during breeding season for an additional two weeks
from March 1st to September 15th,
as opposed to the March 1st to September 1st period
that is regulated within our current condition.
And for a reduction of permit authorization period
from 10 years to they're asking for a limitation
of only a two year authorization period.
Now in regard to these requests for changes, staff would note that first the restoration
of any potentially impacted eelgrass habitat at that 1.38 to 1 ratio and the nesting season
duration, those are the criteria and the protocols that the Commission has typically required
for all similar other projects up and down the coast for dredging.
And those protocols and criteria aren't just based on other federal and state requirements
that have been thoroughly reviewed and vetted by the Commission's own staff ecologists.
And we believe that those are the correct ratios and time periods, including the nesting
season duration.
So we don't recommend that any changes to these conditions be made.
And we believe that's important to ensure consistency across the board for all these
projects.
In regard to the request for additional surveys, I would note first that we believe this is
already accomplished by the condition and no additional surveys are necessary.
And that's because a marine habitat survey was completed for the project area.
And also special conditions 11, 12, and 13 each require pre-construction surveys and
monitoring before, during, and after each dredging and nourishing event.
And that specifically for eel grass, the invasive calerpa vegetation and for the protection
of bird species.
And the commission's ecology staff again for the same reasons I just mentioned for those
other conditions do not believe that additional surveys and monitoring would be necessary
and for consistency we believe that this is important to continue to maintain the criteria
that the commission has applied to other similar projects.
And finally in regard to the request that the permit term be shortened from ten years
to only two, this CV staff knows this permit is intended to allow for the programmatic
approval of dredging of beach nourishment activities for efficiency purposes and so
that the city isn't constantly coming back to the commission for approval.
Now in this case we have more than 30 years of experience with this exact program and
we've permitted this same program many times in the past.
We do have a good understanding of the potential impacts and we believe this is a good candidate
for extending that period of time of authorization by 10 years.
We still receive the same monitoring.
I would note the purpose of having a limit on the time period for these permits is not
simply to make an applicant continue to come back to the commission but because the coast
is an ever evolving area, conditions could change on the site and as well as our special
conditions could change over time but we don't believe that two years would be an appropriate
window of time.
The ten years we believe is more than adequate for us to review those sorts of concerns and
come back to the commission for a reevaluation and so we continue to recommend this item
be approved today subject to the 16 special conditions listed in the staff report.
Next slide please.
So in closing I would just note that staff is recommending approval of this project.
We do believe it's consistent with all standards of review and the resource protections of
the Coastal Act as conditioned and we recommend concurrence with the consistency certification.
The applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendation.
There are two motions to accomplish the staff recommendation and those are located on page
six of the staff report.
That concludes my presentation.
I am available for questions.
Great.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
Are there any expertise?
Okay.
Seeing none.
Go to Simone.
Is the applicant available or intending to speak?
They should be available on Zoom.
Let me check real quick.
Larry Jannet, if you're available.
I am here.
Are you available?
Would you like to speak, sir?
Or just available for questions?
Available for questions.
Great.
Thank you.
Now we'll move to public comment.
Yes, we have two they are both in person and control and Anna Christa said
Good afternoon and control Sierra Club
Sierra Club supports the staff report and the estuary dredging with the additions of these special conditions
number one the replacement of
Adversely impacted eelgrass appears insufficient
There is no way of knowing how much eelgrass has been destroyed during the nearly four years of
unpermitted dredging.
Special condition number one should read the ratio of seal grass
replacement should be increased from
1.38 to 1 to 2 to 1.
Number two, no mention is made of marine life other than eelgrass
being adversely affected by the dredging.
Alameda Spade is home to a variety of fish, invertebrates,
moles, and other even seahorses.
Google seahorses in Alameda Spade, this is sea proof.
Special condition number two, a survey of marine life
must be required before dredging and mitigations made for any adverse effects.
Number three, there's a long list of mitigations to protect nesting shorebirds.
A simpler solution would be to avoid sand placement activities during breeding season.
season. Special Edition 3, no sand placement activities during bird breeding season March
1st to September 15th. Number 4, because of the possibility of adverse results of dredging
on plant and animal marine life, we request a two-year permit instead of 10 years. Special
condition for, pardon me, unless these special conditions are added we cannot support the
project. Anna Kristensen, I'll read special condition for because of the possibility of
adverse results of dredging on plant and animals and marine life we request a two-year permit
instead of a 10. With all due respect to Mr. Hudson and the staff I would like to quote
my mother, consistency is the hobgoblin of small mines.
There's a reason the Coastal Commission
has individual permits.
This is an individual permit for very specific areas.
What might be sufficient eelgrass in maybe even
in the Cerritos Channel might not be in the bay.
And we realized that at the last minute,
they'll do some kind of a survey, you know,
but we still would like this permitting to go forward.
As far as nesting season, there seems to be any number
of nesting seasons depending on which bird
and which project and who you ask.
But we have birds nesting all year long.
Now on the sand, I don't think we have birds nesting
on the sand in Long Beach.
I don't know about that.
We used to before the drilling projects got bigger.
Anyway, so I would just like to say that 10 years
And maybe two is too short, but what about five?
Could we compromise on this?
Dredging is done for multiple reasons, and so we appreciate the benefits of dredging.
But dredging and dumping together, and grading our sand beaches, and dumping on them, we're
losing.
We're losing wildlife.
The idea that we're not losing wildlife, that our water, that our water, our birds
are disappearing from our coastal zones.
They're disappearing from the whole United States.
We know that, right?
So we can't just stick with what we've done in the past.
We have to have stricter controls
over any human activity because it's the human benefits,
the benefit for bigger boats and more places to build
and more places for people directly.
Even though we appreciate that part of the Coastal Act,
we do really need to have a strong focus
on protecting wildlife.
Thank you very much.
That completes public comment.
Thank you.
Mr. Hudson, anything further to add?
Thank you.
Maybe just very briefly to note that one of the comments
asserted that there may have been unpermitted dredging.
Staff has no evidence of any unpermitted dredging
that has occurred.
And in the interest of brevity, I
would just note that the other issues that were just noted
were, I just had to address those in the staff presentation.
And so I won't repeat those.
But note the staff recommends approval without changes to the special conditions that were
available for questions.
Thank you.
I'll turn to my fellow commissioners.
Comments, questions, or motions?
They're on page six.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart.
We have that afternoon dip here happening, I can see.
All right.
Okay, so page six.
I move that the Commission approve coastal development permit 5-23-0198,
to staff recommendation request a yes vote.
That's the first part.
Second.
Motion by Vice Chair Hart, second by Commissioner Kelly.
Any objections to unanimous approval?
Seeing none, so approved.
I move that the commission conditionally concur with consistency certification CC-0008-24
on the grounds that if modified in accordance with special condition one,
the project described therein would be consistent with the enforceable policies of the California
Coastal Management Program and would be conducted in a manner consistent with that program.
And I'm requesting a yes vote.
Thank you.
Motion by Vice Chair Hart, second by Commissioner Preciado.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
The commission conditionally concurs.
Okay.
I'm sensing we need a brief break, so let's please be back at 3.45.
Thank you.
Okay everybody.
Thank you.
Thanks everyone.
All right, we are now on item 18, excuse me, 17D.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We are on item 17D.
If we could pull up the PowerPoint presentation please.
17D is a CDP application by Benjamin Schonbrunn for construction of a new three-story, 12,983
square foot mixed use building with 16 welding units.
Three of which will be set aside for very low income households and 1,363 square feet
of ground floor retail and take out restaurant space.
And this is located in the Venice community in the city of Los Angeles.
Next slide, please.
Now as shown on this aerial photograph, the subject site is a beachfront lot located in
Venice on the corner of the popular beachfront public access way ocean front walk and Park
Avenue.
Avenue is a designated public walk street pursuant to the city's certified
Venice Land Use Plan or LUP and walk streets are those streets where no
vehicle traffic is allowed and pedestrian traffic only is allowed. Now
the lot was previously developed with a two-story almost 7,000 square foot
commercial building and that building was damaged by a fire in January of 2021.
Now it was subsequently demolished and that occurred without the required CDP
And that was at the behest of safety requirements from the city of LA.
And this application thusly includes the request for the after fact approval of that demolition
of the previous structure.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows a rendering or an elevation of the proposed development which includes
a new three story 38 foot high, 4 inch, 38 4 inch high structure.
There will be almost 13,000 square feet in size, and it includes a mix of commercial
space in those 16 residential units, three of which, as I mentioned, will be designated
for affordable units only for the life of the development.
Specifically, the ground floor includes 1,363 square feet of commercial retail, including
a takeout restaurant.
The second and third levels have the 16 apartment units.
The affordable units will be comparable in size to the market rate units and they would
be dispersed throughout the second and third levels.
The applicant includes provision of 26 bicycle spaces as well as 9 parking spaces for resident
use only.
Two of those 9 spaces would be reserved for a residents only electric car share program
and that's to help reduce demand for vehicles owned by the residents.
The project also includes a 1,488 square foot residential rooftop deck with three roof
access structures, and that's to that deck is necessary to satisfy the open space requirements
by the City of LA.
The VNSLUP includes a density bonus policy that allows for mixed use developments like
this one to receive incentives, including reduced parking, allowing for additional height
and increased density when affordable units are included as part of the proposal.
In this case the proposed project relies on those density bonus incentives that are specifically
allowed by the VNSLUP.
That's to exceed the normally allowed building height, reduce the vehicle parking requirements
and exceed the number, height and size of normally allowed roof access structures.
The additional height and density in staff's opinion would not result in any new significant
impacts to public views and the applicant is proposing a substantial transportation
demand management program which they have worked with our staff to develop and that
addresses potential impacts to public access that would occur from the reduction in parking.
Next slide, please.
There is an addendum for this item which makes one change to the staff report and recommendation
and to delete Special Edition 1 which required revised plans for the for a second rooftop
access way to be unenclosed.
And the revised plans also required elimination of roofies to minimize visual impacts.
And as discussed in more detail in the addendum, after continued coordination with both the
applicant and the city this week, the roof access stairway at the rear of the building
must remain enclosed to comply with fire department requirements.
And staff concurs with that.
In addition, the roof eves have been designed to not extend beyond the footprint of the
first floor.
They do provide additional articulation in the design and do not, and we do not believe
they would result in significant impacts to public views.
The staff does not believe their removal is still necessary and thus the staff recommendation
is modified so that special condition one is deleted.
With this change, it is our understanding that the applicant is now in agreement with
the staff recommendation.
Now the addendum also responds to two comments from members of the public that were received
following publication of the staff report including a letter from the Venice neighborhood
Council opposing the use of roof decks to provide open space and the use of
roof access structures on building three stories or taller such as this
project and their concerns primarily resolve revolve around community
character really the height and scale amassing of these buildings. Now the
issue is addressed in both the staff report and the addendum and the
provision of rooftop deck is the method being selected by the city to meet their
open space requirements, and our staff does concur with the city that this is a
necessary trade-off in some of these cases, such as this one where increased
density is being allowed in urban areas, there is not enough area on a site to
provide for typical yards and landscaped areas, and thus these rooftop
decks may be the only open space area available to or for residential units. We
believe in this case this is an equitable trade-off given that we're
We're going to achieve 16 residential units here, including these affordable units.
There was also an email from Chris Peterson objecting to special condition 4C and that
condition required implementation of the parking plan proposed by the applicant and specifically
is objecting to the provision of nine parking spaces which was memorialized by that condition.
And those nine parking spaces included those two spaces for the ride sharing and he asserts
that that condition, in his opinion, is inconsistent with state law AB 2097 which restricts public
agencies from imposing parking requirements in certain situations.
As fully addressed in the addendum and in the staff report, the state law Mr. Peterson
references in his letter that limits parking requirements does not preclude the commission
or local governments from requiring appropriate mitigation measures when necessary to avoid
impacts to public access.
In this case, pursuant to the revisions of the certified Venice LUP, the mixed use project
with both commercial space and 16 residential units would typically require 55 parking spaces.
However, in this case, consistent with requirements of AB 2097 as well as the density bonus provisions
of the city's certified Venice LUP, this project will only be providing nine parking spaces.
Now, given this project's beachfront location, it's lack of normally required parking, this
could result in use by residents of the existing on-street parking that's currently available
for beachgoers.
And that could result in adverse impacts to public access.
And thus, that's the purpose of the condition that we receive this objection to.
To mitigate those potential public access impacts, the applicant is proposing a suite
of mitigation measures, including the provision of those two electric vehicles that will
be used for car sharing by the residents, implementation 26 bicycle parking spaces and
a transportation demand management program that would include free transit passes for
employees of the commercial spaces as well as other provisions as well.
I would just note that our staff appreciates the willingness and flexibility of the applicant
to propose these mitigation measures, especially the vehicle sharing program which I think
is projectively innovative and could be a model for other multifamily residential projects.
These mitigation measures are necessary to minimize the project's impacts to access.
And I would note that we're not regulating parking or putting restriction on parking.
That condition's purpose is to memorialize the suite of mitigation measures proposed
by the applicant to offset the potential impacts
to public access.
And that if a component of this project were to change,
so if the project description were to change
and that includes changing the number
of proposed parking spaces,
that would potentially require modifications
to the other components or mitigation measures
and require additional mitigation.
And so that's why special condition 4C is worded the way
it is.
It simply memorializes all the provisions proposed
by the applicant how they will mitigate the adverse impacts to public access and so we
don't recommend any change to this condition.
Next slide, please.
In closing, staff does believe this project is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies
of the Coastal Act and the policies of the city's certified LUP which is used as guidance
and we recommend approval of this application subject to the 13 special conditions listed
in the staff report and what the changes made in the addendum in which I just read in on
the mic.
The motion to accomplish this recommendation can be found on page 5 of your reports.
That concludes my presentation.
Staff is available for questions.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
Are there any ex partes on this item?
Okay.
Seeing no ex partes, we'll open the public hearing and start with the applicant.
Yes.
We have Jesse Harris and Ramzi Dom.
I should be here in person.
Hello, commission.
My name is Jesse Harris.
I'm with the office of Bryan Silver and Associates.
We are the representatives on this project.
Just to clarify, Ramsey Dom is the principal architect
of the firm that designed the project.
He's available to answer questions,
but he doesn't necessarily need to speak
if there are no questions directed at him.
Mr. Harris, can I ask, how many minutes would you like?
You know, the standard two minutes is fine,
and I probably don't need that much.
Awesome, thank you.
Of course.
I just wanna say I concur with everything
in the staff report.
We think that staff did a wonderful job
presenting the project and did so pretty thoroughly.
I was gonna stand up here and tell you about
how it was destroyed in a fire back in 2021
and how I think that the resurrection of this project
is especially meaningful because the property owner
decided to do a mixed income residential project.
And to my knowledge, there haven't
been any covenanted affordable units on the Venice Boardwalk
in decades.
I also do want to mention that currently the lot is
a vacant lot on the Venice Boardwalk.
And anyone who is familiar with the Venice Boardwalk
knows that that invites quite a lot of nuisances.
And so I think in our conversations
with neighbors of the project site.
People seem to be really excited to get something
at all on the site.
In the interim, we have personally hired,
the project team has hired a security team
to monitor the site, and that we could call at any time
if there are unauthorized occupants on the site.
And that in itself is a nuisance.
And on a personal level, not something that I'm happy to do.
And so I really appreciate staff's recommendations.
And I'm excited to see this get built.
I think it's a beautiful project
and I will remain here
and open to any questions you have.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, so we have a total of seven speakers
but we're only showing four right now.
So we'll start with Jennifer Savage.
She's in person.
And then we'll go with the rest on Zoom.
I had joked about bringing clothes to change
Like so I could do costume changes.
We cannot bore you with the same outfit every time.
Jennifer Savage, Surf Rider Foundation.
Surf Rider commends Coastal Commission staff
for the innovative and thoughtful handling
of public access regarding this mixed use project.
Public access is a huge part
of Venice's iconic beach culture,
and we really appreciated the effort
that staff put into finding solutions here,
particularly with the transportation demand management plan,
the resident-only electric vehicle car share,
26 bicycle spaces and a transit fare reimbursement program for employees.
This is a climate-smart access strategy that both encourages alternative transportation
and eases public congestion.
I think this is super cool, like I would love to see this become a more normal thing.
Together, these measures help reduce vehicular trips, ease parking pressure, and maintain
pedestrian benefits.
Overall, the conditions required show that the Commission is saying yes to affordable
housing and mixed-use development in a way that keeps public access at the
center. We urge the Commission to approve this permit with the recommended
conditions intact. Thank you. Thank you. Next will be the read-on zoom which is
This is Ira Coslo, followed by Robin Rudisill,
followed by Gail Rogers.
Ira Coslo.
Ira, if you can unmute yourself.
Oh, hi.
Hello.
Hello, go ahead.
Great.
I'm Ira Coslo.
I'm a 50-year resident of Park Avenue,
right up the block from the site.
And the thing that strikes me as incredible
is I just heard the number.
55 parking spots would be normal.
And because of mitigations, which I know a lot about,
it's nine?
Are they kidding?
This is going to be a terrible thing.
And we'll have these people back asking
for other mitigations for something
because they're going to lose money.
Also, people start with a walk-up takeout restaurant,
and it turns into a full restaurant.
And that happened with the clothing store
on the corner of Brooks and Pacific.
They had to have a walk-up takeout.
Now it's a full restaurant.
They did away with all their clothing inside the store,
and they use the parking lot for their tables.
And I don't know, asking for all of these things
which are legal to an owner.
I'm not talking about the architects
who have been very cooperative.
I'm talking about the owner who allowed
a homeless camp to exist when he sublet his place
The Snapchat for 19 to 25,000 a month
and didn't spend five cents cleaning up the area around
the mail piled up at the front door.
It was terrible.
My wife tried to have meetings with one of the partners
who canceled four times.
So we are not very happy.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ira. Next is Robin Rudecil.
Hi, it's Robin, Rudecil Citizens Preserving Venice.
I want to say that I am in strong support of this project.
And first of all, excellent job by staff on the parking and public access issues.
Very difficult with all these new laws.
Also, I want to point out that this is just the kind of project
replacing a 100 percent commercial building with a mixed use building
with residential units and affordable housing
that we want to fully support.
You may remember we've opposed mixed use projects
in the past, but those were projects
that replaced residential structures
with mixed use structures,
which is a violation of the Mellow Act
and displaces existing residents living at lower rents.
So demo of a commercial building to build mixed use
with residential and affordable housing
is going in the right direction.
When I read the initial staff report,
I was happy to see condition one,
special condition one to limit the roof access structures.
However, I noticed the addendum this morning
and was disappointed to see you've concluded
that compliance with that condition is infeasible.
But nebulous statements like they are located
where necessary to provide safe access to the roof deck
doesn't really explain it.
So we really would like to understand this,
a more clear, maybe detailed explanation.
What are the unique circumstances and constraints here?
Why can a residential project have stairs coming up
from within the building without a roof access structure
or outside stairs, but not a commercial project.
This is a significant issue
and we need to have more information on the reasons.
A simple explanation, not the vague reasons in the addendum.
The statement that roof access structures are necessary
to provide the proposed affordable units is nonsense
and doesn't explain it at all
and shows how weak the density bonus law is
as developers can say that about anything they want to do.
We understand the need for the additional height
to accommodate the affordable units,
but the roof access structures make
an already over height building way too massive.
Please find a way to reinstate special condition one.
Thank you.
Thank you Robin.
Next is Gail Rogers.
We're gonna allow you to talk.
Gail, you can unmute yourself.
Okay. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Hi, I'm Gail Rogers, 40-50 year resident.
I want to thank Jesse Harris and Brian Silvera
that are working on this project.
They've been so communicative,
unlike the owner of the building, who wasn't.
I always tried to speak with his partner,
another lawyer, and she'd always cancel.
Okay, so we call ourselves Parklandia,
and we pride ourselves on low fences.
And one of my concerns is that this walk-up food window
will put tables and chairs in front of it on the boardwalk.
And then we'll get a band with amplified music
playing opposite like on Dudley,
where they now have high fences
and they've all left for higher ground.
So we would like to maintain our low fences
and not have amplified music streaming up the block.
So that's one of my concerns.
And also, yeah, if there's food, there's
going to be garbage going up the block.
OK.
When I wrote down that I was going to do this meeting,
I said there'd be somebody else.
And her name is Barbara Brown.
So I don't know how we're going to be able to do that,
because she's sitting right here.
And she wrote a really nice speech, but I don't know.
OK, try to do 30 seconds.
Can she do that?
Go ahead.
to do 30 seconds. Do I press something? She registered to speak? She's on the list but she didn't go on the
Zoom so. But she did register? Yes she did. Okay. I can. She did. She'll have two minutes. So she'll have
two minutes after, yeah, yes. All right, we're giving you two minutes. Okay, I am Barbara Brown,
a 52-year tenant of 85 years old on the top floor of 17 Park Avenue, which is the Speedway and Park
Avenue. Can we have you speak a little closer to the mic? We're having a little trouble hearing you.
Okay.
We can start you over.
I'm at the top floor of the last house on Park Avenue, directly across from the burned
out lot.
That happened, that fire happened early in the morning, in 15 minutes it was a four alarm
fire and you know, there were flames in my face, 25 feet away.
If there had been one mile an hour of wind, I would have been dead and the whole block
or Venice burned.
This was an accident about to happen for many years of their having addicted meth addicts.
And you know, Mr. Schanker moved to New York after he sublet to Snapchat for 19,000 a month.
was done about tremendous homeless situation for many years. At any rate, Mr. Schomburg
proposes a building five stories high, including three 10-foot roof accesses in place of a
25 to 30-foot building, which he was in for about 20 years. He had a spacious room in
the front of the building of the converted synagogue that was all open in the middle
and there were no food vending, there were no deliveries, there was no garbage, there
was no parking issue. 16 apartments with nine parking spaces included is outrageous. More
likely there would be 30 parking spaces required at the least. I Street Park as a building
has no parking and I walk at least seven blocks to park. People will not like doing
this. At any rate, as we see with our president, the disease of our time is greed. The building
is not adding to the character of historic, much loved and visited Venice. Mr. Schomburg
is an A-plus year old sick man with no children.
Thank you, ma'am.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That completes our public comments.
Miss Gowan, say what I needed to say about the movie theory.
Thank you, Miss Gail.
Have a good day.
OK, thank you very much.
That closes the public hearing.
And I'll return to our staff.
Mr. Hudson, if you have a comment.
Thank you.
First, we're going to start the staff comments
with Danny Ziff, planning supervisor in our South Coast
District office to address the questions raised
by Ms. Rudicell regarding some of her questions
on development fire safety in relation to roof access
structures.
Danny, take it over, please.
Yeah, good afternoon, commissioners.
So we looked at a number of different alternatives
regarding the roof access structure.
The number of roof access structures needed
and their sizes corresponds with the number of units
that are being provided.
Whereas a lot of projects we see in Venice
are single family residences or lower density projects.
So the number is the minimum necessary from that standpoint.
In terms of the requirements
that we had initially contemplated
for the roof access structure,
One option was to have the roof access structure
open to the rooftop without a significantly
tall roof access structure itself.
That is infeasible due to specific fire building codes,
which we did confirm with city staff.
We also looked at switching the stairwell
to an exterior stairs so that no roof access structure
would be needed.
In order to do that and meet other city requirements,
there would have needed to be an additional 10 foot setback
from the rear property line,
which would have resulted in the loss
of three additional parking spaces
and had to make a significant design changes
making the 300 to 600 square foot units
that are proposed even smaller.
So that was determined to be unfeasible.
And then finally we looked at moving
the enclosed roof access structure
away from the walk street, so towards the adjacent building.
And that would have required basically a flip-flop
of the whole design of the ground floor,
which ultimately was determined to be infeasible
because the LUP also requires that access
to residences be provided on the walk street.
And there was no way to relocate the entry hall
without additionally losing parking space
or the required bathrooms in the retail
and restaurant uses.
And I think that's it for Robin's question.
So I'll turn it back over to Steve.
All right, thank you, Danny.
And just very briefly, I just want to add a little context
on why we're talking about roof access structures
and why it matters.
The VNSLUP, we interpret that as having a policy
that limits roof access structures
one of the structures for single family residential projects.
It has become a matter of community character issues because those structures allowed to
exceed the roof height and so there's a limit on their size.
We believe that it's likely that there may be a need for more of these structures, more
than one when you're dealing with multifamily, but we don't have a clear policy on how that
would apply.
And so we've been discussing this matter with the city and we've asked that the real, I
believe the real avenue to provide clarity for this going forward on multifamily projects
is in the upcoming LCP update in their LCP.
And so this needs a policy fix, and these sorts of details
are hard to deal with on project-by-project basis.
But we believe we have a good fit for this one
because we're using the density bonus provisions,
and that allows for these sorts of minor details
where we can exceed a policy.
And we believe this is a good candidate for that
being a multi-family project, that we don't believe
it will result in significant view issues.
And so with that, I'm going to conclude our staff comments
and just know that we are available for questions.
Great.
Thank you.
I'll bring it back to the commission.
Comments, questions, motion?
Oh, Commissioner Preciado.
I had to push that.
Thank you.
I'm learning.
One of the curious things that we are all
experiencing up and down the state,
not necessarily just on the coast,
but these bonus densities that create parking, well,
parking deserts, I think they're called.
And so that's why I'm very interested
in the mitigation associated with public transportation
or other methods.
And I'm also interested in the accessibility of the building
in terms of all of the floors, given
when you have inclusionary housing options, sometimes they support the
elderly, sometimes they support other communities that may be impacted, and
so for the full enjoyment of the facility, I'm just wondering what is
the mechanism to support all residents to get to the top floor, because
I've heard discussion about the stairwells, but I'm still waiting to hear about the elevator,
which I know may not necessarily be required according to ordinances or zone or whatever,
but I'm just trying to think about making this place livable.
And if I make comment, I know I'm getting clarification from you, but we just through
entitlement, we just are going to have a 77-unit complex with only three parking spaces.
And you'd wonder, well, what's wrong with you?
But many of the entitlements or opportunities that the law, that many of the state laws
provided are creating a community of people who may not be necessarily users of automobiles.
As an example, 20 of the units of the 77 are reserved for a neurodivergent program that
is supporting individuals who need to be assisted.
And so the three parking spaces that are available are for the 24-hour social work team that
will be supporting those residents to live there.
Another element that we are encouraging our housing department to pursue, and I'm just
bringing it up, is to hire or to seek applications for people who are interested in participating
in public transportation activities or who live, who work in the immediate vicinity of
the facilities so it's there's a rationale for abandoning the need for a
car so I just wanted to hear from staff about accessibility issues in the
building if any and secondly about how broad is the the requirement for the
transportation plan or is that something that the applicant and the city will
work on and bring back as they move forward.
Thank you.
And through the chair, I'm happy to respond.
Those are all great questions that our staff were focused on when we were reviewing this
application.
I'll start with the elevator, because that's the simplest.
And in this case, we won't have an accessibility issue.
This building includes an elevator, and that provides access to all the floors and to the
roof deck.
That was an issue we discussed during our review of this, because those structures,
those three rooftop access structures, two are stairs, one is an elevator, they exceed
the normally required footage limitations and the number.
So this exceeded all those regular limitations.
But it was important.
And the reason we believe that these concessions or these expansions were appropriate was for
just the reason that you just explained is that in order to provide that accessibility
of the roof for other advantaged people, it was necessary to have this larger than typically
sized elevator and to allow for both stairs and elevators, and the openings for these
elevators include areas that are large enough for wheelchairs and other folks with different
means of ambulation to access the roof and so we believe that that that will be
addressed adequately. The parking desert comment is interesting and of course
that is really at the the heart of how do we find balance between these new
state laws that limit our ability to require parking and how do we find other
creative methods and we agree with some of the with the comments we received
including from mr. Peterson that we we are limited we can't require parking in
this particular case so we looked at these other alternatives and the TDMP
was the opportunity to provide sort of a creative out-of-the-box thinking now
there are some standard provisions of these TDMPs it I'll say it is easier
through a TDMP for us to regulate commercial development because we can
use provisions such as requirements that the employees be provided with free transit passes
by the employers.
And we have done that in this case and that's a requirement of this TDMP.
We can put requirements for bicycle parking and other sorts of provisions and those translate
well for the commercial.
It can be more challenging for the residential because in apartment units, of course, some
Some of those requirements for free transit would likely just be passed into increases
in the rent.
So we looked for other options in addition to the bicycle parking.
That included this vehicle sharing program which was proposed by the applicant.
The commission has used this sort of creative solution in other cases.
I have seen this in particularly larger residential projects.
This is one of the smaller residential projects where I have seen this used.
I think it's creative and will help address that loss of parking.
But it is challenging to try to find that one-to-one correlation of if we're losing
this many parking spaces, does that correlate into a true equivalency?
And so that's going to, it's going to be a challenge as we feel our way forward on these
and we're going to struggle with how do we ensure that we're adequately mitigating these
public access impacts and these projects going forward.
I think this one strikes a balance that we're comfortable with.
We're hoping strikes that correct balance.
And we're going to continue bringing these projects to you forward in the future and
trying to answer this question.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson?
Thank you.
So I'll just focus on the parking and the comments from Mr. Peterson.
So when I just look at the location where these spots are and I just look at the square
footage and then you look at the second story, the square footage is equivalent to two apartments
basically.
That's when you just put one on top of there in terms of just the square footage.
And so I'm just wondering if the, you know, we talk about parking in terms of requirements
in terms of minimum parking requirements.
That's been put on to developers, right?
But oftentimes, developers want some parking.
So it's not necessarily a requirement.
It's a design feature as proposed by the developer.
And so I wouldn't mind hearing from the developer their sort of perspective on this, what's
kind of come out of this process.
Would they have preferred to done this differently or are they feeling burdened by...
Is this project feeling burdened by the parking that's here, which is far less than 55, which
I think is great in the direction we should be definitely going in, but I would want to
know where we are on that, because as I've said before, it's like we have a housing crisis
and we have a parking inconvenience, right?
And so we just want to address that and be realistic about it.
We also have to talk about access because we've heard stories about people and not stories
which is real.
Most people don't live on the coast.
They have to get to the coast somehow.
We have to accommodate for that in some way and it's very important to do so.
Do you think the developer would be able to respond or to sort of address that and just
give us some candid thoughts on where that is and how this might have been different
if there wasn't nine spots there.
You're on.
All right, thank you for your question.
I'd be happy to provide an answer to that.
So when this project was originally designed,
one, there was no such thing as AB 2097,
so that was not ever within our purview
when we were designing it.
And we also originally planned it with vehicle stackers.
So according to the density bonus state law
and then the local LA City law by way of state law,
for density bonus projects, you are allowed to provide
one parking space per residential unit,
regardless of affordability.
That's known locally as parking option one.
And so with the use of vehicle stackers,
we were going to be able to provide 16 parking spaces.
While this project was being designed
and then deliberated by the city and city planning commission
of Los Angeles and the planning department,
the fire regulations for vehicle stackers were updated,
and they now require three feet between each parking space
and also like a five by eight mechanical room
separate from the building's mechanical room in the garage.
And so it completely eliminated any parking
that we would have gained from including the stackers
at a cost of one million dollars for the stackers.
Also the neighbors of the projects
that other vehicle stackers in the area
make kind of a lot of noise.
And so they weren't really pleased
with the inclusion of vehicle stackers
right up against those single family
and sort of smaller scale multi-family homes.
I think this is an area, I mean,
obviously it qualifies for AB 2097
and that is because it is very centrally located.
It's close to a lot of transit.
it's about a stone's throw away from Windward Circle
where you have the intersection of multiple buses
and not really far from the Expo Line train station
which could give users access to virtually the entire city.
So yeah, while originally we did wanna provide more parking,
that became clear that that was just not gonna be feasible.
I don't even need to state that it's impossible
to go underground here, the water table's too high
and I doubt that you all would have approved it.
Well, it's not about that, and that's not my question,
but I appreciate that.
So what I'm asking is that do you see these parking spaces
as an asset to your project?
Do you see what I'm saying versus some other use
in the space?
I think the parking spaces are an asset.
I actually think that the electric vehicle car
share is also a really big asset.
The particular company that we've contacted to provide them
Envoy has spoken about other locations where they're providing the service, and, you know,
of course, they're selling us the service.
But if you look at the numbers, it is a really popular service.
So I think the parking space is an asset, and especially that parking demand management
strategy of the vehicle.
You have answered my question beautifully.
I really appreciate it.
The nerd factor was awesome in terms of the space between the this and the, I love it.
So, but to the point and you've answered the question because what we're faced with so
often is it's a requirement that a developer would say like, hey, I would be building more
of units if you didn't make me do parking, but in this case parking is an asset so we're
not, it's a little bit different conversation, so I just wanted to clarify that in this case
because this is, again, it's a much reduced parking,
lots of units with affordable components,
and then this great transportation components,
and it sounds to me like a very willing
and engaged developer to get to that place.
There's one more point I want to say
that I really like about this is the setback on the rooftop,
because I really, I've mentioned before
and even in Venice and other places,
the vibe of people standing and looking down on everybody,
it's just a weird thing when you're on promenades.
And I just appreciate that that's not really
what we see happening here.
So I really appreciate that, thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks, Mr. Hudson.
I just want to run by you the size of the affordable units.
So we've got one at 643 square feet, which seems livable.
But then you get one at 325 square feet,
another one at 307 square feet. I mean how big is that? Can you describe that?
Because I don't what does that happen it? Does it have a kitchen or seems extremely
small to me? It well it's comparable to many hotel rooms and larger so many
hotel rooms are smaller than that. So these are small units but I my
understanding is that's their intent is to provide this range of accommodations
and affordability and that the important thing was
that the affordable units would be of similar size
to the market rate.
Is that consistent with other affordable units?
That, you know, that you would normally see?
What is the size of the other units?
Yes. I'm going to ask Danny Ziff for an assist on that one
if we happen to have the size of those units handy.
But what I do recall in our staff report was
that the size of the affordable units is consistent with the size of the
marketing unit so that there was some comparability between the two. I'd love to hear about that.
Danny, could you answer that question please? I would actually need a minute to look all of those unit
sizes up so I can either take that minute right now or the applicant would
probably have the answer right off the top. Okay he does. Mr. Harris, can I ask one
questions maybe staff could you confirm that they're about the same size it is
supposed to get into specific square footage idea was that the market rate
units were comparable in size to the affordable units is that correct that's
fine that hard to believe that that 300 feet let's look I would also love to
respond to this one the in this case our affordable units so the building is
stacked so the units are the exact same size as the market rate units this is a
strategy at Bryan Silverian Associates that we think is really important because that
means that the market rate units will also be naturally more affordable than these large
condos with the floor to ceiling windows or large apartments that have these huge square
footages.
This is, in my opinion, exactly the kind of product that urban areas need in order to
make housing affordable, right?
If you're moving and you're looking even a market rate unit and you got the choice between
a 1,500 square foot and a 300 square foot.
The 300 square foot is naturally going
to be more affordable by nature, by virtue of the size
that it is.
All of the units in this building
are studio and one bedroom units.
And so, yeah, they are exactly the same size
as the market rate units.
So what's the difference between the two?
If they're the same size.
The affordable and the market rate?
Yeah.
A covenant.
Three covenants on each of the three affordable units
and no covenants on the market rate unit.
That is the difference.
The affordable units have access to the exact same amenities
as the market rate units.
They're dispersed, as staff said, throughout the building.
They don't share walls.
They're not stacked on top of each other.
There's no poor floor or poor corner.
So essentially they are exactly the same
as the market rate units.
And of course, that is intentional on our part.
I think that's remarkable that you can sell 300
square foot market rate units.
It's amazing.
Absolutely, you can.
You can.
It's a different world in Venice, but it's awesome.
I mean, it's thrilling that people get that that's kind
of the way it works.
And then I think it's so important, the outside space
that you described.
I think that roof space is absolutely critical.
OK, thanks.
That answers my question.
And through the chair, just with note,
staff does have the sizes of all the individual units
we can rattle off but unless your answer if you still have any questions
thank you any further comments or emotion
Commissioner Escalante I just wanna thank staff and the developer really for
working so well together I totally agree that this sort of this is kind of how
the rest of done cities build and having grown up in very very small units I you
You know, there's ways to make it happen, especially if you have Venice Beach right
outside your door, and you have that rooftop.
So hopefully you'll be spending most of your time outside anyway.
But congratulations.
It's very exciting.
I look forward to seeing it happen.
Commissioner Kelly.
I want to align myself with the comments of Commissioner Escalante and just comment that
we've seen in other parts of the state a lot of these types of micro-unit developments
happening in other urban environments.
And I think there is certainly a market for it.
We've seen them be successful in other cities.
And I think especially for a specific demographic who's
looking for a smaller unit, that this exactly meets that need.
That said, I think that the conditions impacting
the rest of the neighborhood with it
being such a unique and great multi-use building,
having that restaurant or retail amenity,
having proximity to the beach.
I think making sure that this is marketed
as a car free or carless community
so that there's no expectation that folks are moving in here
and bringing two automobiles with them is really critical.
So I would like to be confident that as these units
are being marketed to prospective residents
that that is in fact taken into account.
that we are really trying to let folks know
this is not where you're moving with a car
unless it's absolutely necessary
and that you have ample options for that car share
and bicycle parking, but really trying to focus on it
being a car-free community,
or there will be significant neighborhood impacts
on parking, and therefore there'll be less parking available
for other folks who are commuting to the beach
to have access to the beach,
and so that is something that we wanna prioritize
so that everyone can get to that Venice Beach
Enjoy it, but that said I like this design. I think it's it is the direction. We're seeing a lot of other
developments go I know I was looking at
Studios in Pasadena that are even smaller than this that are being marketed
245 square feet 270 square feet including a deck
So that this is what we're seeing more and more of in some communities
And and I think it works to meet that that housing need that we're seeing desperately up and down the state. So, thank you
Yes, please
I move that the Commission approve close development permit number
application number five dash two four dash zero four zero two pursuant to the staff recommendation recommend a yes vote
second
Okay, there's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Escalante any opposition to
unanimous consent
Okay, seeing none the permit is approved and now we will move to item 17 e final item for the day
All right, thank you and that does bring us to the the last
Agendized item 17 e which will be presented by ferny sigh via zoom
He's a ferny is a coastal program analyst in our South Coast District
If we can pull up the pull up the powerpoint presentation for this please and ferny, please take it away
Yeah
Will do
Good afternoon early evening commissioners item a Thursday
17E is an application by the Long Beach Shot Club, located at 6201 Appian Way in the city of Long
Beach, for the remodel and addition to the approximately 21,000 square foot Long Beach
Shot Club Clubhouse. The project also includes the demolition of an adjacent existing pool and deck,
including unpermitted development and construction of a new attached three-story pool building,
with a new pool and deck, multipurpose rooms, restrooms, classrooms, and terraces. The addition
total approximately 20,180 square feet for an overall project, post-project total of approximately
41,200 square feet. The project site is located on State Thailand where the City of Long Beach
is trustee for a portion of the project site that is within the city's permit jurisdiction,
while the remaining areas within the commission's retained jurisdiction. The project site is also
located adjacent to the basin for a public parking lot, an Alameda Bay, and the Alameda
Bay Marina, along with the public walkway that borders the northern, eastern, and southern
boundaries of the project site. Although the project site bisects both the commission's
retained CDP jurisdiction and the city's LCP area, in this case the applicant and city of Long Beach
have requested the commission review. This matter as a consolidated permit application pursuant to
the provisions of the Coastal Act. Thus the Coastal Commission is a permit issuing authority
for an entire proposed project and the standards of views chapter 3 of the Coastal Act with the
city of Long Beach LCP certified by the commission on July 22nd 1980 used as guidance. Next slide
please. The proposed remodel in addition to the clubhouse is intended to help modernize the various
rooms within the facility to meet the current needs of the Yacht Club but will not increase
club membership which is capped at 1,000 regular members. Currently there are 878 Yacht Club members.
The Yacht Club site includes an existing 72 space private parking lot that will be reconfigured
but will retain the same number of parking spaces. The slide on the screen shows the proposed site
plan which provides an idea of the layout of the project site. Next slide please. The majority of
the interior of the clubhouse will be remodeled as both levels will be expanded. Also a new pool
building is proposed that will contain supporting spaces for the clubhouse, the community room,
classrooms, and pool equipment room on the first level, a pool, lobby, multipurpose rooms,
restrooms, storage, and a pool service bar on the second level, and covered and uncovered
terrace areas on the third level. The new pool building would be approximately 35 feet in height.
However, the city's certified zoning code identifies the height limit as 30 feet.
The applicant has been made aware of this and acknowledges that they will modify the height to
to be consistent the height limit established
in the certified zoning code,
which is part of the city's implementation plan.
To verify this change,
special condition one requires applicant
to submit revised plans
consistent with the 30 foot height limit.
The existing pool house is pre-coastal
and extends along significant portion of the site.
Construction of the pool house blocks primary views
with unpermitted development
over the years taking place to the pool house.
The proposed project includes removal of the pool house
construction of a new pool house but additional views will not be gained. Public views are
available along the public walkway and from the basin for public parking lot. The site on the
screen shows the proposed elevations for the proposed project. Next slide please. Recently
commission staff received a total of 13 letters supporting the project and three letters in
opposition to the project as of Wednesday morning, which includes those from Unite Here 11 and the
the CR Club in addition to a new letter from the Unite here 11 received this
morning reordering their objections. An addendum has been published responding
to the points for opposition and five of the major points of the contentions deal
with. One impacts of the proposed development on scenic resources to the
use of public parking in the adjacent basin for public parking lot by members
and guests of the private club. Adequacy of public benefits provided by the Long Beach
Shop Club in consideration that the club is located on public land and 4 and 5 biological
resource and public access impacts.
An issue raised in the objection letter is the project's impact upon scenic resources.
Views of Alamitos Bay, including the water, are available from the adjacent public walkway.
They were the existing and proposed pool building and will continue to be available as the proposed
pool building will be located landward at the public walkway.
In addition, views of Alamos Bay are also available from the adjacent basin for a public
parking lot located across from the proposed pool building.
However, these views are already obscured by the existing pre-custal pool building that
blocks primary views.
Unpermitted development to the pool house, including the cabanas and exterior wall, have
taken place over the years that have added to the view impacts, but the significant view
impacts have taken place is from the original pre-cousable pool building, excuse me. Existing
views of Alameda's Bay from the basin for public parking lot are only those of the sky
and mass of the boats docked in Alameda's Bay. The staff does not believe that construction
of the new pool building will not result in any significant view impacts. In addition,
substantial views of the water will remain available from the majority of the public
parking lot and adjacent public roads. Therefore, the existing view of relief from the basin
for public parking lot is minimal and will not significantly change the already hindered
view. The slide on the screen provides an aerial view of the project site and identifies
the existing public walkway that surrounds the site as well as the basin for public parking
lot. Another issue raised relates to the use of public parking in the adjacent 316 space
basin for a public parking lot by members and guests to the private Yacht Club. The
Yacht Club currently has 72 parking spaces on site. Additionally, the city has previously
approved four to six parking permits, which at a maximum could result in 182 parking permits
for Yacht Club members in the basin for a public parking lot on a first-come, first-served
basis. Thus, the forecasted demand associated with the proposed development, including for
or summertime conditions can be accommodated
under the current parking conditions.
However, further private use or restrictions
of the public's ability to park
in the Basin 4 Public Parking Lot
would adversely impact the public's ability
to use the parking lot and access
that portion of the coast.
Thus, special condition number 14
requires the prohibition of the reserving
of any parking spaces in the Basin 4 Public Parking Lot
for exclusive use by Yacht Club members
or their guests at any time.
To further address potential adverse public parking impacts, the applicant has proposed
transportation demand management plan measures, such as installation of bicycle racks in
a designated bicycle scooter parking area as part of a bike share program and an incentive
program for employees to ride their bicycles to work, although no specific plan has been
submitted.
Thus, special condition number 15 requires submittal of a transportation demand management
plan.
Additionally, to improve upon the TDMP requirements, additional requirements are being proposed,
as further described in the addendum, which include Long Beach Transit discounted bus
fares and passes to employees, and a public transit fare reimbursement program for all
employees of the Long Beach Yacht Club.
An additional issue that is raised in the opposition letters pertains to the adequacy
of public benefits that will be provided by the Yacht Club, considering its location on
public lands.
However, while the Yacht Club is private, it does provide public benefits to programs
that promote aquatic safety, environmental responsibility, sailing education, and charitable
fundraising for the Long Beach community.
A sample of these programs include a yearly Safety at Sea course, where most of the participants
are not Yacht Club members, a science, technology, engineering, and math outreach program for
middle schools throughout the Long Beach area and surrounding areas, a seagulls program that
offered two to three times during the summer that teaches novice sailing through entry-level racing
designed and taught by women and a year-round junior sailing program for all skill levels.
While the applicant currently provides these public benefit programs, there is no requirement
for these programs to be maintained for the life of the development in order to enhance
and memorialize the public benefits provided by the yacht club. The applicant and coordination
the Commission staff has revised their proposal to include additional measures including a
commitment to provide $50,000 annual payment to the Long Beach Sailing Foundation which will be used
as support programs for the public. The applicant has also proposed to provide 10 full scholarships
to non-members per year for beginning swim classes and 28 scholarships per year for beginning
sailing lessons and sailing safety. The applicant will partner with appropriate non-profit groups
including but not limited to the Boys and Girls Club, YMCA, and other local environmental justice
groups to provide these scholarships to non-members from disadvantaged communities
who might not otherwise be provided these opportunities. More, especially in condition
number 23, as revised by the addendum, requires provisions of the Public Benefits Program,
including but not limited to the In New Feed to the Long Beach Sailing Foundation and the Free
scholarships for the life of the development. Also, to ensure that these programs are adequately
implemented, special condition number 23 requires applicant to provide an annual monitoring report
submitted to the executive director. Opposition letters also assert negative impacts to biological
resources as a result of the proposed development. The commenters request expansion of the scope of
the area to new off-site areas for special condition number 12, which deals with breeding
and nesting bird surveys during construction. Special Condition No. 8, which requires a final
low-impact development construction plan, and Special Condition No. 13, which deals with the
final tree replacement plan and bird tree monitoring plan. However, surveys of bird nesting
activities, including in off-site areas within 300 feet of the southern site, are already required
by these conditions, and Commissioning Ecology and technical staff do not believe that the
implementation of additional requirements for offsite areas not owned or operated by the applicant
would not would would not be necessary for that required for that the required conditions are
adequate enough to protect biological resources with regards to potential impacts from the
proposed development. Thus changes to these special conditions are not recommended by staff
in this case. Additional biological concerns were raised regarding locations pertaining to
special condition number eight, which deals with storage construction materials, mechanized equipment,
and removal of construction debris, and the submittal of a plant consisting of special
condition number seven, which requires a construction pollution prevention plan.
However, commission ecology and technical staff again also do not believe that the
modified language is necessary to protect biological resources with regard to potential impacts
from the proposed development, and thus changes to these special conditions are not necessary
in this case. The last biological resource concern deals with part c, special condition number three,
which is a no feature shoreline protective device special condition that identifies who is
responsible for removal of the breeze in the event that portions of the development fall
to the beach or water or are submerged before they are removed. The landowner listed as a
responsible entity, which in this case is the city of Long Beach. However, the commenter wants
a permittee to be held accountable instead, who in this case is Long Beach Shot Club,
since this would remove the burden from the public agency and place it instead on the permittee.
The commission concurs with this suggested change that the proposed special condition
will be modified to make this change. Lastly, a public access impact issue was raised in
association with special condition number 16, which requires a final public access signage plan.
Commentor made a point that the public access signage should include language identifying
the historic, current, and projected numbers of local coastal birds and describing measures that
are being taken or can be taken to ensure their survival. The Commission concurs with the suggested
change. Thus, this proposed special condition will be managed to make this change. Next slide,
please. Additional changes to special conditions have been made after discussion with applicants
this morning. The slide on your screen will help me visualize the changes being made.
Regarding special condition number 16, which pertains to the transportation and management program.
The special condition is revised to eliminate the requirement from club.
Excuse me, to eliminate the requirement that club employees and visitors must park off site.
But to add the requirement that employees will park on site in the designated yacht
cut parking lot without use of the adjacent parking, parking lot, public parking lot.
As has been in the practice in the past, staff would note that this is in addition,
In addition to the other provisions of the required TDMP, which requires the club provide free transit passes for employees for the life of the development.
As stated, the revised language is on screen.
Next slide, please.
The second change is the special condition number 23, the final public benefits plan, special condition.
Language will be modified to clarify that the organizations listed are not the only organizations that can be worked with.
Also, language will be modified to make clear that any programs that cease to exist or do not occur in a calendar year shall be replaced with an alternative program provided it is an equivalent public benefit, subject to the approval by the executive director.
We are also making an additional change over the mic regarding the submittal the annual monitoring report that will now be submitted within one month after December 31 each year. Next slide please.
Besides the special conditions discussed earlier several other special conditions are recommended including ones addressing or requiring assumption of risk, future development, single use plastic prohibition, native low water use landscaping, resource agency approval, final construction staging plan, final traffic control plan, maintenance
a project site adjacent to the public walkway, public rights, public trust and lease restrictions
making future property owners aware of the subject conditions and final lighting plan
and use of bird safe glass. In closing, staff believes the proposed project as conditioned
is consistent with all resource protection policies the Coastal Act and recommends the
Commission approve that application subject to special conditions listed in the staff
report and identity. The motion to accomplish the staff's recommendation can be found on
page 5 of the staff report. This concludes Commission staff's presentation
and staff are available for questions. Great. Thank you very much. I'll start
by asking if there are any ex partes on this item. Commissioner Jackson. Oh thank
you Madam Chair. On Tuesday afternoon I had a discussion with Jonah Breslau
researcher United here 11 local 11 Juan Munoz researcher unite here local 11 and
Jordan Sisson land use council unite here local 11 with their concerns over
the proposed project of the Long Beach Yacht Club and the their objections
based on what we heard this afternoon so thank you ma'am thank you
Commissioner Lopez also Tuesday. I had the opportunity to meet with Juan Munoz Jordan season
Regarding the same issues from unite here the issues where these were the ones that were already kind of called out in the report
But specifically building height as well as the parking concerns and access for the general public
Thank You Commissioner Lopez
Okay, so now we will open the public hearing and go to the applicant
Yes, Alex Sharon should be here. Yes. Thank you. I have a PowerPoint. How much time do you need sir?
I would ask for 10 minutes. We probably won't use that but appreciate the courtesy. Thank you. 10 minutes is fine
We'd appreciate brevity. Thank you, and I will I will be brief and I do have a PowerPoint
I'm not going to go over the project description
I think staff did a phenomenal job of walking through the technical details of the proposed
development next slide
I do want to advise the commission and staff that we have the following consultants available
either here in the room or by Zoom so if there are any specific questions regarding these
skill sets, we have these folks available and I want to thank them for making themselves
available today.
Next slide.
The long and the short of it is the applicant has accepted all of the conditions.
All of the conditions that you heard about today, both original and revised, the ones
that were developed in working a consultation with staff both that come from the city, that
come from coastal staff as well as that were raised in some of the opposition letters are
all accepted without equivocation. So that's the meat of that slide. I do want to point
out a couple things that were not raised in the presentation. This project went through
an 18 month vetting outreach project in the city of Long Beach. It was unanimously approved
by the Long Beach Planning Commission.
There are support letters, which I'll get to in a little bit,
from the mayor of Long Beach, Rex Richardson,
who voiced his support at the Planning Commission
after the Planning Commission,
as well as Senator Lena Gonzalez.
This project is in her district.
Speaker Pro Tem Josh Lowenthal,
this project is in his district,
as well as your former colleague
and our proud council member Roberto Yuranga,
who also submitted a letter of support.
We also have in the audience our labor partners in Loyuna
will speak later. Next slide. I do want to hone in on the community benefits because
I think it gets maybe lost in the report to some extent, but these community benefits
do not appear in a vacuum. These are the culmination of 18 months worth of work between the stakeholders,
community groups. We had no more or no less than a dozen community outreach meetings.
We met with all nine council districts. We met with neighborhood groups from the north
Long Beach, Westside, Eastside of Long Beach. So these community benefits were
developed in cooperation with them. And they are a synthesis of ongoing
programs, as you'll see in the exhibit, programs that were developed in
partnership with our discussions with the city and those some new ones that we
had the benefit of identifying with coastal staff. One, in particular, one
community benefit we do want to highlight is that we will be constructing and
maintaining at our cost a dedicated community room community rooms in Long
Beach are vital there are very few of them and we will have a dedicated
community room we've reached out to all nine council members and they have
identified neighborhood groups and nonprofit groups in each of their
districts that will utilize this from the Boys and Girls Club the children
today to others so those are listed in your exhibits we have our ongoing sailing
programs at no cost to the city's youth and we have been coordinating with city
staff to piggyback on some of their outreach efforts to make sure that we
provide these no cost sailing and swimming lessons to the city of Long
Beach youth. Next slide. Again, just a list of some of the additional
community benefits, including a minimum of $50,000 a year contribution to Long
Beach Sailing Foundation and coordinated outreach with the city's
ongoing efforts. Also, the commitment for swimming, sailing slots for children,
water cleanup projects, ongoing beach cleanups,
and a commitment to provide a robust signage program
related to local bird population
and the sailing history of Long Beach.
I should also note of particular importance
is that the Yacht Club will be a centerpiece
for the sailing activities at the 2028 Olympics.
And so we'll provide access to the waterfront
to an international community.
So we're very excited about that.
Lastly, before I leave this slide on community benefits,
I do wanna note that in your packet,
we have detailed a program in partnership
with Long Beach Fire and Long Beach Police
that we will use our facilities,
they're allowed to use our facilities
in partnership with them for their swimming training
and other training programs.
So we're very proud of that partnership.
Next slide.
Again, summarizing some of the community
and stakeholder support.
Again, the redevelopment project was unanimously approved
by the City of Long Beach Planning Commission.
The support letters are included in your packet.
We've got our strong labor partner in Leuna
who will speak later, the community room.
And I know that there are some issues for parking.
We'd like to invite up, as part of our 10 minutes,
Long Beach former city manager, Pat West,
who knows this area very well
and can offer some brief insight onto the parking.
Thank you, Alex.
Commissioners, I'm here to address the parking capacity
adjacent to the Yacht Club.
First off, as noted, there's 72 nested parking spaces
for exclusive use by the club.
Next, the city, through its Marine Bureau,
manages no less than five public lots
on the west side of Alameda Bay, just north of the club.
Going north to Second Street, adjacent to the club,
there's Basin 4, which includes 316 parking spaces.
Next, there's the Seascout Base, which includes 35 spaces.
Next, there's Mother's Beach.
That includes 158 spaces.
These spaces are all metered with parking meters.
Next is Marine Stadium.
That includes 72 spaces.
After that, there's Marine Stadium Boat Launch,
which includes approximately 50 spaces.
As city manager for the city of Long Beach for 12 years,
basically from 2007 to 2019,
I've never had any complaints or any concerns at my level
regarding parking at basin four in this area,
from the lots adjacent to the yacht club.
There are very, there's a few events that impact,
there's very few events that impact the entire amount
of parking lots that I've just mentioned.
Those are events like the Dragon Boat Races,
which are very, very popular.
I've been leading the efforts to work with the city
regarding the TDM program that we have,
the Transportation Demand Management Program,
and look forward to working with the executive director
and staff to resolve these issues and further the TDM.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, and I know we've got a couple minutes left.
Just to be brief, I do want to note
that one of the special conditions that we accepted
was the nested parking, the 72 spaces
that were referenced will be utilized now
for employee parking.
So that was a special condition that we accepted,
and gladly so.
And along those lines, we're gonna finish up,
I'm just gonna turn it over to Lisa Meyer,
the current Commodore of the Long Beach Yacht Club.
Thank you, nice to meet all of you.
I wanted to put a little life
around those community benefits.
You've all seen the long list of those.
You may not have been able to read all of those in detail,
but I wanted to convey to you
that this is not a, we have to do.
This is the lifeblood of Long Beach Yacht Club.
We formed the Yacht Club back in 1929
with our studio leaders to promote
sailing and power boating.
We're also accredited and certified
to teach and promote sailing
and to get people on the water.
And we've done that with World Sailing Association,
US Sailing, and Olympic classes regatta,
organizing authority for both recreational
and competitive sailing.
We have educational programs that are open to the public
and they include and are well attended
for state voting regulations,
national safe voting policies,
California State voter cards, Safety at Sea,
US Safe Sports Certification,
and the sustainability program, Sailors for the Sea.
We are deeply connected and devoted to water safety
and being a pathway to the water.
We're also set up to do this, you heard by programs,
but we do this for life.
We've got our five-year-olds, our six-year-olds,
our middle class, high school, college and adult programs
so that we provide a pathway to the water
and to be in and around the water for a lifetime.
How we can conduct our community outreach
is very strategic.
In that, I mean we partner with some of the large,
well accredited organizations in Long Beach,
such as the YMCA, the Boys and Girls Club,
Rotary, Aquatic Capital of America,
the Buena Park School District STEM program,
All by their mission and business plans are set up to appropriately and efficiently reach
due community outreach so that we can impact and effectively reach those that are underserved.
We supply the boats, the classrooms, the on the water curriculum, and all of the coaches.
We also work with some groups that are not so well known.
As an example, we worked with a national nonprofit group called Rise to Win.
We invited six young women from the middle school in Compton to come down for an afternoon
and experience on the water.
We provided the boats, we provided professional coaches, and those six young women who don't
have access to water have never been on boats, we did give them life jackets, by the end
of the two hours were able to sail their own boats.
They can't drive a car but they used with confidence and independence the ability to
create a pathway for themselves.
That is just one example of the programs that we provide.
We also appreciate those that are first responder and those that are serving the community.
So we establish single events as well.
One is described as the hero's regatta.
Two weeks ago we had representatives from Long Beach lifeguards, Ventura lifeguards,
St. Mary's Hospital nurses, ER nurses, Homeland Security, Long Beach Fire Police Coast Guard
Search and Rescue.
We collaborate with sailing boating organizations from all around the U.S. and around the globe
to promote safe, sustainable water sports.
We're not adding memberships, we're improving our facility to better serve our community.
We appreciate your support.
Thank you very much.
We're available to answer any questions and appreciate staff's input.
Thank you.
Thank you.
But now we'll move to the elected officials, please.
And just as a matter of housekeeping, given the late hour, when we reach general public
comment, we will be limiting comments to one minute each.
For now, the elected officials, please.
Kristina Dugan, if you can unmute yourself, we'll unmute you to panelists.
Good afternoon.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Wonderful.
I'm sorry I'm outdoors doing a site visit, but Chair Harmon and Honorable Commissioners,
thank you for your time today. I'm Christina Duggan, Long Beach Council Member for the
3rd District. I want to express my strong support for item 17E on today's agenda.
Approval of the Application for the Modernization Project at the Long Beach Yacht Club.
Long Beach Yacht Club has been an anchor institution in our community for nearly 100 years.
It has long served not only its members but also the broader public through sailing,
sailing education, waterfront access and support for local youth and non-profit organizations.
As a council member representing this area, I've worked directly with Long Beach Yacht Club to
expand public access and increase community use of its facilities and I can attest that the club
has been a responsive, collaborative and proactive partner. The proposed modernization of its aging
1960s facilities a thoughtful project that underscores the club's commitment to public
benefit. The plans included dedicated community room available to non-profit organizations across
the region, free sailing classes for local youth, more opportunities for public access to the coast
and to the ocean. This application also addresses the transportation, environmental, and operational
considerations required by the Coastal Act. It balances the needs of club members, voters,
labor and surrounding neighborhoods while advancing Long Beach Yacht Club's mission of
community service. I strongly support the approval of this project and hope the commission will
recognize the value of this long-standing institution and what it brings to our coastal
community. Thank you so much for your time. Okay, thank you. So we have 23 speakers and 17 in person.
We're going to start with the people in person. Anna Christensen followed by Ann Cottrell followed by
Pat West followed by Mike Gerring, Uwan Serrano.
Your mic's not on.
Thank you.
Before you start my time, we spent a lot of time
on this slide show.
It's exactly four minutes to get through the script.
Can we please, just for this, have our two minutes each,
please?
Go ahead.
Thank you.
No, this is the only presentation
that we have from the public as well.
Yeah, so put up the slide show, please.
I'll talk as fast as possible, we may not need it.
Waiting for the slides to go up.
Thank you, slide one.
Enough already.
The Yacht Club, the Long Beach Yacht Club
is currently over 21,000 square feet.
The expansion will make it over 41,000.
Next slide.
Charity is not equity.
The project fits the very definition
of environmental justice.
The cumulative impact of the privatization
of public coastal lands may generate revenues locally,
but this comes at the expense of public access.
Lands, waters, and amenities are off limits
to those who cannot afford boat slips,
yacht club memberships, fine dining,
or costly special events without the specific charity
of these private entities.
Next slide.
Alameda's Bay Marina is the nation's largest.
However, it has only three public restrooms
that are open to the general public
and a couple of picnic tables in the marina itself
and a few more at Mother's Beach
and these benches along the walkways, that's it.
Next slide.
However, the marina has five private yacht clubs
and you can see from the slides what those amenities are,
including a private swimming pool in two of them, all right?
Next slide.
This, we really appreciate this change
because now the public will not be responsible
for tearing down when sea level rise happens,
this expansion, the yacht club itself,
who's benefiting from it will be.
So we appreciate that.
Next slide.
Let me see, where are we?
Okay, we're really concerned about this.
This is the part, this is the rookery.
It is well beyond 300 feet
that is gonna be surveyed or conditioned.
And access to the project site by construction vehicles
will go through the rookery.
And yet, most of the rookery will neither be surveyed
nor protected.
And we do believe that construction vehicles,
in addition to, we hope you don't think
anything should be done during nesting season,
but we assume that it will be.
So we really ask that construction vehicles
not be allowed to drive within 300 feet
of an active nesting site.
Next slide.
These are the birds that reside in the rookery.
These pictures, some of them were taken
by a wonderful, Kim Moore, a wonderful,
we're gonna give her credit, a wildlife photographer.
And these birds will be impacted
Because the human activity has already reduced the space where these birds, where this rookery exists.
This rookery is, our Alameda Spade rookeries exist in parking lots.
They exist in street medians.
They don't, there is no other place for these birds to go.
That's why they're here and they need more protection because their numbers are decreasing.
Next slide.
So this is where they are foraging on cement, on the walkways.
Next slide.
Next slide.
So the current condition of the rookery
is you could see the guano underneath that.
These are the major nesting sites,
and yet they have these hard equipment under them.
And we are constantly picking up birds
who have been injured by falling on these hardscapes.
So we're asking that part of the condition
be that the city and the yacht club
help because they use this parking lot to,
when they're landscape project that this become a softscape instead.
Next slide.
We appreciate your change in signage.
We think it's very important to expand the signage to include the birds.
We really appreciate, want to make sure that this is labeled a rookery.
Next slide.
Let me see, what's this one about?
Oh yeah, this is about no sequa.
So, you know, we don't consider doubling the size
of an already very large building to simply be a remodel.
The city should have done an EIR.
There's no EIR.
That's crazy.
But the state doesn't want us to get rid of people anyway.
We're helping them.
We'll go down to the next speaker.
Anne Cantrell of the Los Cerritos-Atlas Task
Force and the Sierra Club.
I think there's another slide.
Well, anyway.
I'd like to comment on the community use of a meeting room and providing for sailing lessons
for underserved youth does not mitigate the fact that the public is denied access to their
own property and to the coast.
How valuable are sailing lessons for those with no further access to a boat?
And 10 swim lessons in the pool for underserved youth is certainly not enough to mitigate
the fact that this yacht club is allowed on public property.
They only pay $1,620 a month for the lease.
You can't even rent a studio apartment in Long Beach for 1620 a month.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Pat West, followed by Mike Gerring, followed by Juan Serrano, Jason Baez, Lisa
Muir.
Pat West has already spoken, sorry, as part of the applicant's presentation.
Hello.
Good evening, commissioners.
I'm Juan Serrano with Laiuna, the Labor's International Union in North America.
You strongly support the Long Beach job club renovation.
This project will be fully built entirely with skilled union labor, ensuring top-quality
work that meets the highest safety and environmental standards.
It's an investment in the community that respects the coast and creates good paying local jobs.
We urge you to, you know, for approval.
Thank you.
Honorable Commission Jason Baez, Labors International Union of North America, and we're here representing
over 20,000 members who live in the Los Angeles County area and full support of seeing this
project move forward. Projects like this open up doors for stellar careers in union construction.
I myself am a product of that program. It enabled me to learn all the necessary skills to be
a competent journeyman today. It keeps us, gives us the ability to go back and receive
additional training and certifications that enhance our value and give us extended opportunities.
This project will help us to be able to work at home and spend more time with our families
and it'll also infuse money into the community. And I want to close with this, I spend mostly
all my personal time at the beach. I'm hoping I still get to hit the water today. Anytime
there's an upgrade or remodel at the beach I go to, it never ceases to give me a pleasure
and feeling of joy to see that. Thank you so much. Mike Gehring one more time.
I would just be echoing everyone's support so I'll save time because I know it's late. Thanks.
Okay thank you. Lisa Meyer, Shannon Gallagher, Jonah Breslow, Lewis Reyes, Miguel Burziza,
Gabby Harris. Good afternoon. Good afternoon Commissioner, Madam Chair and the members of the
of the Coastal Commission.
My name is Luis Reyes.
I'm a proud member of the Labors Union,
International Union of North America,
local 1309 in Lakewood.
I'm here today in full support of the developer
and this project.
Developer has made the important decision
to use skilled union labor for this work.
This community will create many opportunities
for our local skilled workers,
opportunities that will benefit the community,
my fellow union members, and especially my own family.
For this reason, and many other reasons,
I respectfully ask you fully support this project.
A yes vote will allow us to build a world-class development
that the city of Long Beach
and the entire surrounding committee
will be proud of for years to come.
Thank you for your time
and giving me the opportunity to speak.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Jonah Breslau,
and I'm here on behalf of Unite Your Local 11.
We represent the workers at the Long Beach Yacht Club
as well as thousands of hospitality workers
throughout Southern California and Arizona.
And we urge the commission to delay action
on the application to give all parties
time to address concerns related to public access,
parking, unpermitted development, view impacts,
and opportunities for public recreation.
We appreciate the CCC staff making modifications
to the pros project conditions related
to transportation demand measures
and public benefit programs.
However, these last minute changes were released
less than 24 hours before the hearing,
which alone warrants deferring action
to allow the public adequate time to fully digest.
But moreover, from what we can see,
these measures still don't address several concerns
we have about parking, about unpermitted development,
and about whether these public benefits
really promote the goals of the Coastal Act
under section 3213.
These are serious concerns
about the fundamental goals of the Coastal Act.
Please defer action on this project
until they can be addressed.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Lisa Mayer followed by Shannon Gallagher.
Miguel Bautista, Gabby Harris, Estefany Castaneda.
Please come up.
Sorry, commissioners, I believe Lisa Mayer
and Shannon Gallagher were part
of the applicant presentation.
Thank you.
Okay.
Miguel Bautista, Gabby Harris, Estefany Castaneda,
Alex Regalado, Eve Harrison and Andy Seymour, Jose Garcia.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Miguel Bautista.
I am a proud member of Unite Care Local 11.
I work at Angel Stadium.
Until recently, I lived right outside of Long Beach
in Los Alamitos and I'm now a proud resident of Los Angeles.
I have spent much time in the area with my family.
My mom and I love schooner later right there.
And Naples is actually a great place
to walk off some of the calories from the chilaquiles.
So the Naples area can be hard to access.
I was not surprised to learn that all of Naples Island
is impacted according to the city's general plan.
Please delay this project to make sure
that all coastal access and recreational concerns
can be addressed.
Thank you.
Can I start?
Okay.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Gabby Harris.
I am a Long Beach resident.
Existing large events hosted by the Yacht Club
already impact the adjacent parking lot.
These impacts are likely to be made worse
by the near doubling of the size of the yacht club.
This directly impacts public access to the Naples area,
which is a very nice area in Long Beach, by the way.
Please, I'm just asking to please consider
the access impacts of allowing the expansion of this project
if the parking impacts aren't addressed fully.
Please don't approve this project today.
It needs more time, really appreciate it.
Thank you and thank you for your time.
Hello, honorable Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Stephanie Castaneda, and I am here in support of Unite Here Local 11.
I share their concerns about this project in a short time the staff has helped improve
this project, as shown by the addendum that came out yesterday.
But there's more that could be done.
More to reduce the number of cars parking here and increase access.
More to encourage lower cost recreational options and public benefits.
to address view impacts in previously unpermitted development, imagine what could be done with
more time for staff and the applicant to engage these issues and with more information for
the public to understand what is proposed. Please do not approve this YAW expansion today,
but give us time to ensure that this is the best project possible for our communities.
Thank you.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name's Alex De Gallardo.
I work at the Long Beach Convention Center and at the Queen Mary.
I live in downtown Long Beach.
I spoke earlier in public comment.
Today, actually, I was scheduled to work in one of my jobs, but I decided to stay because
I believe this is important.
Let's see.
Sorry about that.
So, okay.
So I could speak about the Long Beach Shot Club directly.
As I mentioned earlier, coastal access and parking
are very tied together.
For working class people,
limited parking opportunities means limited coastal access
with 1,000 members and only 75 parking spaces
on the location.
I am concerned that I'm making the Yacht Club larger,
couldn't make it even harder for people like me
to visit the area.
And I live in downtown Long Beach,
I've gone to Second Street and parking is very, very tight.
So please take the time to address this issue.
I know this is a very interested educational and resource,
but it's a long term.
So please wait.
Thank you.
Eve Harrison, Andy Seymour, Jose Garcia,
and then we should have three people left on Zoom after that.
Good afternoon, Chair and commissioners.
My name is Eve Harrison.
I'm a student at Loyola Marymount University,
and I'm here to support Unite Here Local 11.
I'm asking you to please delay approval of this project
to give the community more time to assess the project
and for staff and the applicant to address concerns
around public access and lower cost recreation.
As of last night, the Yacht Club has now committed
to providing some benefits and access for the public,
but there needs to be more time to assess these proposals.
Are these measures commensurate
with the increase in the scale of the club?
In the past, private clubs have offered public benefits
to encourage coastal access.
The SVBSM LLC project, a private club proposed
in Santa Monica in 2021 committed to providing space
to local nonprofits every week to address access concerns.
Are there proposed partnership here adequate
to promote lower costs?
Californians and the commission deserve more time
to access them, assess them.
Please to delay the approval of the expansion
and the Long Beach Shock Club.
Thank you so much.
Should I have Andy Seymour and Jose Garcia left.
Hi, good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Andrew Seymour.
I stand with Unite Your Local 11 and urging you to delay this project until concerns are on parking,
coastal access, view impacts, and unpermanent development can be fully addressed.
While we welcome the memorialization of public benefits provided by the project,
we still believe more analysis should be done to address whether these provisions are adequate
to address Coastal Act Section 30213. Neither the addendum nor the CCC staff report cites
Coastal Act section 30213 which reflects the coastal policy to encourage lower
cost public recreational opportunities. I'm quoting now so quote lower cost
visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected encouraged and where
feasible provided developments providing public recreational opportunities are
preferred close quote a section 30213 been fully addressed and considered by
California Coastal Commission staff and the Commission thank you.
Good afternoon commissioners. Thank you for the opportunities to speak. My name
is Jose Garcia, a lifelong member of the Labor International Union of North
America. It's hard to do this in a minute, so I'm trying to blow this out. I had so
much to say, but one of the biggest opportunities here brought by this
developer, it's private money. So when they choose to infuse union labor, skilled
labor workers from the area it is a blessing many you bring in a company
from out of town they take the money and go these people have chosen to use
community members they have the backing of all the people in the in the council
the city they've they've proven things and we stand behind them 100% because
many people will benefit from this project apprenticeships will benefit
from this project a lot of low-income families like they said and I don't know
if you guys heard it but I heard free 99 free 99 free 99 for the kids I love
that I have a four-year-old granddaughter that I would love to take
say thank you for the opportunity to speak and please please take that into
consideration and pass this project thank you we have three left on zoom
Susan Kirk, so I'm going to unmute you, go ahead and speak Susan Kirk.
Vice Chair Hart, Commissioners, although I realize it's late, I really regret that we
only have one minute to speak, I'll try to be quick.
Susan Kirk, conservationist, experienced individual with birds and wildlife, I'd like to support
the comments that were given to you by the Sierra Club, and I would like to focus my
comments on the rookery. The great blue herons, the snowy egrets, and the black
crowned night herons are large birds. Their nests are large. They have a high
fidelity to their nesting site and they will return to it year after year after
year, as will their young who fledge, grow up, fly away, and then come back. I would
I'd very much like to see involvement of international bird rescue located in San Pedro to help cultivate
and develop protections and rescue and treatment for the birds that fall from the rookery.
And also I'd just like to thank your staff for their management of public service.
Great job.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
We have Jordan Sison followed by Charlie Carnot.
Jordan, you should be able to speak.
Thank you.
Greetings, Jordan Sison, local 11th attorney.
On parking, just five quick points.
One, the project doubles the club square footage.
This allows more members on the site at any given time,
which does increase parking demand.
Two, we appreciate the additional TDMs,
but on first glance, there is no mandatory CTR program.
There is no performance standard,
and there is no guaranteed ride home program.
All things mentioned by CAPCO, which we provided.
Third, 130 large events per year is significant.
We provided photo evidence of existing impacts,
such as a two-day weekend event held in October of 2021,
which overwhelmed basin four parking.
Four, the project relies on a 2023 parking study
that has multiple red flags.
Why was that study not presented
in the Coastal Staff Report?
Why or where were, why were the field surveys not performed during peak summer seasons?
And why was the survey conducted during actual large events? None of that was provided. Five
LCP explicitly states had all of the islands parking impact. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Jordan. Next is Charlie. Charlie, I have a meeting to go ahead and speak.
Hello, my name is Charlie Carnot and I'm here with Unite Here Local 11. The Coastal Commission
enforcement division is currently investigating unpermitted development including unpermitted
structures built around existing pool areas. In past in past cases the commission has deferred
action on the coastal development permit and projects with unpermitted development until the
enforcement action was completed. Why should the commission not follow precedent and defer action
until these unpermitted developments are fully analyzed? We're still concerned these unpermitted
developments may have had impacts, for instance, on views. In particular, the
staff report mentions an unpermitted wall, perhaps referring to the
approximately 15-foot tall wall that currently blocks views with Alameda Bay.
With additional time, impacts on views could be mitigated with something like a
green wall with native plants that could enhance the project. So a delay to
complete the investigation may be appropriate for the projects the staff
and applicant can consider if mitigation is needed. Thank you.
that completes all the public comments. Great, thank you very much and thank you
for the public for sticking around to share your testimony. So with that I'll
close the public hearing and turn it back to Mr. Hudson if he'd like to
respond. Thank you. I just have a few responses. There were a few questions
raised by some of the members of the public. First, several of the United
Hear speakers requested postponement today. I would just like to note that
this item is at its permit streamlining act deadline and thus we don't have the
ability to postpone this matter and it requires action at today's hearing. There
were also comments by some of the Unite Here speakers regarding parking issues
and concerns that the parking would act that this is an issue and let us public
access and of course we agree with that concept that parking can affect lack of
parking can affect public access. And to address that issue the conditions of the
coastal development permit and as modified in the addendum today includes
an expansive transportation demand management plan which includes many
innovative provisions. It encourages alternative forms of transportation both
for members and employees. It requires free transit passes for employees,
provides new provisions where before employees were allowed to or required to
park in the public parking lot, that will no longer be the case and they'll be
prohibited from doing so. They'll now be required to park in the private parking
lot that was previously available to club members only. There's, well, and and
then I would also just note that there were questions raised regarding
unpermitted development on site and as Mr. Tsai mentioned in his presentation,
there was some minor unpermitted development. There were some cabanas and
a wall added but they did not in our opinion block any new significant views
because there was an existing pool house that existed in the from the 1960s
across the majority of that site and that already blocked views so the wall
was located between the existing building and the parking lot we don't
believe that was a significant impact but regardless all those unpermitted
components the bungalows any of the structural additions they're all going
going away, they'll be demolished. This is a complete renovation. And so those are demolished
as part of this application, and there's no request for any after-the-fact approval for
us today, just demolition, and then replacement with the new larger structure. But we don't
believe that the new structure, again, is going to result in a significant new impact
to public views because there was previous legal and pre-coastal development that stretched
across the majority of this site and of course there's blue water views around
both sides of this development and large expanses of open blue water views
from the public parking lot. I would also like to respond to Ms. Christensen's
request that the bird surveys be extended. I would just like to also note
that one of the requests that they did ask was for a new educational signage
and the applicant agreed after staff approached them this week so that's one
of the changes in the addendum is that there will be this new educational
component along the public access way that is located around the seaward side
of the club and so we thank the club for making that change. Staff is not in
agreement though with the idea that the bird surveys which are necessary to
ensure that adverse impacts during construction from noise are minimized
during construction activities. The current condition requires our standard
300 feet radius of surveys around the project site. The rookery that was
mentioned by Miss Christensen as I believe she told me that was located
approximately 600 feet away and of course we expect birds would be found
there but based on that distance we don't expect that they would be impacted
by the noise. I would just note that those conditions very similar to the
dredging item that was heard this morning have been developed by this
commission's ecology staff over many projects and for reasons of both
consistency as well as because Dr. Engel and our ecology staff have reviewed this
request and do not believe there would be any benefit from extending that
distance beyond 300 feet we are not recommending any changes to the
conditions today. There's also concern that the public benefits are still not
enough and that you know the addition of the in the fee and the scholarships is
not substantial. I would just note that that's not the entirety of the public
benefits plan. We heard much of what's in that public benefits plan from the
applicant and during Mr. Cai's program and in my opinion it's very
substantial and includes a very long list of different public benefits. Those
additional scholarships for the free swim classes and the sailing classes
and the the commitment for the $50,000 in lieu fee were requests by by our
staff this week that the applicant has agreed to. The purpose of our requesting
those additional benefits was really to ensure greater clarity and these
additional benefits for outreach to underserved communities. And in addition
to all those other benefits, I think these ones are really important because
they have these swim classes, they have sailing classes, but those were primarily
offered to club members and children of club members. This will open it up and
they're gonna, through our, through the commitments they're agreeing to, they
will be partnering with nonprofits including the YMCA and the Boys and
Girls Club, but also environmental justice groups, and that includes groups like Brown
Girls Surf and other environmental justice organizations to allow outreach into communities
that could bring children into these classes for free that would not otherwise have that
exposure to sailing and very importantly to learn swimming.
So we, in my opinion, these are incredibly important and we appreciate the flexibility
and the willingness of the Yacht Club to add these improvements to that benefits package.
With that, I'm going to conclude our staff comments and note that we're available for
questions.
Okay. Thank you very much. I will bring it back to the commission for comments, questions.
Commissioner Lopez.
A couple questions. I'm wondering, you explained that we're up against streamlining permit
deadline, if we do not act on it today, what is the outcome?
Thank you.
Unless the applicant were to withdraw, the application would be deemed approved by operation
of law.
And it would have no conditions.
Okay.
Second question.
There was also a question raised by an attorney that appeared remotely today that asked about
the timing of the traffic or parking count.
I didn't hear that addressed in the response.
Can you talk about why we did it or where we got the data?
Yes, I may need some additional clarification too,
but I believe that question was likely referencing
when the parking surveys were conducted.
My understanding is the parking surveys weren't conducted
during the summer months.
And so to adjust for that,
They included a 30% riser in the expected parking demand
and to account for what they expected
during the summer months.
The part, these surveys found that
they would have adequate parking on site,
but I would note that there are some important changes
that are being done through this permit.
And the most important is that in the past,
the city has granted the club the ability
for their members to use the public parking lot.
And there was the ability for the club
to reserve parking spaces for their events.
And they have many of these events.
The transportation demand management plan
pursuant to our conditions will eliminate the provision
that allows them to reserve spaces.
If there is any overflow of either members
or visitors to this club during these events,
they would of course still use the public parking lot,
that now be on a first-come first-served basis.
That's helpful.
Thank you.
Commissioner Jackson and Commissioner Prociata.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, staff.
Thank you for all the speakers today.
Appreciate your advocacy and your passion.
A couple questions.
I was glad to hear you talked about the pool,
because the pool is very important.
Everybody wants access to a pool.
pools are often not part of,
they're things that are in the club and out the club.
And I certainly applaud all the sailing
and all of those activities that are being offered
because that is critical and crucial
and the more the merrier.
And I'm glad to see the pool included
because the pool is often that amenity
that particularly private club owners don't wanna share.
So to the extent that you can continue
and look to expand that, I think that's very important
because pools are at a premium.
So that was good to hear.
With regard to, I was just curious to the other amenities,
if somebody's there sailing, using the pool for lessons,
are they able to go in and buy food, buy coats,
or are they allowed to use the dining facilities
while they're there sailing,
or swimming, do they have access to that inside amenity?
My understanding is that that would make the most sense
is that they would have access to the club.
I don't know that the extent of what sort of dining
is actually available in this facility.
That would be a good question
that we can invite the applicant up
to discuss how that would be,
how they would have envisioned that would work
in the public benefits package
that there will be this final public benefits program
will be submitted for review and approval and those sorts of details we will certainly
address.
I didn't mean to spring it on you.
Going through your community benefits it was I was happy to hear and those are just things
that sort of came to mind.
So if the applicant can speak to that if that's okay, Madam Chair.
We're thinking alike.
So I'm told that, and I know this from experience,
having been born and raised in Long Beach
and knowing that club, so meals are typically provided
as part of these swimming programs and sailing programs,
so the youth or public, whoever comes,
will have access to that, and in addition,
I don't want to forget about the community room.
So the community room that we're building
is designed precisely for that interface
between the public and the club,
so there will be food and beverage.
Fantastic, great to hear.
And while I have you up, if that's okay, I want to talk about parking.
Because I was glad to hear about special condition number 14, which now mandates employees to
park within the 72 parking spots.
So within those 72, that's also private parking for members.
And basin four is public parking.
And part of special condition number 14 removes that previous reservation piece.
Does that remove the four cars parking for a member of the club who has a boat?
It's a good question.
That's a city issue.
And so we are working with the city to change that, how that ultimately gets changed.
working with your staff on too, because we want to make sure that the city who has oversight
over that is aligned with Coastal, but our intent is to change that correct.
The other thing, Commissioner, if I may, is there's also off-site parking, which I think
was not mentioned in the staff report, so we have a contract in place with a private
property owner for up to 100 spaces for these overflow special events that we can also access.
And I think that's great.
that you're looking at that in the shuttle piece, but the reservation component was removed.
However, a boat owner slash yacht club member who can park already within the confines of
the club and then could park up to four cars on the public parking lot right next door,
I find that disconcerting and akin to an access,
while it is not akin, it is.
Even if there's no reservation component,
those that live in highly congested areas
understand how the parking game is played.
And four times, I think there were 46 members,
that is 184 spots.
Right, when a boat owner rents a slip from the city,
anywhere from $700 to over $1,000 a month
to rent that slip.
And that slip includes four guest permits
for the boat owner, their family, and guests.
There's a red curb all the way along the edge of the water
that's dedicated to only those boat owners.
No one else can park in those.
So in effect, that's not public already.
There's 54 spaces along that red curb.
And that's the Marine Bureau's orchestrated that the when we
were talking with the city about this during the CUP process
last year, the city gave us credit for just one of those
four permits. So it's 46 extra cars. That's what the parking
study used in calculating our demand and the TDM would help
offset that 72 cars plus 46 and then offset against our peak
If it's too big, then we have the other 100 spaces that we can rent from the private property
and shuttle people in.
Does that make more sense?
So if I'm understanding this correctly, 46 members of the club have preferred parking
to Basin 4.
Is that preferred parking to Basin 4 open to other boat owners?
Yes.
So it's not just the club.
Please, somebody was just reminding me,
that's a city of Long Beach program
where they issue the permit.
So it's not just Yacht Club members, it's boat owners.
That may be Yacht Club members.
Four seems a bit excessive.
We, if I can, we agreed with the city
to look at ways to change that
and we were only captured at one
in our parking study for that very reason.
So that shows our good faith on that issue.
Okay, so the 46 members of your club
that now already have a place to park?
I guess the question is, are they going to continue
to maintain those four reserved, excuse me,
non-reserved but exclusive hermits for basin four
that is essentially private parking but really isn't,
excuse me, is public parking but really isn't
because all those boat owners and 46 members of the club
can park up to four vehicles each, which essentially turns
that public space into a highly used boat owner parking lot.
It's rare that everyone who rents a slip
is there at all at the same time.
And it's rare that they use all four permits at the same time.
So there's usually a lot of empty spaces
in the base and four lot.
The base and four lot doesn't compete
with commercial projects like second and PCH,
or sooner or later somebody mentioned basin two, three,
and one have intensive competition.
Basin four is the residential area,
so we don't have the competition,
like the commercial sites do.
I'm sorry.
We don't own that marina.
Those slips do not belong to Long Beach Act Club.
Those slips are all owned by the city.
All of those spots there are not owned
by Long Beach Hat Club members.
The majority of those boats in that base and floor.
I understand, I understand.
So, notwithstanding the non-yacht club members
who are using base four up to four spots each, wow.
The 46 members of your club who have a place to park now,
we'll still have four spots in that public spot.
Currently, yes, but the city won't commit to that.
So they're only giving us credit for one per slip
rather than four per slip.
So is that then, is that what is going to happen
going forward, that that four is going to be reduced to one?
That's up to the Marine Bureau.
Well, does your club, does the club have a discussion
with the city?
Yes.
OK, so is that that discussion is ongoing, Commissioner.
So that's why it may seem a little fluid.
That's part of our ongoing discussion with the city.
I can guarantee you from experience that that will change.
OK, so it's the.
Commissioner Jackson, I'm going to ask staff to jump in here.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
No, no, this is a good conversation.
It's a great an issue.
And I just wanted to add that we also have committed
and have been talking to the city about reviewing
and updating this program.
And so we'll commit to do the same.
It's not fixed, but I think we've well identified
the problem and the city knows that we all are wanting
to address the concerns.
And I appreciate that.
And my apologies for not talking about it earlier,
just as I thought about it and dove deeper into it,
I thought it was something that needed to be discussed.
Thank you.
And through the chair, just one additional point.
So, as Dr. Hucklebridge had mentioned,
the conversation is continuing,
but we are addressing that in part
and getting at what you're asking for in this permit.
So those permits are no longer pursuant to our permit.
They're not preferential.
It does-
Well, they're not reserved.
They're not reserved in a preferential manner.
It really becomes more about how the payment occurs.
So any member of the public or club member
could park in that lot.
The city's agreement with the slip holders
is for those four passes, for those whole.
Right.
They would be providing that free of charge.
And that's what our understanding
is that the city is now reevaluating with the yacht
owners.
Our condition, as you noted, what it accomplishes
is that those folks would no longer
have a preferential status over any other user that
is paying for the parking lot.
And I don't mean to quibble here.
But if an individual who owns a boat, who's a member of the club,
who has a place to park within the club also gets four passes, right, not reserved,
but still four passes, when Joe Q. Public gets zero, right, that's an issue in my mind.
So whether it's reserved or not isn't the point.
the fact that somebody gets four,
who already has a place to park,
is a member of a private club,
and then Joe Q, public, gets zero,
and has to contend with those folks
who were using a lot of parking,
who already have a place to park.
That's my concern.
So I think that we agree with your concern,
but believe it's probably outside the scope
of just this one permit.
It's a larger problem that address,
that we need to address with the city,
and it will affect this, I mean, this yacht club, of course,
but also all the other boat owners.
So just want to say, we agree, it's a problem.
We need to work on it, fix it,
but probably not in this comment.
I understand.
I understand, and I appreciate that, thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado.
I have a few comments, and then if appropriate,
I could make a motion to approve,
but I note a couple of things that are critical.
I think this yacht club has a lease through 2050.
I see this yacht club participating as an excellent
neighbor by making an investment.
And more importantly I support hiring local labor.
In that context the applicant agreed to every
single special condition which I found to be incredible.
but commend the applicant for that.
And so at an appropriate time,
I don't wanna cut off debate or conversation,
but I'm prepared to make a motion for approval.
Please do, Commissioner.
Oh, I lost my motion to-
It's on page five.
Page what?
As I started going down, counting the conditions, sort of.
I move the commission approved
Coastal Development Permit 5-24-0767 pursuant to staff recommendation, and I invite a yes
vote.
Second.
It's a motion by Commissioner Pressiata, a second by Commissioner Kelly.
Would anyone like to speak to the motion?
Commissioner Escalante.
Well, Madam Chair, I know some of the concerns from the public have been definitely striking
court especially since you know it is a bigger problem we don't want to take I
don't want to derail this but I I think I might go back to my old antics and just
be a no on this. Thanks. Understood. In that case I wish we had more time it's
why I asked that question about what happens if we don't vote but I
understand what we're up against today so. Thank you. Okay well I will ask if we
You could please have a roll call on this item.
OK.
Commissioner Bocco?
Bocco, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
No.
Escalante, no.
Commissioner Hart?
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly?
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez?
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Notoff?
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner presciato yes presciato yes Commissioner Turnbull Sanders yes
Turnbull Sanders yes Commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes chair Harman yes
Harman yes the vote is ten yes one no thank you the permit is approved and
with that we are done for today see you all tomorrow thank you