good morning everyone okay thank you we will call this meeting or meeting to
order excuse me and I'd like to start by welcoming our newest member dr. Carl
Larson who is here on behalf of the lieutenant governor with that we're
very happy to have you I should say another doctor on the team as
Commissioner Jackson would say with that we will begin please with a roll call
commissioner O'Malley present commissioner Ekrelie here commissioner
Escalante here commissioner Jackson here commissioner catch-up commissioner
Kelly here commissioner Larson here commissioner not all here
Commissioner Preschiato. Here. Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders. Here. Commissioner Wilson. Here. Chair Harmon. Here. You have a quorum. Thank you very much. And now we will move to the virtual meeting procedures please. Okay good morning. This Golsal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through Zoom. This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at cal.com.
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 paperless submittal are available
in 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.
Request to speak during the general public comment period
will not be accepted after 9 a.m. on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity
for the broadest range of public participation,
you may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item
that is not general public comment
are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak
at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request 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-in number
and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting
through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the Commission,
the organizer will invite you to turn on your video and microphone or provide
instructions on how to unmute your phone. Madam chair, that concludes the virtual
hearing procedures. Thank you very much, Chris. Okay. And now we will move to the
agenda changes. Mr. Hudson. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Harmon and
commissioners. I will now go over those changes. We do have several. First, item
Item 8A is postponed as the County of Ventura LCP amendment for the Housing Bill Implementation
Plan.
Item 8B is moved to consent as the County of Santa Barbara LCP amendment time extension
for Senate Bill 9 and ADU ordinances.
Item 8C is moved to consent as the County of Santa Barbara LCP amendment adding new
Cannabis Odor Regulations. Item 8D moved to consent. The County of Santa Barbara LCP
Amendment for the Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance, and I would just note that is a
de minimis LCP amendment. Item 9A is postponed. The City of Santa Barbara CDP Application.
Item 10A is postponed. The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority CDP Amendment
application. Item 16a is postponed. This is a CDP application for the Mohuddin
project. And item 18a moved to consent a City of San Diego LCP amendment for the
Encanto neighborhood. Item 18b moved to consent the City of San Diego LCP
amendment for Canada Cannabis Outlet Hours Ordinance and item 19a move to
consent that's the hall CDP application that concludes our changes to today's
agenda so that does bring us back to item 4 general public comment and with
that I'll turn the mic back over to you madam chair thank you very much mr.
Hudson okay Chris let's get started with public comment please all right 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 the speak.
There is a raise your hand function
that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio,
you can raise your hand by dialing star nine.
If you are participating by Zoom,
you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item
and are able to do so, please raise your hand now.
When it is your time to speak,
we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
So it looks like today we have about 32 speakers.
We'll start with people in the room
when we have Donna Brownsey.
It's our former chair, the illustrious chair Brownsey,
And I'd like to give her a couple of extra minutes, please.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
And good morning, everyone.
It's so good to see you.
As many of you know, I was on the commission.
But today, I come to you as a member of the Fort Bragg
community.
Yesterday, the commission toured the largest coastal site
in the city.
It is almost as long as the city limits.
For 100 years, it served as a heavy industrial site,
mostly a lumber mill but in later years
with other heavy industrial uses.
The land is in recovery now from the Century Plus
of toxic emissions, concretization,
and other harmful uses.
Since I only have a few minutes to respond to a two-hour tour,
let me be brief and brutally frank.
It was a beautiful day yesterday,
so you could experience the wonder of a coastal headland.
Why would a huge corporation like Georgia Pacific
consent to an eminent domain action
and transfer the land to the Mendocino Railroad
for $1.3 million?
270 acres for a million dollars of coastal headland?
Really?
You heard that the railroad is a common carrier.
In 2019, the CPUC ruled the railroad
an excursion train. That was supported yesterday by the railroads comments that building a
circular track around a housing development and a trolley next to the coastal trail which
seemed like an extension of their amusement ride operation. Marie Jones, who represented
the city, did not discuss that she has contracts with both the city and the consultant who
who was working for the city and the railroad.
The same person, Marie, who a few years ago
was a consultant for the Great Redwood Trail Authority
and who stated in a report for them
that the railroad's freight operation,
if ever restored, would never pencil out.
Just a footnote, the railroad hasn't operated a freight
or any kind of passenger service since the early 90s.
A tunnel collapse in 2013 has not been reopened.
So the train goes three miles up and three miles back.
You heard that there's been extensive public comment.
This has not been our experience.
The public is not invited to the decision making meetings
which are held behind closed doors.
Documents are dropped, usually on Friday afternoon,
revealing the latest information
for the Monday City Council meeting.
There is no public consultation.
There is only public comment on decisions already made.
We were presented with maps throughout the tour
that showed areas in different colors,
but there was very little meaningful discussion
of the challenges of toxic remediation
of the ponds and grounds.
One of the ponds and the berm that you heard about
is over top by storm surge today.
Many believe that that berm is close to failure.
There was a reference to it, but not in the terms
that would accurately describe the condition
of that pond and berm.
Further, there was no discussion
of the types of industrial uses,
one of which, one of many, floated by the railroad,
that they're gonna run these enormous trucks
on train tracks to haul something unspecified,
but plans are to run those tracks at the site.
Several times, references were made to clean engines.
This railroad did not receive any awards for this train
as their engines run on some type of diesel type fuel.
Some believe it's recycled motor oil, but we don't know.
When complaints were lodged against spills,
the railroad refused to allow,
I just have a couple more comments,
the railroad refused to allow
the county health inspectors onto the property.
The commission has an outstanding lawsuit, as you know,
and a violation complaint
for their construction without permits.
You saw that building with all the windows
north of the drying sheds.
That was demolished and rebuilt with no permits,
despite numerous warnings from the commission.
Finally, there is plenty of land in Fort Bragg
for housing developments and commercial enterprises
and even industrial uses.
Housing developments would be welcomed by the community
in areas that wouldn't block public access.
Think of work, live projects that supply housing,
commercial facilities, and access to beautiful headland
filled with trails and recreational opportunities.
It's time to let that land heal, thank you.
Thank you, next is Peter McNamee,
followed by Christine Heinrich Josties, Vincent Poturica,
and then Doug Hammersham, Peter McNamee.
Can you turn the mic on, please, Mr. McNamee?
Well, I'm Peter McNamee, and I have a few thoughts
to share regarding yesterday's railway property tour.
I have to preface my thoughts by saying I'm old enough
to have voted for Proposition 20,
California's Coastal Zone Conservation Act.
I remember clearly the intent of voters in passing the act.
Prop 20 was the public demanding the Coastal Zone be conserved
as an asset for all Californians.
What the commission heard and saw yesterday.
I'm sorry, Mr. McNamara.
I'm going to have to ask you to pause.
We've briefly lost quorum.
So we will return and give you your full two minutes back
and you can start again.
I apologize.
Just a moment.
Apologies.
Thank you.
If you'd like to start again or you can pick up
where you left off, it's your choice.
Thank you.
Sorry, sir.
I'll start by just saying that I'm old enough
to have voted for Proposition 20.
and I wanted to emphasize the title of that proposition,
which was the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act.
And the public in passing Prop 20 made it clear
what they were demanding was that the Coastal Zone
be conserved as an asset for all Californians.
What the Coastal Commission heard and saw yesterday
was a carefully orchestrated sales pitch
by the city and the railway jointly,
and the railways jointly paid contract planner.
Please don't confuse that sales pitch
as some type of community supported vision
for the future of those coastal zone headlands.
The vision presented to you yesterday
serves the interests of the property owner to make a profit.
It does not serve the interests of the state of California
to conserve the coastal zone.
In practice, conserving the coastal zone, as you know,
requires balancing public and private needs and priorities.
It does not call for a prohibition on development,
but it does also mandate approval of development simply,
excuse me, we state that, but it also
does not mandate approval of development
simply for the purposes of enriching property owners
and speculators.
The plan the railway presented yesterday
is its vision for the headlands.
It has not been approved by the Fort Bragg City Council
or the voters of Fort Bragg
and should not be confused as such.
These headlands have been subject to industrial pollution
and environmental abuse for over 100 years.
As the railway admits, the toxic contamination
remaining on their property needs to be remediated.
In my two minute time allotment here today,
it's impossible to respond to all the inaccuracies
false assertions presented on yesterday's tour. I'm just about to conclude. We'll conclude
by saying I hope commissioners will not be swayed by yesterday's one-sided presentation
and I look forward to working with the commission and the commission staff to arrive at a more
balanced division that truly fulfills the mandate of Prop 20 to conserve and protect
our coastal zone. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next will be Vincent
Paterica, Johnson Hammerschirm, John Gallo,
Nicolette Houtz, Vincent Paterica, Doug Hammerschirm,
John Gallo, Nicolette Houtz.
Okay, after that will be Bill Maslak.
Okay, go ahead.
Do I press, oh, all right.
Good morning commissioners,
and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Nicolette Houtz,
and I'm the Stewardship Director
for the Mendocino Land Trust.
I'd like to speak to you about the role,
the Commission's role in public access offers to dedicate
and how they connect directly
to the Land Trust public access program in Mendocino County.
Offers to dedicate are one of the most powerful tools
the Commission has to ensure permanent coastal access.
Through the permitting process,
the Commission may require property owners
to record an offer to dedicate for a public access easement
when development might otherwise limit the public's right
to reach the coast.
These easements only become real public benefits
when they are accepted by qualified entities
like nonprofits, agencies, and local governments.
That's where organizations
like the Mendocino Land Trust come in.
The Mendocino Land Trust is in the top five
offered to dedicate accepting entities
in the state of California.
Of these top five, we are the only nonprofit.
All the others are state agencies.
Over the last 20 years,
the Mendocino Land Trust has built
a strong public access program,
accepting over 120 public access easements
in Mendocino County and stewarding more than 45 public trails
within these easements on the Mendocino Coast.
If you get a chance this evening
before the reception at the Botanical Gardens,
I encourage you to visit the nearby Belinda Point Trail.
It's an excellent example of a well-loved
public access trail on the Mendocino Coast.
In short, the commission's role in requiring offers
to dedicate combined with nonprofit partners' ability
to accept and steward them is what makes
the Coastal Act promise of maximum public access
a reality on the ground.
On behalf of the Mendocino Land Trust,
I wanna thank the commission for its role
in protecting these opportunities,
and we look forward to working together
to ensure the public can always reach
and enjoy the California coast.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next will be Bill Maslak, Katherine Seek,
and then Anna Newman.
Good morning commissioners.
I'm Bill Maslak.
I'm the superintendent for the Sonoma Mendocino Coast
District for state parks.
Our district covers from Westport South to Bodega Bay.
And I'm only here to speak of collaboration.
Westport, the highway is falling into the ocean.
Caltrans came up with a solution.
They're armoring the bluff.
They got an emergency coastal permit.
The Caltrans came to state parks and said,
we'd like to work collaboratively
on a holistic approach for our mitigation.
And they said, hey, you got one mile
of old abandoned Highway 1 with asphalt
and road base under it.
So they worked with Myers and Sons.
I believe they're one of the largest family-owned
civil construction companies in California,
if not the United States.
They took out a mile of asphalt,
used it for the project that they're doing down the road.
Now, we're gonna make a five-foot-wide trail
to increase the coastal trail.
And it's been, our office has been working
with the North Coast, with the Eureka office
of the Coastal Commission.
And we've just come up with some really good solutions.
Increase of coastal trail,
we're working with tribes for restoration.
We're working with the Westport Village Society.
They purchased property just south of there,
so we're increasing it.
I just wanna say it's just good government
to government work, and thank you.
And if you would please extend your thanks
to the North Coast Office, which has been
just a tremendous asset to working holistically
in the coastal zone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Catherine Seek, Anna Newman,
and then we'll move to our Zoom speakers.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Catherine Seek.
I would like to introduce the commission
to the Headlands Environmental Remediation Education Project
or project here for short.
We were awarded a technical assistance grant
from the Department of Toxic Substant Control
earlier this year.
The purpose of the project is to engage the community,
engage in community education focusing on the condition
of the former Georgia Pacific Mill Site
and the remaining environmental issues.
Most of the funding we received is being used
to hire a technical consultant,
Stephanie Aguilar of Fairlawn Consulting,
to review and explain existing investigation
and clean up reports to the public.
The remaining remediation is currently under discussion
by the landowner and various agencies,
including DTSC, the City, the Coastal Commission,
and the Department of Safety of Dams.
Public participation in these discussions
is an essential component of the process.
And the public can most meaningfully participate
when fully informed about the condition of the areas
still needing remediation and the alternatives being proposed.
For more information about this project,
we invite you to visit our website, project-here.org.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Anna Newman.
Hi, I'm Anna Newman.
I'm the harbor master for the Noyo Harbor District.
If you haven't had an opportunity to go to our harbor,
I strongly suggest it.
Noyo Harbor is located on Noyo River,
so we're rather split into two.
North Harbor is along the northern side of the river channel
where the majority of our fish buyers, processors,
and then great local restaurants are.
On the southern side of the river is the marina,
which is primarily where I work.
Within the marina, we have over 100 commercial
active fishermen who will make anywhere between
$7 to $14 million annually,
depending on season availability.
So this last year, we made about $7 million,
and that was largely due to the fact
that the California king salmon season
has been closed for the last three years.
Although our fleet has faced significant challenges
as the Harbor District, we're working as hard as we can
to be a strong backbone for the commercial fishing fleet.
Right now, we're constructing a new 20-ton flake ice machine
for the fishermen, and we're hoping to offer ice
at half the cost of what ICE had been previously offered at
from $250 a ton to $100 a ton.
Hopefully, need to see my PG&E bills first.
Aside from that, that grant was awarded
through the California Jobs First Program
through the Economic Development Department.
We were very excited to be awarded another grant
for the planning and permitting
of the redevelopment of the marina
from the State Coastal Conservancy.
Our harbor was built in the 1960s,
So we are wood and steel brackets, as we know over time.
That's degraded, and we're hoping to transition
into concrete.
That's also gonna give us an amazing opportunity
to update our infrastructure for this larger fleet
that we're seeing.
Although we have a lot of successes,
we have a lot of challenges still ahead of us.
We're in desperate need of dredging,
and our dredge spoils location is in severe need
of redevelopment and some love.
Thank you guys so much for coming.
Please come down to the harbor if you have an opportunity.
please feel free to reach out to me for any questions
about Marina's redevelopment or ICE manufacturing.
Thank you, have a good day.
Thank you.
All right, moving on to Zoom speakers.
We have first Samantha McDonald,
followed by Adam Leverins and Susan Simon and Ernie Simon.
Samantha McDonald.
Give us a second as you're being promoted and as a panelist.
and then when you're able to, please go ahead.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
Awesome.
Sam McDonald live aboard Newport Beach.
The SLC just published their draft report
that shows Newport Beach to no one's surprise
is discriminating and potentially violating
the California Constitution and Granite Land statute.
However, during the SLC's recent meeting,
Chair Kulinakis asked the SLC chief council
why live aborts are not being addressed
in their investigation despite clear signals
that the city intends to eradicate the live aboard community.
SLC chief council respond to that
due to an informal opinion provided by the attorney general
for a houseboat case in Redwood city back in 2015,
they do not believe live boards are aligned
with public trust.
The state lands commission opinion in my confidence is wrong.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a PhD studying
civic technology and engagement.
And I feel confident in my general interpretation
of legal and policy-based evidence.
And I wrote a detailed letter to the SLC
citing the laws and historical decisions by the state,
which contradict the SLC's council's claims,
including previous decisions directly made by the SLC
to approve live awards in places like Berkeley.
I am urging and honestly begging at this point,
you to read the letter and to understand why the SLC
and CCC must intervene and stop the eradication
of live awards.
Newport is drastically changing coastal access
and trying to circumvent the CDP process.
It is time for the Coastal Commission to step up
and require the CDP due to a substantial change
in the harbor.
Not only is the licensed conversion program
going to eradicate a form of coastal affordable housing,
potentially against no net loss provisions
and against the stated priorities of this commission,
it's going to drastically change recreational access
in the Thailand's and oceans for all.
Please require a CDP be filed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
will be John Gallo who showed up in person and then we'll move on to Adam
Leverin, Susan Simon and Ernie Simon. Yeah, thank you Commission for coming to
Fort Bragg and I was outside on zoom when those five people weren't there in
front of me so couldn't get in and fast enough. Alright, so I am the chairman of
the Fort Bragg Headlands Consortium. We were formed in 2017 and we have three
social goals, the one that I really want to focus on today is our goal of
sustainable growth with a local economy that sustains itself in the environment.
And I woke up last night, middle of the night, just torn by everything that had
happened yesterday and over the last 20 years and not seeing a solution, not
seeing a win-win. And I was thinking how are we going to meet our goals as an
organization also the goals of Sierra Railroad Company shareholders because
like it or not that's what's on the table and then those are the goals of
the Fort Bragg and City and also the Coastal Commission and then about two
hours later it hit me like a ton of bricks I'm so excited and so I've got a
win-win-win solution that is gonna work and I have two asks of you guys. Ask
number one is do not sign the MOU until after I've had a chance to share this
vision with the railway, with the city, with you, and the community. I really
think this is going to be the solution. Number two, I mean a part of that is
this solution is significantly different than what's on the table and it's a win
for the railroad but it is so different that it could arguably be considered a
breach of the MOU if we discuss it after the MOU is signed. So that's why we need a little time here.
The second ask is that for those of you that see the potential of Fort Bragg to be a gem of the
California coast in a world-class city, please share your experience and your statewide
perspective with us. The railroad, the new city staff, the new council members, the new mayor
vice mayor and see you guys tonight. So thank you very much. Thank you. Now Adam
Leverins, Susan Simon, Ernie Simon, and then Jennifer Creston. Adam Leverins.
Is my audio coming in? Yes, we can hear you. Awesome, great. Thank you and good
morning to all. Again, speaking about coastal access through the use of
moorings in Newport Beach, which moorings are the lowest tier form of coastal
boating access. I've got a couple slides if what could be called up. A 40 foot mooring
permit, they were developed, installed and refined by permit holders over near 100 years
and in compliance with city and federal mandates. They're maintained by the permit holders and
they actualize the local coastal program, coastal land use plan goal to preserve moorings
as a form of low-cost access to the water. The city desires a 100% conversion of what
they call city-owned short-term licenses. The rents for these are $7,200 a year as opposed
to the mooring permit, which is about $1,600 a year. Those rates are more than 1,300% higher
than current state benchmark rates for Orange County. The maintenance expenses bore by the
and the city really can't do anything cost effectively and it transitions coastal access
to be more localized to the affluent through prohibitive pricing and regulation. If you
could go to my next slide, please. So in summary, city-owned short-term high cost mooring licenses
price out the less affluent and out of towners who can often not afford to own or even rent
in Newport Beach. Further reduced coastal access, tailoring it even more to socioeconomic
privileged and locals only, have rates more than 1,300% higher than current benchmarks.
There are also multiples higher than the other four categories you see at the bottom. I hope
you will look at those later. Next slide, please. State Lands addressed this at their August 21st
meeting. The Lieutenant Governor sitting as a chair said, quote, this commission does not set
rates for the peers. This is not our call. This is the city's call. Close quote. So this is in
coastal's realm of authority. There's been some speculation over the year and a half, who does
this? Top of the page a memo from Peter Douglas saying that you have control over rates and bottom
of the page a public resource code identifying that moorings are a development by your own
regulation. It is time for coastal to step up and have a CDP process issued for the city's
intend to take these moorings away. Thank you.
Thank you. Next, Susan Simon, Ernie Simon,
Jennifer Kristin. Susan Simon, go ahead. Good morning, Coastal Commissioners. My
name is Susan Simon and I'm 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 Port Master Plan update is inconsistent
with Coastal Act Chapter 3 codes. Regarding Article 7,
industrial development. Code 30260 alpha. The PMPU's omissions and lack of candor with the public
and the Coastal Commission did not allow for the proper evaluation of large-scale development in
the central Embarcadero. The PMPU states nothing will change in the CE but the port identified a
developer in 2016 to redo the entirety of the central Embarcadero. They had a detailed project
description as early as 2019 and commence CEQA analysis in 2020. The port approved the PMPU in
2024, so why wasn't this development included in the CEQA analysis? The Seaport project,
as it is called, looks to relocate the fish processing plant and fish offloading piers and
docks on the only remaining water view on the G Street Mall, a promontory. Based upon comments
fishing industry representatives provided at many of the port meetings, they don't appear to think
this relocation is workable for them due to the amount of square footage they require, the volume
of traffic, and the lack of adequate parking if they are co-located with a busy restaurant at the
same site. Without the redevelopment in the central Embarcadero, the PMPU EIR stated traffic
was significant and unavoidable. The project will only make it worse causing pollution
so near the water. Code 30250 alpha. The above also makes this plan inconsistent with this code
section that says industrial development should not have significant adverse effects either
individually or cumulatively on coastal resources. Thank you for your time and attention to this
important matter. Thank you and I believe Ernie Simon is sharing a device. Good morning coastal
commissioners. My name is Ernie Simon and I'm a member of the Embarcadero Coalition. I would
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 4, marine environment, code 30230, marine resources will not be maintained,
enhanced, or restored by building new piers that will induce more mega-yachts and increase
other boat traffic, people and their associated litter and replace passive green spaces with
wider concrete walkways in this relatively small area. Besides the trash in the water
and constant sediment disturbance caused by boat traffic, development of additional piers
and buildings at or very near the water will cause shading on the water, disturbing or
destroying the habitat. Regarding Code 30234, proposed recreational boating facilities shall,
where feasible, be designed and located in such a fashion as to interfere with the needs of the
commercial fishing industry. The increase in the number of births, including megayatts in the areas
nearest the commercial fishing fleet and the narrowest portion of the bay, can't but interfere
with the commercial fishing industry. It already does at current levels, not to mention the
commercial shipping industry and the U.S. Navy who routinely must sound their horns
to get boats, jet skis, and other watercraft out of their path. I appreciate your time
and attention to this important matter. Good day.
Thank you.
Next is Jennifer Christen followed by Hein Austin, and then Chaylee Hilkoma.
Jennifer Christen.
Good morning commissioners.
I have a video I believe that I would like you to show but I just want you to know that
the issues in San Diego presented by Mr. Conway are the same in Newport Beach.
And after meeting last night with the Newport Beach Harbor Commission regarding mooring
permittee concerns, we were informed that the Harbor Commission is no longer has any
authority over the issues that we presented and that now the Newport Beach City Council is in charge.
So please play my video. Can you hear that? We're going to start it from the beginning again.
Thank you.
to use public parks and beaches without special permission. The founder of a nonprofit, Risa
Bell, says the city's proposed resolution to enforce permits undermines that. The fact
that they're trying to look at nonprofits, specifically nonprofits that are focusing
on equity and coastal access. Okay, here's what this does. Nobody in that storage and
It's rich people who own beach houses don't want poor people there.
The same?
Yeah.
That's what's going on.
Rich people are great at raising money for poor people, but they don't want them on
their side.
So.
Thank you.
That's just the truth.
So, if you're in that area, keep going to the beach.
It irritates the rich.
Thank you.
So keep positive of the beach, and let's irritate the rich people who take data.
All right, next will be Hein Austin, followed by Jalie Hilkoma, Jennifer Ortega.
Hein Austin, go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
Can you enlarge my slide, please?
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Hein Austin.
Despite decades of successful implementation, the Coastal Act's vision of coastal protection
and equal access for all people is not fully realized.
Systematic socioeconomic discrimination
in Newport Beach prevents moorings from having equal access
with affluent dock owners to the California coast.
The Coastal Act defines environmental justice
as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement
of people of all races, cultures, incomes,
and national origins with respect to the development
of policies, the meaningful consideration of recommendations
from populations and communities most impacted
by land use decisions.
This satellite image shows two identical uses
of tide land waters in Newport Beach.
Both are recreational, self-installed,
self-maintained long-term storage.
Notation A shows a dock that pays $600 a year
in Campark 7 boats free of charge.
According to a map online calculator,
the highlighted area of the dock
and the boats cover 5,400 square feet,
that dock pays 11 cents per square foot per year.
Notation B at the white dot next door shows
an 18 foot onshore mooring that occupies 190 square feet.
In 2024, the city launched a new mooring license program
that raises mooring rates by 500% with no public input.
The mooring must pay $1,600 a year or $8 a square foot.
Docks are multi-use spaces and easy to access.
Moorings are single-use spaces and difficult to access,
yet moorings must pay 70 times more.
Finally, with moorings as the mooring community
as being the most impacted community,
we hereby request that you direct the city
to apply for CDP to convert low-cost moorings
into permits into high-cost mooring licenses
and raise mooring rates by 500%.
Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, Chaylee Hilkama, Jennifer Ortega, and then Lucy Rennick.
Hello. Thank you Coastal, Mr. Harmon and Coastal Commissioners. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
We can hear you. You muted yourself. Unmute. There, now we can hear you.
My good. Thank you so much, and thank you for your good work. My name is Chaylee Hilkama. My husband George and I are
morning permit holders in Newport Harbor.
George has been a board member
of the Newport Moring Association for 35 years.
The city of Newport Beach has regulated discrimination
against moring permit holders
and the inequities go way beyond the nine pages
of Harbor Code moring regulations
compared with the one page regulating those with moring,
excuse me, with residential peer permits.
It has relentlessly changed policy that affects us negatively
and now it wants to raise our Thailand fees three to 500%
end the long-established practice of mooring transferability. Moorings were intended to be a
lower cost alternative to boat slips but more privileged people with residential peer permits
pay a fraction of our fees for their docks and nothing for the boats tied to them. And the city
allows them to rent docks days giving them a regulated opportunity to profit from their
private use of the public tide lands. The Beacon Bay bill requires that the city makes no
discrimination and rates for any use. Since all boats in the harbor are moored on public
Tidelands, either at a commercial dock, a private dock, or a mooring buoy, we ask that the city
charge all users equitable fees. We've had an ongoing struggle to protect mooring transferability.
Many of us paid tens of thousands of dollars for our permit. The city and county participated in
this process. There was no standardized permit fee. The wait list was ineffective. People were
were on it for decades and never got a mooring.
If someone finally did get one,
it may not have been in a convenient location.
So the market solved issues related to place and time.
And for those of us who wanted to sail
while we're still able to do so,
purchasing a mooring permit was the only option.
If the city is allowed to take away our ability
to transfer our moorings,
it will be singling us out given that it has always
and will always allow transferability of permits
for homeowner docks and marinas.
This discrimination will substantially hurt us
in our retirement.
We won't be able to recoup some of what we paid,
and if mooring rates are raised to amounts
that are unaffordable for most,
it will be difficult to sell our boat.
That story will be told a thousand times.
The city has hit us with a one-piece torch.
It was probably meant to knock the wind out of our sails
and us out of the harbor,
but we've decided to fight back.
And thank you for helping us with our fight.
Thank you.
I'd appreciate it.
Next is Jennifer Ortega, followed by Lucy Rennick
and then Janet Rogers.
Jennifer Ortega.
Good morning, my name is Jennifer Ortega.
I'm the Education Manager with Friends of the Dunes,
located in Humboldt County.
Friends of the Dunes is a nonprofit dedicated
to conserving the natural diversity
of coastal environments in Northern California,
their community-supported education
and stewardship programs.
We want to say thank you for the funding we have received
through the Whaletail Grant,
and I'd like to share some highlights.
This year, Friends of the Dunes coordinated
our 20th Kids Ocean Day event in Humboldt County
On May 29th, this is a free field trip.
603 students attended Kids Ocean Day.
In addition to students,
approximately 178 adults attended the event
as staff, volunteers, teachers, and parent chaperones.
We were able to pay for one bus per school.
12 schools participated.
For 132 of those students,
it was their first time going to the ocean.
Additionally, we were able to coordinate
25 coastal field trips for elementary students,
21 schools participated with a total of 810 students
learning about coastal environments.
We were awarded approximately,
we awarded approximately $3,500 in bus scholarships
to schools based on need.
We recruited and provided
thorough environmental education training
for 23 volunteer field trip guides.
We were able to offer several scholarships
for our California Naturalist course.
So thank you.
Thank you for your grant funding support.
Thank you.
Next is Lucy Renick, Janet Rogers,
and then Carol Archibald.
Lucy Renick.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Lucy Renick.
I'm a policy intern for Better Neighbors LA,
a coalition of host tenants,
housing advocates and community members.
We conduct data analysis and research
on the short-term rental industry,
including in the coastal zone,
where we advocate for regulating short-term rentals
through true home sharing and hosted only rentals
to balance coastal access and long-term housing needs.
Today, we wanna let the commission know
that California's Department of Housing
and Community Development
published their plan to modify
the regional housing needs allocation determination process
so that local jurisdictions must account
for units lost to short-term rentals and vacation homes
and their RINA calculations.
Municipalities are concerned that short-term rentals
could severely reduce already limited housing stock.
Last month, the Coastal Commission considered an LCPA
from such a community when it approved without amendment
the County of Monterey's LCPA regulating short-term rentals.
Better neighbors applauds the commission's decision
to approve the LCPA.
The commission should continue to permit municipalities
to limit STRs to address their housing needs,
especially when STRs often do not provide
low cost overnight accommodations.
It is likely that local coastal jurisdictions
continue to take housing into account in their short-term rental policies due to changes in
arena policy. The new arena policy will apply to the seventh cycle of the housing element
and continue moving forward. We appreciate the commission's thoughtful engagement on
Monterey County's LCPA and urge you to continue thinking critically and holistically about
community needs as you evaluate further STR regulations. Thank you. Thank you Janet Rogers,
Carol Archibald and then Robert Roy Van DeHook. Janet Rogers. Good morning. I'm Janet Rogers,
co-chair of the Embarcadero Coalition. San Diego's port refused to change the Port Master Plan update
to mitigate significant and unavoidable EIR impacts due to making money. We suffer when
environmental impacts aren't fixed. Will your environmental analysis require the port to fix
the environmental impacts or is an environmental analysis just a joke. Next slide. In July I
listed EIR categories that were significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Will you
harm all these sensitive receptors? Why would you certify this PMPU? Next slide. The port used
overriding considerations to certify the PMPU, but it's all about money. They praise
sustainable revenues, economic generators, economic growth, private sector participation,
and economic sustainability. Next slide. The port increases revenue from tourism taxes and hotels,
but only three Californians of every 100 visitors stay at downtown hotels.
The massive Embarcadero hotel development is not for Californians.
Next slide. The port voted that significant unavoidable environmental impacts are
outweighed by the benefits and the adverse environmental effects are
considered acceptable. Why are they acceptable to the commission?
Next slide. The port's 2024 negative income was $95 million. The port can't justify ruining the
Embarcadero for money. Next slide. The impacts are only unavoidable if the port stays on the same
course. Change direction. Please stop the port monetizing the Embarcadero regardless of the
to the negative environmental impacts.
Please save the public guideway for the Californians.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Carol Archibald, followed by Robert Roy van de Hoek,
and then Michael Brandon.
Carol Archibald.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
OK.
Could you put up my slides, please?
The slides are up.
OK.
I'm Carol Archibald from the Sierra Club Seal Society.
good morning, commissioners.
Thank you for all you do.
Next slide.
The city made a commitment in April
to have Rangers staffed at Point La Jolla
to monitor the Cove and make announcements on a bullhorn
and to create an incident report sent to NOAA enforcement.
In August, we showed the commissioners the report
with very few announcements made in June and July.
In August, there were also less than two per day.
Andy Field, Park and Recreation Director
the city of Orange County. We
distance is. The photo to your right shows an A-frame sign with a sea lion in the background
at Pismo Beach. Place cones and tape around sea lions, pups, injured sea lions, and difficult
to see sea lions. This happens in all other areas along the coast. Why not in La Jolla?
Next slide, please. Again, these are short-term actions that can be implemented now. Ask the
the city to temporarily close the western stairs when sea lions are resting on them
to prevent people from descending the stairs and not seeing the animals until they are
almost stepping on them. Access on the eastern stairs keeps the beach open at all times.
The photo to your right shows tourists on the stairs with sea lions in a speed away.
These actions are not difficult to implement and will improve public safety. Thank you.
Thank you. Next Robert Roy van de Hoek, Michael Brandon and Judy Taylor. Robert Roy van de
Hoek.
Thank you. Greetings, commissioners. My name is Robert Jan van de Hoek, nickname Roy, and
I am a conservation biologist and environmental scientist and I'm with the Bionna Institute
and I cooperate with Protect Bionna wetlands and defend Bionna wetlands. I titled my speech
today. It's not fair to the public, but was fair 25 years ago with Pedro Nava as a commissioner
and Senator Burton at the Coastal Commission. 25 years ago approximately Pedro Nava was
appointed to the Postal Commission. He called it the Postal Commission because he understood
later after he got the position it was the Coastal Commission. It rhymes a little bit
a poetry there.
After a time on the Coastal Commission, appointed by the Assembly Speaker, he was removed or
turned out and not going to get reappointed.
He went to Senator Burton, who then he put, he was Senator Rotem and he put Pedro Nava
back on the commission.
He was in the era of courage and giving the public the time to speak.
and Rusty Arias, the chair of the commission, would give the public five minutes to speak.
And if they were with an organization, a little more time. Now it went down to three minutes,
and now two minutes, and sometimes we're only getting one minute to speak now.
And that's why my title list is it's not fair. But another method that Pedro Nava used to have
more time for the public was an example of when I was a scientist, and he called me back up to the
podium to give the names of the scientific names of plants and animals in the Biona wetlands and
put it onto the record. It's very important to do that. The Native American people have
an issue on the California Condor and Pedro Nava played a role on that and the Condor is coming
back to coastal Southern California. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Brandon, Judy Taylor, and Jim
Paul Mer. Michael Brandon. Good morning staff, commissioners, and esteemed chair Harmon. I humbly
ask you to enforce oversight into Newport Beach's efforts to drastically change mooring permits
by requiring the city to apply for a coastal development plan. If you recall, Newport Beach's
recent attempt to condense a mooring field through a CDP was rejected by your council
nine to one for failing to consider the most basic safety protocols and severely failing to
engage with its stakeholders. Now, with respect to mooring permits, all efforts to reason with,
initiate dialogue, and propose compromise with the city of Newport Beach have failed.
State Lands has given us audience and discovered inequities in Newport Beach's conduct,
but it seems that their internal compass is divided between protecting public access
and stepping aside to give the city of Newport Beach autonomy to manage the tide lens.
It is now abundantly clear to me that this commission holds the most power to rein in the
city of Newport Beach by forcing them to apply for a coastal development permit to change the
structure of their mooring permit program because their July 9th, 2024 ordinance violates their
current coastal land use plan and will force Thailand users out of the harbor, reducing
access to affordable boating. And with that, I cede the rest of my time. Thank you so much
much for listening to this cause. Thank you. Next is Judy Taylor, Jim Palmer and
then Patricia McPherson. Judy Taylor. Good morning. This is Judy Taylor and I am
here today on behalf of Smart Coase California. Smart Coase California is an
organization that is promoting safe and sane use of our beaches and land use
policies. We have a a summit coming up on October 16th. This is normally the last three
summits we have done have been in person and the Coastal Commission staff has participated. We had
your director speaking at a couple of the meetings. I'm not very fluent this morning,
I'm sorry. But please check out smartcoastca.org. Our summit is on the 16th from nine until four.
Your executive director will be presenting again. Dr. Charles Lester will also be one of the
presenters. And check us out at smartcoastca.org. You will see the events. It is being done
virtually this year because we want to get to a wider audience. So check us out. We have an early
registration until the 17th of this month and we'd like to see lots and lots and lots of your faces
on our Zoom screen. Thank you. Thank you. Jim Palmer, it seems that we're having trouble
finding a mic. Okay there now I see a mic connected. You should be able to speak now. Jim Palmer.
can you hear me all right yes now we can hear you go ahead i had a little delay going there thank
you um thank you for this opportunity and thank you for what you do i'm here to also request that
the coast commission required the city of newport beach to obtain a cdp forced july 9th 2024 approved
yet temporarily suspended ordinance to convert boring permits to more licenses new port harbor
this policy change constitutes development of the coastal act and it significantly impacts
public access because a increasing costs and limiting access to titans for lower income
voters while favoring Newport Beach residents.
Site note is 60% of mooring permit holders are not Newport Beach residents and therefore
do not have local elected representation.
B, structural change, mooring gear has been owned and maintained by permittees for over
100 years over their permit.
Mooring licenses structurally change mooring gear to be owned and operated by the city without
a CDP.
See the state lands Commission's draft review states the title and administration grant gives a city wide latitude and implies that development changes are not within the city's statement, the SLC grant review authority.
Many view that response that the SLC is punting the development issue of permits to license conversion back to the CCC for CDP.
commission noted in denying the more reconfiguration in February of this year, the lack of adequate
community engagement was a major reason the CDP denial, that lack of adequate engagement continues
just last night and once again, the Harvard commission held what was expected to be returned
to past commission practices of collaboration. Instead, our current work quote, taken under
advisement unquote, only to be followed by another round of demeaning lectures from Harvard
commissioners about how they're, quote, objectives to modify moorings, unquote, are approved
by the city council and what other tight end permits are not their problem as they're maintained
by the public works department, not the harbor commission. I urge you, it's now time to intervene,
please sooner rather than later, and instruct staff to require the CDP to convert permits
to licenses. Thank you.
Thank you, Patricia McPherson, followed by Jim Fitzgerald, Susie White-Lawn and Guntrell.
Patricia McPherson.
Patricia McPherson, Grassroots Coalition.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hi, Grassroots Coalition has been instrumental in protecting biona wetlands for the past
20 years.
We led to a willing seller.
I'm also a founding member of Biona Lagoon Marine Preserve and instrumental in the city
of Los Angeles's creation of the Pliovista Methane Prevention Detection and Monitoring
program for Pliavista Phase 1 as well as the citywide methane code. So we have a substantial
background in that. My issue this morning regarding is the California Coastal Commission
has continually ceded their responsibility over to CalGEM with regard to underground
oil field gas migration and SoCal gases operations
within the coastal area here.
We have section 30231,
protection against petroleum product hazards
and that 30232 that the commission has the ability
to help with effective containment for any development.
And I would ask that you participate in those endeavors.
Some of my experience in speaking with staff is there is little to no knowledge with regard
to these oil field issues.
We currently have leaking wells that are in the Biona, um, the freshwater marsh area.
We also have in Biona Lagoon Marine Preserve, e.g. Curtis, at the end that is leaking continually.
These issues need to be addressed by the Coastal Commission, similarly, I think, to the underground
or the below water surface that the commission is very much engaged with the Navy in stopping
a lot of the ill issues that the Navy has been involved with in the marine environment.
Similarly here, I wish that the Coastal Commission would stop ceding any and all authority over
to CalGEM, which is an oil and gas industry oriented entity.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jim Fitzgerald, Susie Wylaw, and Ed Control.
Jim Fitzgerald?
Hi.
Hi, sorry, I'm getting Zoom issues.
Can you guys hear me?
Yes, we can hear and see you.
Yeah, I live in the neighborhood
and I just got a couple things,
but one big thing in my short two minutes.
It's a tight area and the way the new layout exists
raises one concern to me that's higher
is that the street hurricane pretty much dead ends
And right now you've got the old pump on one side,
you're building a new pump on the other side,
and it'll continue to be a public road
that goes right through the middle of it.
And today is 9-11, and I worry about somebody with a truck
parking it in the middle and taking out the old
and new pumps at the same time and causing havoc.
Excuse me, sir.
This is an item on our agenda today,
so you'll have to sign up and speak at the appropriate time.
Thank you.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
Susie Whitelaw and control.
Hello, I'm Dr. Susie Whitelaw
with Save Our Beaches, San Clemente,
where the Orange County Transportation Authority,
OCTA, has railroad tracks right on our beach.
And I've been talking to you for the last two years
about how we want OCTA to place sand on our beach
instead of riprap to protect their tracks.
Well, this week, they, yay,
they did start placing sand on our tracks,
but unfortunately we have issues.
Next slide.
And next slide, go ahead and move to the next slide.
The sand on the left is what is naturally on this beach
and the material on the right is what OCTA is bringing in.
Now I have a PhD in marine sedimentology,
but all you need are eyes to see
that those two things are not the same.
Look at the small grains on the left
and then look up small grains on the right
and then look at the left picture
and see if you can see those tiny grains there.
They are not there.
The reason why is because the wave energy
is really high on this beach
and all the fine grain material gets washed out
and washed offshore.
Only the larger grains get left behind.
Now the quarry where this material came from on the left,
it has good quality medium and coarse grain sand,
like on the right.
But it appears the OCTA's consultant
must have deliberately chosen
this inappropriately fine grain sand.
Next slide please.
They're placing the sand right on the front edge of the berm
where it will be the first line attack by waves.
When the waves place that fine grain sand into suspension,
it will not settle back onto the beach,
but it will be washed offshore.
Since the purpose of this project is to expand the beach
to protect their tracks,
this sand will not protect the beach.
It in no way mitigates the 5,000 tons of rock
that they've placed on their beach.
I appreciate how much time and effort Coastal staff,
even Dr. Hucklebridge have given to this project.
And I am just so sorry to say that all that effort
and a million dollars of taxpayer money
just seems to have been wasted.
Thank you, and control.
We seem to be having trouble moving in as panelists.
You should be able to unmute as an attendee now.
And control.
And then the other speakers that we have signed up
and we weren't able to find, I'll call your names.
If you are either in the Zoom meeting or in person,
you may approach.
Vincent Pothorica, Doug Hammerstrom, Anastasia Komarosk,
Nick Johnson, Nico de Toledo.
And then again, Anne Cantrell,
you should be able to unmute.
All right, I'm seeing no movement from Anne.
I'm seeing no other hands raised
for people that we have signed up.
Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Chris.
Okay, before we go to Commissioner comments and questions,
we're gonna take a 10 minute bio break.
I would ask all of my colleagues
to please use the restroom now
because we are limited by quorum requirements, thank you.
Okay, that was a real one this time.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thanks everyone for your patience.
Now I'm gonna return to the commission
and ask if anyone has comments or questions
coming out of public comment.
Commissioner Nada.
Okay, thank you.
First of all, I want to thank everybody
who came to speak about the tour yesterday
and kind of give the other side of the story.
I really appreciate you guys showing up
thanks to our former chair.
I'm going to talk about the La Jolla sea lines
because that's what I'm doing here.
You know, I'm sort of dismayed
at the progress that has been made.
I had, I think, told somebody that over the last couple
of months, I've met with mayoral staff.
I met with council president staff,
I've discussed with some of the city attorney's office
about actions that they could and should be taking.
At this point, it doesn't seem like they're following up,
or at least quick enough.
And so, you know, I would like to see,
whether it's next month or sometimes certainly before
December's meeting down in San Diego,
some regular updates from them.
Kind of, you know, whether it's monthly or however,
and I think I'm prepared to make that request to the city
on behalf of staff or on behalf of the commission,
if that helps, but, and I'm sure my other,
some other commissioners will have something to say,
but I'm kind of embarrassed again,
being from San Diego and seeing this continue to happen
and just hope that with further pressure,
we can get the city to actually take action
and do something not only in the short term,
long term, but short term as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Nada.
Yes, thank you, and I do think one of the things
I took away from yesterday's tour
was the incredible resource that's here to the west of us
and what the significant statewide interest is in that area.
And so I appreciate learning more of the details.
I just wanted to follow up on a couple of things
that we hear about regularly.
First is it's great to see that there's some progress
being made in San Clemente with beach replenishment.
I'm dismayed to hear if there's some problem
with the materials that are being used,
and I'd be interested in hearing more
about the details on that.
And then, in terms of,
it's good to see the State Lands Commission
has completed their report on the Newport Bay situation
that's a continuing problem.
I'm concerned, you know, it's good,
I think they've, sounds like they've determined
that there is some action to be taken there,
and I'm a little confused
with some of the conflicting testimony we heard,
so I'd like some clarification from staff on that
and next steps.
Thanks.
Through the Chair, thanks, Commissioner Notoff.
First, I guess, to respond to your question
about the OCTA sand placement...
Are we stuck, there it is.
I do believe that there was sand placement,
as you saw their pictures,
and did just wanna call out OCTA
for following through with that commitment.
It's a relatively small amount of sand,
but it's a really good start.
I checked in with staff during the break
and based on the sediment testing
that OCTA submitted to us,
the sand being placed is actually slightly coarser
than what's on the beach as opposed to more fine,
which is what Ms. Whitelaw had claimed.
I don't think we've seen on the post-testing
or anything along those lines,
So I think we need to dig in a little bit more
to see if there's any merit in that.
But again, we did require testing.
The testing was satisfactory.
So maybe there's a little bit more for us to look into there.
And then on the Newport-Moorings issue,
we have a meeting set up with State Lands staff
coming up soon, and this is on that agenda,
to start to understand where they are,
what their process is.
My understanding is there's not
a commission action scheduled soon.
I think that's at the end of the year, but not sure.
I need to check in with State Lands
and see what their plan is
and get a briefing on their report.
It's a project, welcome Dr. Larson.
This is something we can look forward to working with you on.
Commissioner Notoff, I just wanted to add
just a little bit more of that.
The State Lands Commission report that's,
our understanding that is a draft that they've published
and that they're currently accepting public comments on it.
they haven't officially adopted it yet and that's what they would be coming back to the
state lands commission toward the end of the year. So, yeah, staff is still looking at that as well as
we understand the city is still reviewing the content of the report and
of course we'll be following up with them as well. Thank you for that clarification.
Thank you. Commissioner Kelly. Thank you, Chair Harmon. I wanted to just reflect on some of the
the comments we heard this morning as well as our tour yesterday afternoon of
the property in Fort Bragg owned by the Mendocino Railway and just the really
the getting to step foot on the site and having access and being there with
members of the Fort Bragg community as well as leadership of the Mendocino
Railway. I want to give thanks for their willingness to host us yesterday and
also some of our of our regional partners and staff who are able to
participate and just the number of community residents who came out and who
clearly are very engaged on this issue and hearing about the history of not
only the history of the site right which is you know over a hundred years of
discussion of what's taking place there but really the history of the land use
negotiations that have been taking place over the last several decades and so I
I want to just share my concern that was, you know, raised by residents around
wanting to move forward collaboratively and working, you know, on solutions and
also just to, you know, voice the really how vast and the presence of being there
on the site and what you feel and experience when you are there. It really
takes so much of what we've seen and talked about on paper and and makes you
understand really what an amazing resource this land is and what it means
to this community, but also the interests in our state. I think there are very few,
if any, places that really have that level of, you know, it's 300 acres where
we're talking about miles of coastline that have been long kind of forgotten
and the concretization, if that is a word,
but really just seeing how little has been done
on the site to take action on remediation
in a meaningful way, and knowing what we know
about sea level rise and things that are happening today,
and what we know to be true of what's happening
in the future, I think the thought of not taking action
over the next two decades if we're still
in this kind of land use cycle doom loop of planning
and replanning, I think it's not only a waste
of public resources to continue circular planning efforts,
but also we don't have the ability to not act
at this point, I think, because of what we know
about the level of toxicity on the site
and where we now know the, where DTSC has come in
and evaluated and made recommendations
for the toxicity, I'm concerned that if we don't really
move forward with a solution, we are in fact
allowing additional harm to coastal resources.
And so I'm eager to see all of the jurisdictions,
City, Coastal Commission, Mendocino Railway,
others, DTSC, to come forward with a collaborative solution.
And I feel confident that we're going to be able to get there
in this lifetime.
So, if not sooner, and so I just want to say thank you for everyone who participated and looking forward to meaningful conversations and advancing our shared goals and values in this community.
Thank you. Any other comments, questions, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all the speakers. Thank you to everyone who participated in in yesterday's tour. It was illuminating.
and I think we all walked away with the same thought
that this definitely presents a tremendous opportunity
for the city of Fort Bragg.
I wanna turn my attention to real quickly
just a comment on the Newport mooring concerns
that I've been hearing about,
or we've been hearing about since I came on in May.
And State Lands Commission, as you mentioned, just met
and the one comment they made is consistent
with some of the comments we've made
that they've been concerned about the sale
and transferability of public state tide lands.
And I just did a quick Google search
and there are moorings for sale from $20,000
all the way up into the high six figures.
So they are certainly concerned with that profiting
from state tide lands.
I also just wanted to align myself with Commissioner O'Malley
on the sea lion issue in La Jolla.
And again, I'm just flummoxed flabbergasted.
And I just did a quick Google search of, I just said,
sea lions closed beaches.
I came up with five.
Santa Carlos closed their beaches due to a large colony
of sea lions.
Monterey Beach, Sister City Park, and there are a couple more.
And then what also popped up was the fact
that there was a man witnessed just a day ago, a day or two
ago, taunting a beach, excuse me,
taunting a seal at La Jolla.
He was actually filmed trying to touch
the seal who was sleeping.
And the seal woke up.
And the city of San Diego, in response,
I saw they posted something and said, don't be this guy.
Well, that's it, and that seems to be all we've gotten
is that type of social media postings
and promises of action, when, again,
I'm a simple-minded guy, it's not that hard
to put a piece of yellow tape across the bottom
of the stairs and close it and put up a sign.
So, I look forward to your additional involvement
in trying to get some action.
Again, I've been here since May, and every single month
I've been hearing about moorings and the sea lions.
The moorings at least is being addressed.
The sea lions, I think, is just a,
and I understand the sea lions are cool to see,
they're cool to witness, but you can witness them
from the top of the stairs without going down
and exposing the pups to danger as well as yourself.
I mean, they are wild animals.
And God forbid something happens.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
thank you commissioner Jackson okay any other comments seeing none I don't think I'm assuming
our colleagues online don't have their hands raised okay great thank you very much perfect
okay so now um thank you very much to the public for being here and sharing your testimony it's
always um hugely important for us and very much valued by this commission to get your input so
thank you so we'll move on now to the regular consent calendar please turn it back to staff
mr hudson thank you and the next item is item five the consent calendar for all districts on
the agenda today we have three items on consent and staff was not aware of any opposition to
these items at the time the staff reports were prepared and the applicants are in agreement with
the staff recommendations the staff is recommending the commission vote and approve the consent
calendar. Staff is available for questions. Great. Thank you very much. Do any commissioners
have any ex partes to report on any of these items? Okay. Seeing none, are there any members
of the public who wish to speak on any items on the consent calendar? We have no public comment,
but we do have three people available for questions. Okay. Does anyone want to remove
any of these items? Okay. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. I move to approve the consent
calendar second moved by Kelly seconded by Commissioner O'Malley and I think we
have to do a roll call vote again today so turn it to you miss Miller thank you
Commissioner O'Malley yes O'Malley yes Commissioner Escalante yes Escalante
yes commissioner Jackson yes Jackson yes commissioner Kelly yes Kelly yes
Commissioner Lopez yes Lopez yes Commissioner not all aye not off yes
Commissioner Presidio yes oh yes Commissioner Turnbull Sanders abstain
Turnbull Sanders abstains Commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes chair Harmon yes
Harmon yes the vote is unanimous with one abstention I believe perfect thank
you very much appreciate it that consent calendar is adopted and now we will move
to those items that have been removed from the regular calendar to consent
thank you that brings us to item six the applications moving from regular to
consent for all districts on the agenda today as mentioned during the agenda
changes earlier this morning we have six items the staff is recommending be moved
to consent and those are item 8b the County of Santa Barbara LCP amendment
time extension for Senate Bill 9 and ADU ordinances. Item 8C, the County of Santa
Barbara LCP amendment dealing with cannabis odor regulations. Item 8D, the
County of Santa Barbara LCP amendment, de minimis amendment for
telecommunication facilities ordinances. Item 18A, the City of San Diego LCP
amendment dealing with the Encanto neighborhood item 18 B the City of San
Diego LCP amendment dealing with cannabis outlet hours and item 19 a CDP
the hall CDP application in closing staff is not aware of any opposition to
these items and we're recommending that the Commission vote and approve this
item staff is available for questions thank you very much do are there any
next part is to report on these items. Okay, seeing none how about public
comments on any of these items Chris. I guess we have one speaker signed up for
item 8d and control and control you should be able to unmute. Good morning
can you hear me? Yes we can hear you. I'm urging you to deny the proposed
amendments in this items. These amendments for 5g towers are eliminating
several current restrictions, including submitting a development of plan to the CCC Director for Tier 2
projects. This will allow towers to be put in any zone, including residential,
excepting only recreational. Towers will be allowed to exceed 50 feet and be as tall as 75 feet.
There would be only a 300-foot buffer when the American Cancer Society states, quote,
there is no safe distance from a cell tower because
radiation intensity depends on many factors. But some experts suggest a
precautionary distance of at least a quarter mile, 1320 feet, to limit exposure.
A 2010 study before 5G found significantly higher health risks within 400 meters, about
a quarter of a mile of towers, and a 500-meter buffer is recommended to minimize potential health
effects." The World Health Association organization found the radio frequency emissions
a quote, possible human carcinogen, unquote,
in addition to being connected with autism,
ADHA, chronic fatigue syndrome, and other health problems.
A 2014 Department of Interior letter states, quote,
there is growing evidence linking the effects
of electromagnetic radiation from communication towers
on nesting and roosting wild birds, bees,
and other wildlife," unquote.
You commissioners have the opportunity
to make cell towers a tad safer by denying these amendments,
which were put in place to be held in coastal resources.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have no other speakers, just those across all items
available for questions.
Great.
Thank you.
I'll turn back to our staff to see if they have any comments
or responses they'd like to make?
Yes, thank you.
Just a brief response.
So this, this de minimis amendment has very few changes
to any development standard.
It is really just streamlining the permit process.
That's its purpose.
It eliminates the need for a specific county
of Santa Barbara permit called the development permit,
but it does not change the requirement
to still obtain a closer development permit.
It does contain some minor development standard changes,
including some August any zoning standards.
So I would just note that we don't believe
that this amendment and we are the commission,
there are certain federal preemptions
that don't allow us to regulate IG versus 4G.
But in terms of coastal resource impacts,
we of course do have that authority.
And we don't believe that this amendment
would result in any new adverse impacts
to coastal resources from any telecommunication facility.
So we do recommend that this item be approved today.
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Hudson.
Do any commissioners wish to remove an item from consent?
Okay, then I will entertain comments, questions,
or a motion on the balance of these items.
I move to approve the balance of items
on the consent calendar.
Second.
move by commissioner Kelly second by commissioner O'Malley may I have a roll
call vote please. Commissioner Escalante yes Escalante yes
Commissioner Jackson Jackson yes Commissioner Kelly I'm Kelly yes
Commissioner Lopez all right Lopez yes Commissioner Nada I'm not off yes
yes. Thank you very much the consent calendar is adopted. Now we'll move to the deputy director's
report for the South Central Coast District, please. Thank you. That brings us to item seven,
the deputy director's report for South Central Coast. It includes one immaterial amendment,
two permit extensions, and one objection to a previously reported time extension this month.
The objection to a previously reported time extension was received for an immaterial time
extension request. That was CDP application 4-13-0401-E11, the Van Dale application which
was reported at our last meeting in August. The project is 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 the deputy director's report was published, a memorandum
addressing the objection is included in this month's deputy director's report and staff
would note that since the original objection was received the neighboring property owner has since
withdrawn their objection in writing and notified the commission that they were able to resolve
their issues with the applicant to their satisfaction. Thus for the reasons explained
in the memo there are no change circumstances affecting the project and with the withdrawal
of that one objection. The time extension now becomes effective. Staff is not aware
of any opposition to the other items being reported today. And so we are 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, Mr. Hudson. Are there any ex partes?
Okay. Any speakers on the deputy director's report? There are no speakers. Great. Thank
Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy director's
report? Okay. Seeing no objections, then the commission can curse. Thank you. And that
brings us, it looks like, to the deputy director's report for the South Coast district, please.
Thank you. And that is item 11, the deputy director's report for South Coast, including
five waivers, one immaterial amendment, and two time extensions this month. Staff received
an objection from a member of the public in regard to the immaterial permit being reported
today. That's CDP 5-20-0540-A1. That's the LA County application for continuation of
a previously approved five-year program for temporary seasonal sand berms protecting existing
structures such as public restrooms and other facilities. Because the objection to the immaterial
amendment was received within the 10-day period for public comment after our report was published.
This item will be brought back at a future hearing, likely next month in October for action
by the commission, with additional information to address the issues raised. In addition, staff
received a letter from Leslie Purcell, who I see is signed up to speak today, in regard to the two
immaterial permit extensions being reported. Those are CDP extension applications 519-0983
and 0984, and that's by the applicant named NXT2 Shutter's Propco LLC. That project was for two
mixed-use structures in Santa Monica, and it wasn't clear from Ms. Purcell's letter if she was
objecting to the extension. Our staff did respond to her email however we did not hear back so I
would recommend that we hear Ms. Purcell's concerns today so that staff may respond to her and any of
her remaining concerns. We're not aware of any opposition to any of 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, staff will be available for questions. Great. Thank you very much. Okay, um, we will
move, sorry, are there any ex partes? I don't remember if I asked. No. Okay, we'll move then
to the public speakers, please. Thank you. All right. We do have two people signed up,
Kenya Lee and Leslie Purcell. Leslie, we are trying to get her the zoom link. So we are going
to take Kenya Lee first. And then Kenya, you should be able to be moved in as a panelist.
Madam Chair, one quick clarification. Is this 12A?
No, this is item 11. Okay, that's what I thought. Thank you.
And then Kenya, you should be able to unmute and begin.
So are you able to load the materials that were sent for the presentation?
Can I just clarify, are you speaking about 12A or item 11?
It ranges from 12A.
So that's the next item on the agenda.
So we'll bring you back to the meeting for the next item.
This is on the deputy director's report that we're on right now.
Okay.
Thank you.
I would also note that we don't seem to have a presentation for Kenya Lee either for this
item or the next.
It was provided via email with Beverly Palmer.
It was emailed over today.
She had interaction with someone at staff there.
It is actually.
I would recommend that we take this conversation.
offline, maybe, and we can continue with item 11,
get through speakers, and then maybe we can reach out
to Ms. Lee and try to work through this issue.
I apologize.
No, no, it's okay, ma'am.
I apologize, ma'am.
It's fine, we'll try to make sure
we can find your presentation.
No, it is item 11.
I'm just looking, it is item 11, I'm sorry.
Okay, why don't we take the other speaker first
while we see if we can locate your presentation
for item 11, does that work, Chris?
And then Leslie Purcell has just popped into the meeting.
You're being moved over.
When you're able to, please go ahead.
Thanks for your patience, everyone.
Just give us a second.
Appreciate it.
All right, Leslie, you should be able to unmute.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Great, okay.
I apologize, but I have a little shaky internet,
connection here. But, yeah, I have concerns about these two-floor underground parking,
subterranean parking structures that are part of these. Oh, no. Sorry. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you, Miss Purcell.
The idea that we have underground parking so close to the beach, and it is especially
the one on oceanfront walk, doesn't seem to conform to the sea level rise policies and
the protection of coastal resources because there will probably have to be a pumping of
water from this underground parking structure because that's usually what we've learned has
happened in other parts of LA. So that has another effect on the local environment and
I know there were some studies done but it seemed like one of them was from 2016 which is almost 10
years ago, and I think that it is just not wise to permit underground parking
structures right along the coast where it will be subject to some kind of
impact from sea level rise and possible liquefaction or other effects if they
They have to do ground water pumping to keep the structure dry, and I wish there was some
way the commission could understand that this is a significant impact that maybe wasn't
quite fully comprehended at the time the permits were given.
The one on Ocean Avenue, it is a little bit inland, but I think there still would be some
problems and have some of the pumpings. Thank you very much.
Thank you and I think we've confirmed with Kenya Lee that she wishes to speak on item
12a or 12a the joint. Great. Thank you very much, Chris. Okay, I'll
return to staff. Mr. Hudson, do you have any closing remarks?
Thank you.
Yes, I'd like to just take the opportunity to respond to Ms. Purcell's concerns.
And to ensure, Ms. Purcell and the commission, that that issue was fully addressed at great
length in the original staff report and the commission's findings.
And this site did consist of two separate structures.
One was about a block inland.
The other was on the beach on ocean sidewalk in Santa Monica.
The subterranean basement or parking garage that was mentioned has a few extenuating circumstances
that set it apart.
And the commission in the past, we have recommended that we not approve subterranean structures
on the beach.
This project is not an exception to that.
There is no significant subterranean parking garage below the grade of the beach.
happening here is that there is a grade differential between the beach and the
first public road. And so that's where this subterranean parking garage is
located. It's really in that area above the grade of the beach but below the
grade of the first public road. And so this project actually daylights at ocean
front walk on the beach. And the analysis and the staff report went to
great lengths to note that this project over its expected life is not expected
be subject to wave up rush, even relative to sea level rise.
And the project has been designed to avoid flooding.
There are some components of the project,
primarily mechanical, equipment, elevator
that did extend below the grade of the beach.
And so we had substantial waterproofing requirements
that were determined feasible from an engineering
and geologic perspective that addressed that.
And because, well, even though we did not expect a project
to ever be subject to wave up rush during its expected life,
we of course could not rule that out as a possibility.
And so we had additional special conditions
that address that, including not just an assumption of risk,
also a waiver of any future shoreline protection
and the requirement that if the site ever became subject
to damage from such wave action or flooding,
that it be, that those components be removed.
We also had went above and beyond and had a requirement
that the applicant prepare a sea level rise
and flooding adaptation plan
that would address many of these specific concerns as well.
So I would just note that these issues were fully addressed
at the time that the commission acted.
And as I have reminded in similar time extension approvals
in the past, these time extensions are not an opportunity
to, of course, re-hear the merits or concerns
about the original project.
The standard review is whether or not
there are changed circumstances.
And in this case, staff has determined
there are no changed circumstances
that affect this site from the commission's action
just five years ago.
And so we continue to recommend the commission
approve this matter, this time extension,
this one year time extension today.
Thank you all in my comments,
but just note staff is available for questions.
Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions or do three or more commissioners object to any item in the report? Okay, seeing no questions or objections, the Commission concurs. Thank you. Okay, and now we will move on to item 12, which is a combined 12A, 12B, and 13A. Thank you.
Thank you. And there will be a combined presentation for these next three items, 12A, 12B and 13A,
which will be presented via Zoom by Jennifer Doyle, a Coastal Program Analyst in our South
Coast District. If we could first pull up the PowerPoint, please. And Jennifer, please take it
away. Good morning, Commissioners. Today, I'll be giving the combined presentation for items 12A,
12b and 13a which are for the substantial issue determination for the appeal of two CDPs approved
by the City of LA and the related de novo and dual coastal development permit applications for the
proposed Venice auxiliary pumping plant and the surface parking lot. The proposed auxiliary
pumping plant would supplement the city's largest existing wastewater pumping facility
located adjacent to the existing um a pumping facility. Due to increase increasing wet weather
flows the existing system has nearly exceeded the capacity of the existing pumps on multiple
occasions. A failure during peak flows could result in sewage discharges into the Grand Canal
or nearby streets. The auxiliary pumping plant is intended to reduce this risk and ensure system
reliability and added capacity. Accordingly, the commission standard of review for appeals,
development in the dual permit jurisdiction area, and the commission's retained jurisdiction
is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Next slide please. The project sites are in the
Biona Lagoon west sub area of Venice, Los Angeles, adjacent to both the Grand Canal and Biona Lagoon.
The project involves the three city-owned vacant parcels totaling approximately 12,000 square feet
and a portion under the Grand Canal. There are two side-by-side canal fronting parcels at 3813
and 3817 Esplanade between Grand Canal to the east, the existing Venice Pumping Plant directly
across Hurricane Street to the south, and multifamily residences north and west. These
parcels would be the site for the proposed auxiliary pumping plant for the needed expansion
of the existing pumping plant as seen on this slide. The third lot located at 128. Oh same
slide please. Slide two. Thank you. The third lot located at 128 Hurricane Street is shown here on
this slide. It is situated across the street from the canal fronting lots on a lagoon fronting
parcel bounded by Biono Lagoon to the south, Hurricane Street to the north, multi-family
residential uses to the west, and Canal Court and the existing Venice pumping plant to the east.
Next slide please. Specifically, the city approved two coastal development permits,
one permit for the proposed auxiliary pumping plant which includes a two-story,
2,500 square foot electrical building and a co-seeded below-grade infrastructure,
including three wet walls, a valve vault, and an inland pipe and diversion structure located at
3813 and 3817 Esplanade and under a portion of Grand Canal. And a second permit for a new surface
parking lot, on a vacant lot with seven vehicle spaces, including two for public use, a public
art installation, bike rack for four bicycles, landscaping, as well as an oil well re-imbandment
at 128 Hurricane Street. These approvals were appealed to the Commission by Genevieve Morrill,
who generally raised concerns about the inconsistency between the city-approved
public facilities and parking lot and the underlying land use designation, the
lack of sufficiency level rise analysis, potential water quality impacts to the
adjacent wetlands, and visual compatibility of the building and power
equipment with the neighborhood or community character. Staff recommends the
Commission find that a substantial issue exists because the city's findings do
not evaluate whether the project may inadvertently or intentionally discharge
pollutants into the Grand Canal or the lagoon, nor do they assess the adequacy of the permeable
yard areas and drainage systems in avoiding water quality impacts to surrounding coastal waters.
Furthermore, the city did not adequately address sea level rise hazards because the city did not
consider how the proposed development minimizes risk over the long term, particularly given the
project's location in a known floodplain and immediately adjacent to a tidal the influence
Waterway. In addition, the clearest appeal ground raised is that the city approved a use inconsistent
with the Venice Land Use Plan, which is the residential land use designation for all the sites,
without an LEP amendment. In addition, as approved by the city, the height of the electrical
building and side yard setback was inconsistent with the development standards of the Venice LEP.
The appeal also raised issues such as general concerns about the exterior
maintenance of the existing pumping plant
and the addition of public parking in the new parking lot.
However, these do not rise to the level of a substantial issue under the Coastal
Act as they either feel to raise valid Chapter 3 grounds for appeal
or do not raise significant coastal resource concerns.
Unless three or more commissioners wish to hold a hearing on the substantial
issue determination, substantial issue will be deemed to exist and we will move
on to the Commission's de novo and dual CPP action. Is now the appropriate time
to do ex partes or should we wait wait okay so do three or more commissioners
wish to have a hearing on substantial issue no okay let's move forward thank
you all right moving on to the permit applications can you move to the next
slide too please thank you the city has made several revisions to the project
during the de novo and dual CDP application process.
For the pumping plant site, the city lower the parapet wall
from 30.39 feet to 30 feet in order to meet the LEP height
standard, agreed to move power equipment out
of the side yard setback to meet LEP setback standards,
and added three on-site parking spaces for employees
and two public on-street parking spaces.
Next slide, please.
In addition, the revisions to the parking lot site
include a redesign of the stormwater system to include a bioswale, dedication of all seven
spaces in the parking lot for public use, and addition of a three and a half foot concrete
wall along the property line. Next slide. The Coastal Act requires water quality and
marine resources be protected in new development projects. The City now proposes a bioswale
to further treat stormwater runoff from the proposed surface parking lot before it reaches
the lagoon. As proposed in condition the catch basin and bioswale will be designed to handle
the 85th percentile 24 hour storm event. Ginger current and future storm events prevent
significant runoff into polluted runoff into the lagoon. Any runoff from the that the auxiliary
pumping plant will be captured and redirected to the pumping plant preventing any runoff from the
site into Grand Canal. Staff recommend special conditions for water quality and hydrology plan
and construction pollution prevention plan to further protect water quality and the biological
productivity of the adjacent wetlands. Next slide please. Thank you. No new permanent development
will occur within the canal or wetlands on site. However, the project requires construction of a
temporary cofferdam in the canal channel to divert flows temporarily impacting 463 square feet of
wetland transitional buffer, 108 square feet of intertidal mud flat and coastal salt marsh,
and 1,342 square feet of subtidal bottom. To mitigate this impact, the app camp proposes to
restore 524 square feet of coastal salt marsh, accomplishing a nearly five to one mitigation
ratio with the appropriate native species. The subtitle mud bottom area will naturally
be recolonized by native algae and epifaunal and infaunal invertebrates following completion
of the project. The 463 square feet of non-native grassland on the slope immediately above the
Coastal Salt Marsh does not require mitigation, but the applicant will restore and enhance 566
square feet of this area into appropriate transitional wetland buffer habitat. To that
end, Special Condition 15 requires a final revised habitat restoration plan to ensure
restoration is implemented and includes an appropriate plant pallet. And Special Condition
12 ensures adjacent wetland wildlife are adequately protected from the effects of light pollution
and building related hazards. Next slide please. The project site is in a low-lying coastal area
vulnerable to multiple coastal hazards including but not limited to flooding from sea level rise
and storm events. The Coastal Act requires new development be cited and designed to minimize
risk from hazards. In this case, citing the proposed auxiliary pumping plant adjacent to
the existing facility is essential as relocating it would not minimize the risk of sewage spills
from the current capacity constrained system. The existing pumping plant is located at a low point
in the sewer network and must pump wastewater beneath the Marina Del Rey channel to the
Hyperion treatment plant in Playa Del Rey. An elevation gain of approximately 60 feet.
Placing the auxiliary pumps and diversion structure elsewhere would not provide
the necessary hydraulic capacity or redundancy needed during wet weather or extreme storm events.
Thus, especially given the potential for water quality and biological resource impacts that
would occur should the existing and proposed auxiliary pumping plant expansion be damaged
by coastal hazards is very important such hazards are adequately addressed. These hazards are
currently addressed through ongoing tidegate maintenance and operations. In a combination
of site-specific engineering solutions, including dry floodproofing, design for
hydrostatic loads, and waterproofing to prevent the flow of water into the pumping plant building,
including doors and substructure hatches. However, several special conditions are still necessary to
further minimize risk, including special condition 10, which requires reevaluation of the project's
vulnerability to coastal hazards by 2050, or before a CDP is required for repairs, upgrades,
replacement or similar, whichever comes first. Special Condition 11, which requires the
development of a tsunami evacuation and safety plan, and Special Condition 4 requires an applicant
and their successors in a sign to assume the risk of pursuing development in a hazardous area.
Next slide please. The revised project enhances public access by providing seven public parking
spaces within the surface parking lot, as well as two new on-street public parking spaces as
seen on the slide. The city also proposes four bicycle parking spaces adjacent to the public
parking lot. To maximize public access and minimize impacts during construction, a special
condition has been required for a public parking sign program to alert the public of the available
parking in the surface parking lot and a special condition requiring a traffic control plan
during construction. Next slide. The auxiliary pumping plant and parking lot parcels are currently
designated for multi-family residential use by the Venice LUP. To address the land use and LUP
policy inconsistencies and avoid prejudicing a future local coastal program for Venice,
Special Condition 2 requires effective certification of an LUP amendment to change the effective or to
change the land use designation of the site to allow the proposed public facility as a legally
permitted use and establish appropriate development standards for this type of infrastructure at this
location. Additionally, the newly proposed CMU wall at the Lagoon side of the parking lot is
inconsistent with the LUP setback as proposed. As such, Special Condition 1 requires the city to
remove the CMU wall from the final plans. Although the site is located within a residential
neighborhood, the proposed structure, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with the Venice
LUP development standards, which are intended to ensure compatibility with community character.
Additionally, the project would not result in significant new impacts to public views
or alter the existing neighborhood character.
Lastly, there is an addendum for this item to update the record of the correspondence
the Commission received to provide a response to those comments and finally to provide minor
revisions to the staff report.
Many of the comment letters sought mitigation for the impacts associated with the proposed
development, some of which were addressed in the staff report, while others must be
addressed through other state or local requirements.
The letters generally raised concerns about the consistency with the Venice LUP, environmental
justice, environmental impacts and public access, to name a few.
Full responses to these concerns were addressed in the addendum.
In one revision to the staff report, staff have added language to special condition 1,
requiring that any changes to the proposed development related to tsunami design requirements
reflected in the final plans unless such changes are substantial and would require an amendment.
Enclosing staff believe that the proposed project as conditioned conforms with both the chapter 3
policies of the Coastal Act and the development policies of the certified Venice LEP. The staff
is recommending the commission approve the project subject to the special conditions which can be
found on pages 36 through 49 of the staff report. Because there are two de novo CDPs and one
Yes, yeah, two DeNofo CDPs and one dual CDP for this project.
There are three sets of motions that can be found on pages 34 and 35 of the staff report.
This concludes staff's presentation and we are available for questions.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Now I will ask if there are any ex partes on this matter.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to report that on August 28, I met with Don Schmitz, who is a consultant working
on behalf of LA sanitation and he outlined and discussed the project from his perspective.
And on the 9th of September I had a lengthy conversation with Ms. Kenya Lee who is a resident
who owns and lives in the property right next to where the proposed station is to be built.
the board. Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez. Yes the
exact same to for me, so I'll
share that I had a meeting on
the eighth of September with
Don Schmitz, where he
outlined the project from his
perspective. Along with, uh,
some of the explanation about
where the effluent that's in
this pipe comes from. And then
on the same day, I had a
meeting with Kenya Lee Steve
or concerns and perhaps some thoughts
about alternative solutions for the area.
I also heard some concerns about the parking
and obviously the construction right next door
to Miss Lee's home.
All those documents have been appropriately submitted
to staff.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner Lopez.
And very briefly this morning on my way into the hearing,
I spoke for just 30 seconds with Don Schmitz,
representative from the applicant.
he introduced me to Christine Heinrich excuse me I think I'm just as I
apologize and just the only exchange of information was that they are very
excited to be here and looking forward to the hearing. With that I would like to
open the the public hearing excuse me and we'll begin with the applicant who is
allotted 15 minutes for their presentation. Good morning commissioners
if we could wait one moment before we start the clock.
Okay, so I want to start off by thanking your staff.
They put a lot of work into this,
and we've been working on this for years and years as well
for this critical infrastructure improvement.
So the Venice Auxiliary Pumping Plant, or the VAP,
is something that you will see is absolutely essential
to be in compliance with federal and state law
and just good environmental practices.
This will improve the reliability
of the sanitation district,
and it will address potential disasters from earthquakes,
floods and things of that nature.
I'm gonna move past this.
Your staff did a great job on orienting you geographically.
This is the area that is served.
It all flows downhill.
There's a lot of puns that can come up
in a presentation like this.
I'm gonna avoid them as much as possible,
but it's an enormous urban area
and it all flows down to this low point,
which is where the VAP is proposed.
Over 222,000 people are served by this, all the way past Santa Monica, the west side of
Los Angeles, up into the Pacific Palisades.
That's 40 million gallons a day of effluent that comes down into this area, and I know
that you are intimately aware of just how disastrous it is when there are sewage spills
in regards to the environmental damage and the closure of beaches, et cetera.
Implications of failure, there was a minor sewage spill that came out of Laguna Beach.
closed down 22 miles of the coastline all the way from San Clemente up to New
Port Beach and that was a small one. The Federal Clean Water Act requires
sanitation districts to address these sorts of issues under the 1972 Clean
Water Act and the state is very active on this as well but before we get there
the Center for Disease Control requires sanitation districts to have emergency
response and preventive maintenance systems.
This is something that our country is keenly aware of
and is seeking to address.
At the state level, the state puts their money
where their mouth is.
They've got a clean water state revolving fund
to help sanitation districts to upgrade their systems
and have redundancy.
It's important to note that this plan is not one
which is going to be funded from the state revolving fund.
It is something which is being paid by the rate payers.
But I just wanted to put that up there
to show that this is not something
where they're just passing regulations and laws.
The state taxpayers are doing what they can
to upgrade these systems as well.
The sanitary sewer system general order requirements
or the sewer agencies must maintain emergency response plans
for overflows and failures.
This is from State Water Quality Control Board.
Title 22 requires 20 day storage,
and when you're talking 40 million gallons,
there's just no way you're gonna have 20 days of storage,
but you must have independent equipment to back up
should you have some sort of power outage
or some sort of crisis in regards to the effluent
flowing into a particular area.
The water discharge requirement
from the Water Quality Control Board
requires this the city to have a comprehensive management plan including
emergency response maintenance and improvements is it possible that I could
watch the clock if you guys could put that up I would be grateful because I
want to be mindful of the time this this particular thank you this particular
existing plant was built in 1957 it's the largest pumping plant in the city of
Los Angeles and it has limited capacity right now if we get wet weather or if we
have a problem we are coming very close to having a disaster and my there we go
this is the existing site improvements I'm gonna move along quickly here your
staff did a great job on showing this it shows the parking lot the actual vap in
the surrounding areas so the existing pump station has been there again since
1957 you can see in this pictures from 1960 the neighborhood grew up around it
There was some homes, there was a lot of oil development
in the area, you can see a subsequent picture here
in the residential areas, that's the existing pump station.
And then by the late 60s, early 70s,
a lot of the residential development
had grown up in the surrounding area.
So let's talk about 30251 of the Coastal Act
and protection of public views.
This plant has been reduced in height a couple feet,
it's 30 feet tall, which means if you see
in the surrounding neighborhood here
that it's right in the average of the height
of the residential multifamily
and single family homes in the area.
It's not a giant infrastructure project
which is gonna overwhelm the neighborhood.
It has a setback of 52 feet from the canal.
The average setback from the residential development
on the Grand Canal, 16 feet, a little over 16 feet.
That's an important issue reflected in the land use plan
because the commission has always historically wanted
to make sure that development's not too close
to the canals because they can have impacts on avian wildlife.
And so, we're obviously going to be significantly more
than what the pattern precedent is out there.
And this is very frustrating that my PowerPoint keeps locking up.
Next slide, maybe it works better?
Can you pause the clock for a second?
Okay, so this, oh, and now it's jumping ahead.
So this is a rendering, chimney cricket,
so this is a rendering from the Grand Canal.
You can see the surrounding residential development
is significantly larger than the building for the VAP.
And the staff report appropriately finds
that this project will not be inconsistent
with the neighborhood character
as specified in the land use plan.
The findings are there.
I want to show you some photographs of the area
to go on further under 30251.
this is a view from Canal Street.
The plant would be off to your left.
You can see that it's not gonna block any public views
looking towards Canal Street, towards the Bional Lagoon.
This is across from the Grand Canal.
This is on Hurricane Street,
which dead ends up to the Grand Canal.
This is, again, the rendering of what you would see
from the dead end on Hurricane Street
and that the pumping plant would be smaller
than the adjacent residential development.
This is a view from Via Dolce,
looking across Bional Lagoon.
and the pumping station would be back behind
the existing pumping station, you will not see it at all.
And so the staff report reflects
that the project therefore is consistent
with section 30251 of the Coastal Act
to protect public views.
Yes, we have a parking, more than adequate parking.
There are seven spaces required
by the Venice Land Use Plan for the VAP.
Three of them are on site,
four more are located in the parking lot,
which we're going to be improving.
Something that's been left out
in some of the opponent's correspondence
is that we're also required to have BIS parking,
that stands for the Beach Improvement Zone.
This is an impacted parking area
and the LUP requires us to provide two parking spots
for that as well.
And although the project is exempt from ADA requirements
for the employees,
we're putting an additional ADA parking spot in there.
We think that that's part of the environmental justice
aspect of the Coastal Act.
And of course, these walkways that are along
the Bional Lagoon and the Grand Canal
are very, very important.
So we are including an ADA parking spot.
We are making improvements
On on hurricane which was right now dirt lot and you can see that there's going to be a sidewalk that's put in
There's going to be additional parking in the area. So the project will also add some additional
On-street parking for the general public and we are in complete agreement with the signage condition that the staff has put into the staff report
and they findings of course specify that the project parking meets the
requirements of both the COSOLAC and the LUP.
So public access is well addressed in this.
There's a 1930s oil well on the parking lot
portion of the project that was abandoned.
We are going to be going in as part of this project
to cap it properly.
This is something we think that is very important
as it pertains to the protection of the marine environment
and the project is conditioned accordingly.
This is the dirt lot which has a very attractive
chain link fence around it right now.
And it is gonna be beautified.
It is very important.
That's the walkway that goes around Biona Lagoon.
Not only is it gonna be providing critical parking
for this impacted area, but it will be beautified
with appropriate landscaping and of course an ADA lot.
It will be closed at nighttime.
It includes a bioswale and the landscaping pallet
is something that is part of the project
and has been also conditioned in the staff report.
There's also a landscaping plan for the plant itself,
the VAP, however, there's not a bioswale in this
because all runoff from this plant
is gonna go straight into the pumping system
and be sent out over into Hyperion
so it will not have any impacts on the marine environment.
And the staff report concludes that the project therefore
is consistent with 302.3.0 and 302.3.1 of the coastal act
protect the marine environment.
So there's mitigation measures which are required in the EIR.
A lot of them, including protection of ESHA.
And we are in complete agreement with that.
And staff has required the mitigation plan
be something that is vetted and approved by the staff.
That includes the restoration of the vegetation
within the Grand Canal.
There is the new diversion structure
that will be placed in.
And on a four to one basis, we will be enhancing the habitat
within the Grand Canal.
area. During construction there will be monitoring of water quality as well.
That's just one of many mitigation measures which we're required to comply
with. You can see this is special condition 15 in the staff report that
the mitigation plans be reviewed and vetted by your staff. I'm going to move
quickly on this. Your staff already discussed the fact that we need to
address sea level rise. This is the marine Delray tide gates. The elevation is 14
feet for sea level to get over that. The tie gates give us a nice bit of protection
in regards to storm surge and sea level rise. But as referenced in the staff report, we're
still going to be waterproofing this facility completely. And the project is, I think, consistent
with your interpretive guidelines to address sea level rise, tiered response, let's see
what happens. We may get a little sea level rise. We may get a lot of sea level rise.
And so the project has been conditioned that in 20 years
we will give a follow-up report to this coastal commission
addressing the status of sea level rise
in any mitigation measures should they be necessary.
Unlikely, but prudent.
40 million gallons a day come down to this.
This is the existing pump station
and that's the magnificent outfall for a problem
that occurs.
It goes right into Biona Lagoon, which is an environmentally sensitive habitat area.
40 million gallons a day represents 1.6 million gallons an hour, or something like 22,000
gallons per minute.
15,000 gallons, a very small spill into Biona Lagoon closed beaches in this particular area.
And this is what would happen, should there be a failure
with 40 million gallons a day.
There would be a plume of effluent
that would go all the way down to Torrance.
It would literally fill Biona Lagoon with sludge.
It would completely pollute Marina Del Rey.
It would be an environmental apocalypse.
And right now, the contingency plan with a 60 inch pipe
that brings all the effluent
from the entire west side of Los Angeles down to this area.
if they can't get on top of it,
if they don't have redundancy and emergency systems in place,
it is literally run for your lives.
It would be a horrible thing.
It would be something commensurate
with what you are intimately familiar with,
which is the environmental crisis
down on the Tijuana River.
And I know you've put a lot of energy
and a lot of attention into this.
There are 35 million gallons up to effluent,
which comes out of the Tijuana River.
And that is enough to, this is a webpage you can log on
to close all the beaches from the border,
all the way up to the entrance of San Diego Harbor.
I'm pleased to announce that our federal government
seems to be working proactively now
and getting some sort of accommodation
in regards to the Tijuana River to address this crisis
that you've put so much time and energy in, we'll see.
But the point is, is this is actually less effluent
than the bad case scenario that could happen
at the Venice Pumping Plant
if they don't have the Venice Auxiliary Pumping Plant.
And this is something that responsible stewards
of the environment have recognized.
This is a letter from the Bay Foundation.
The Bay Foundation supports the city
in regards to the activities,
to proceed with this plant,
to have the redundancy necessary
to make sure that we are walking our talk
in regards to what our federal and state laws are
and what the Coastal Act mandates
to protect the environment from an earthquake,
an extended power outage, things of that nature.
We also have a letter from Heal the Bay
that has been submitted in support.
The proposed project is critical
to protecting one of Los Angeles' most sensitive
and iconic coastal habitats, the Venice Canal,
Biona Lagoon, and the adjacent beaches.
It just makes sense.
So in conclusion, the project ensures a reliable
A wastewater service system for Los Angeles.
The project prevents sewage spills
during extreme wet weather events.
And by the way, we have a separate system.
The storm water doesn't go into our sewage treatment plants.
We get impacts because there's so many manholes.
Just from the little hole that's on top of the manhole,
it can really spike the amount of water
that goes into sewage treatment plants.
It's adaptable to climate change impacts,
including sea level rise, which is the responsible
appropriate thing to do and consistent with the Coastal Act, it provides community benefits,
public art, expanded coastal parking, it maintains access, it's required by federal and state law.
This is something that we have to do. So I want to thank you for your time and I will retain there
a little bit of time for rebuttal and I'm available for any questions that you may have.
Perfect, thank you very much. Okay, Chris.
Okay, we have three people from public agencies
sign up as available for questions.
We have a number of, or we have actually
a number more than that.
But for public commenters we have 17 people
sign up to speak, one in the room.
We'll start with Tom Ford in the room.
All right, Tom Ford, CEO of the Bay Foundation.
Happy to be here today in person.
I think that was an excellent summary.
I wanna thank the city of Los Angeles sanitation
for all the consideration work that they've put into this.
I've been involved in the coastal intercept sewer
for about the past 20 years.
We consider it to be a cornerstone
of our comprehensive efforts to continue to progress
towards improved water quality holistically
across our iconic coastline in LA.
So very much in support of the project.
Appreciate all of your time and I'll be here.
If there are any questions, thank you.
All right, thank you.
And now moving to our zoom speakers,
we'll start with Kenya Lee followed by Robin Brutusill
and then Steve Bradbury.
And Kenya Lee, when you're able to, please unmute and begin.
If you could please wait to start the clock
so that you could go to slide nine, I believe.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Kenya Lee and I live directly next
the proposed Venice auxiliary pumping plant. I'm here to speak on behalf of my family,
especially my five-year-old daughter about the real impacts of this project and what it will do
to our lives. The city's own environmental impact concluded that several impacts are significant
and unavoidable. During construction, power driving will reach noise levels of 98 decibels
at my home. If you can see on this slide, it shows exactly where this is, this pumping plant will butt
up against my home. This red arrow here shows you that that area is being taken as well, so I'm
going to be directly next to it. Pile driving will reach 98 decibels far above the safe limit.
That's 85. At those levels, there is no safe exposure. My child and I can simply, we cannot
remain in our home under these conditions. Vibration impacts are predicted up to 1.781
inches per second exceeding both annoyance and structural damage thresholds. Dust and traffic
is going to be up to 48 trips on a narrow street. The release of particles matter directly next to
my home, threatens my daughter's health, and making our property uninhabitable during these
years of construction. I also want to note that my house is a two-unit dwelling. It impacts
the impossibility for me to rent my other unit and that's going to create a direct loss of income
that my family relies on for everyday living. This is not just construction and convenience,
it's a displacement of my family. A risk to my child's health and an economic burden that we
should not have to pick bear. I heard in the presentation of you know it's going to serve
the west side. I should not have to bear the brunt of the entire west side to be unhoused
and economically impacted negatively for this. I respectfully urge the commission to
add conditions to this project to require relocation support and compensation for the
the loss of rental income caused by this project.
Then it says historically been on the end
of environmental burdens.
This is an environmental justice issue.
And I asked the commission to please uphold section 3021,
section four and article 10 that requires the commission
to protect the right of private owners
because I'm not being protected
in any shape or form with this project.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next will be Robin Rudisill, Bethany Gorefein,
and Marcia Hanscom.
Hi, it's Robin Rudisill here.
This huge sewage pumping plant expansion
is being forced into the heart of a sensitive wetland
surrounded by Yasha within the dual zone
adjacent to both Grand Canal and Biona Lagoon.
There is simply no more sensitive area
in the LA Coastal Zone.
Given this, the city's Bureau of Engineering
should be bending over backwards to keep the impacts on the residential neighborhood and
surrounding Esa to a bare minimum, but instead they are doing the opposite. The bare minimum
that they can get away with and instead of mitigating impacts they are causing even greater
impacts on the area by adding an unnecessary public parking lot. They originally thought they
needed the lot for some of the project's parking, but it turns out they don't and it will be for
for the public only.
No biz spaces are necessary because there is no customer
or other public parking needed adjacent to this plant.
To keep this public parking lot as part of the project
is the ultimate adding insult to injury.
To not only have the impacts of this huge project
on the neighborhood in Esha,
but to add an unnecessary parking lot
and all of the associated adverse impacts.
The city should use the lot for staging during construction
and then sell it when the project is complete.
This project is so traumatic for this neighborhood
and adding this parking lot
in the residential neighborhood would be daily torture
of traffic, noise, fumes, and other nuisances.
Staff says that there are issues called the police,
but the facts are that the police don't come.
It's three feet away
from the adjacent residential building.
We've seen nothing on how the lot would be required
to be managed and controlled
and how it would be secured at night.
Also, there's an ESHA mitigation plan
that provides for a small pedestrian bridge
over the Grand Canal to expanded parking
on the adult chain, which is a very feasible alternative
that would substantially lessen significant adverse effects
on the environment and on the neighbors.
Our community is not trying to stop
this critical infrastructure.
We're asking for fairness, compliance with the law
and meaningful mitigation, not significant increased
unnecessary impacts of the public parking lot.
Please continue this hearing so staff can take
a little more time to work with the city and the public
and these serious issues can be more fully vetted
resolved. Thank you. Next is Bethany Gorefein, Marcia Hanscom and Suzanne
Cumming. Bethany Gorefein. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Wonderful. Thank you. Today's conversation is about a parking lot. It's not about
the building of a second sewer plant in a residential neighborhood or how it
affects our lives and livelihoods for the next three plus years. Not the noise
levels of building over the lagoon or the dirt hammer and drilling vibrations
we will live with, not the staging on Via Dulce, not the influx of workers. We know
this because we lived with it on the dual main project for over three plus
years. Lots of promises made about busing in workers, sound barriers, fixing cracks
in our homes, or extra security for us never happened. This is about seven
public use and four bicycle parking spaces for VAP employees. Seriously. We
have beach parking lot at the end of Washington, we have a street where I live
called the Adolce where there is public parking on both sides of the street and
access to Lighthouse Bridge to the ocean. How does seven spots for the public
open 24 hours a day make any sense or is it the best for public access? It seems
unfortunate to upend a community and invite more vans, overnight parking,
vandalism, graffiti with no security. There is a parking solution that's been
dealt with in the next phase of the project that deals with public access
and a future for more parking with a bridge linking driftwood and offering
40 parking spaces. It also gives residents another opportunity to get out
of the marina during earthquake, tsunami, etc. Use your time to focus on this
solution that truly helps the public. Don't add to our worries about safety and security
on the Silver Strand and all the residents of Hurricane and neighboring streets. Come see for
yourself. That presentation was very slick. I've seen it before. We lived through it with the Dual
Main project. This project is coming. We understand that. We're just asking for no ridiculous uses
for a lack of security for a community and certainly the residents on color screen.
Thank you. Thank you. Marsha Hanscom, Suzanne Cumming, Patricia McPherson. Marsha Hanscom.
Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Great. Thank you. Honorable commissioners and staff.
Marsha Hanscom with Defend Biana Wetlands and the Coastal Lands Action Network.
of course we support this project moving forward. We know that it needs to, but we do not think that
sufficient mitigation has been included in the city's consultant's recommendations. This property
unfortunately was built before the Coastal Act, before CEQA, before any environmental laws, and
it was cited in an area that is at the crossroads of the city-owned parts of the Bionawetlands,
the Bional Lagoon Marine Preserve, and the Grand Canal Lagoon. Because of the Bolsa Chica
decision, you cannot impact Esha. These are Esha areas. However, we know this has to go
forward, so you really have to have the least environmentally damaging alternative, and we have
presented that to the city. We presented that to staff, and that is in the form of going forward
with the second part of the Grand Canal Restoration Project, which has been languishing for over a
decade now. It's on the city's engineering website. It would provide 30 more parking spaces
than this project would, and it would also include a walking path. This project will
impede public access. There's a walking path currently surrounding this facility,
and for several years of construction the public will not be able to go there. It also will impede
the Esha, and it's not just, you know, this manicured version that the consultant showed you.
This is a very vital connection to the ocean with many more species than the staff report showed,
and there are species that are rare, unlike what staff concluded. So you've got to include
in order to comply with your CEQA equivalency you've got to include the least environmentally
damaging alternative. Thank you. Thank you. Suzanne Cumming, Patricia McPherson, and Chris Ku.
Suzanne Cumming, member of Defend Biota Wetlands. This project will impact
Esha, both the Biota Lagoon Marine Preserve and the Grand Canal Lagoon for years and not just
the small area where the equipment is dropped in the mud. More work will be done there for years.
The lagoon waters are connected and the species using these waters and the Esha edges will be
impacted. Noise and lights will significantly impact the wildlife, not only neighbors.
The conditions recommended by staff don't go far enough. There should be no work allowed at night.
There will be significant disruption of the public access walk path on both sides of the
of the pumpkin plant structure.
Again, the staff recommended mitigations
don't go far enough.
There is a plan.
I don't know if you've reviewed it.
I hope you have.
There is a plan for the Grand Canal Lagoon Restoration
on the city's engineering website.
A plan that was vetted with the community
and designed by and with professional engineers,
biologists, and public access specialists.
This plan offers environmentally superior alternatives
for both public access and ESHA impacts from this project.
In order to comply with the commission's
CEQA equivalency requirements,
you cannot ignore this alternative.
Have you reviewed it?
Please do.
Please do as the letter from Defend Bayona Wetlands
and three other groups asks you to do.
Thanks.
Thank you next Patricia McPherson, Chris Ku, and then Robert Roy van de Hooke. I appreciate
it, McPherson. Patricia McPherson, Grassroots Coalition. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Hi, Patricia McPherson. I'm a founding member of Biona Lagoon Marine Preserve. I worked over,
what, 20 years ago with the Coastal Conservancy to create Biona Lagoon Marine Preserve and keep it
as an Escha habitat. So I agree with all of the speakers that have spoken thus far, including
the person that lives directly next door. There needs to be compensation for this, but
I agree that there needs to be a greater study of what's going on in order to address the
impacts that are there. We all have to support this because it is part of the dual main,
aside from that, there are so many issues that still need to be addressed. And I, for instance,
have been involved with the oil field gas issues for approximately 30 years. And what I see you
addressing is a well from the 30s on the property where the pump is itself, which this pumping place
has spilled in the past, so it's good to update it. But there is that well, and you need to be able
to address the abandonment of that well? Is it currently leaking? What gas mitigation
systems will you put in? There is also a well on the property that is just to the west of
that property that is not being addressed. So there are two wells out there. According
to the DOG map, Division of Oil and Gas Map 120, I would like to see that addressed. There
is also a well. We know that these wells all leak that are from that timeframe. E.G. Curtis
That is in the middle of the curve there, right in front of that property.
It is leaking on a daily basis.
All of this needs to be addressed and I go back to 30231 and 32 with the Coastal Commission's
ability to address, to protect against oil field gas issues for effective containment.
You have the ability to address these issues.
You have the ability to ask.
And I do appreciate that they have said that this isn't to stand for issues.
Thank you.
Next is Chris Ku, followed by Robert Roy-Vanderhoek, and then Tony Goldberg.
Chris Ku.
Hi there.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, you can.
Yes.
So I've been hearing all the great speakers, great points, and I just would like to impress
you all upon the concept of, you know, nothing is really mutually exclusive to this.
plan. The great work that they're going to do with a sewage plant, it can be done along the same
lines of providing all the damage mitigation that folks have brought up. They can both go forward.
So I think the question now is, in detail, how does it both go forward? How do we mitigate
all these damages? And I think some speakers have mentioned the Grand Canal Lagoon Restoration Plan,
and I believe there is a very scientific plan that is even on the city's engineering website.
I mean that has a lot of credibility to us as you know residents and the general public. I mean we
really do trust what our city engineers you know claim to to work well and to be beneficial and the
sort of the best practice going forward and I am just really curious as well if any of you have
actually looked at that plan. Because as I understand it, it does follow all the ESHA
regulations and plans and compliant with CEQA and all those important things that were
protecting our environment, especially being such a sensitive habitat area. And we know that there's
just tons of wildlife and years of noise and light and impact. This is a serious issue.
and I'm sorry if I missed it but I didn't hear those kinds of impacts in the presentation
or the mitigation of damages discussion. So that was somewhat concerning. We really do want to
go forward with both plans. All the mitigation damage that you can do according to this plan.
Thank you. Thank you Robert Ruyvanda-Hook, Tony Goldberg and Jane Velez Mitchell. Robert Ruyvanda-Hook.
Hello commissioners my name is Robert Young Fundahook and I'm a conservation biologist and
environmental biological scientist and there are many problems here. This is a piecemealing project
that links to other city projects at the city parks department, state of California, federal
government, L.A. county in the greater Biono wetlands ecosystem. It's you can't isolate
this project from looking at the linkages to all the other projects in the area. For example the
They also gunned a blue butterfly, federally endangered,
needs the United States government involved.
And the Carotid Bumblebee is newly listed
by the state of California as endangered.
And that occurred in where the parking lot vacant lot park
that used to be vegetated, but the city knew
they were scraping it bare because they didn't want there
to be any fauna or flora there.
Regarding the lagoon LA County Museum
of Natural History scientist, John Garth in 1980
wrote a book, published a chapter on the fiddler crab,
Yuca Crenulata, and this is at the northern range limit
of the fiddler crab.
It's falsely not, it's not north of here.
It's got a genuine population here.
And because it's at the northern range,
that makes it particularly rare.
And it's part of our tropical, subtropical fauna that's here.
And it's an important prey item
to the yellow crown night heron
that's just nested for the first time in our area right here
Marina del Rey, and its sole food, most important food item, are crabs, like the fitr crab.
In 1952, Keith Woodwick published proceedings of the National Museum from USC, and Polydora
Nucales, a special worm, was found, and it's the type locality, and because this is the
type locality, and we're still considered rare, this is an important place to protect
that worm in the infauna and the epifauna area.
In terms of the California horn snail,
it ties into the ecology that killifish prey on the snail.
The snowy egret preys on the killifish.
And they use the horn snail to gauge biodiversity, health.
And because of the number of worms
that are found in the snail, Bionna
has been in this whole region here
has been determined to be very important biologically
within Southern California.
Thank you.
Thank you. Tony Goldberg, Jane Velez Mitchell, and Beverly Palmer. Tony Goldberg.
Yes, hi. Good afternoon. So there's no denying that we do need this plant. So that's not what
I'm going to speak about. What I'm going to speak about is how I strongly oppose the parking lot at
128 Hurricane. I think this is a poorly thought out plan that's no longer necessary given the
newly established employee parking spaces that are within the recently modified plan of, I think,
it's three or four spaces. We already have a parking lot at the end of Washington. That's a
huge parking lot. So to put another parking lot for four spaces where I didn't see anything in
the plans as to how it's going to be monitored, how does it close at night, you know, who is going
to enforce it. You're putting a public parking lot in a middle of a residential area and that just
doesn't make any common sense by any means. Additionally, I think it will also negatively
impact the residents of which I am one and I live on Galleon Street near Pacific by increasing
air and noise pollution, and really decreasing our safety. There's possibility for it to be a haven,
you know, just for people roaming around and, you know, not doing anything. And I think also
it has an impact of having just unnecessary traffic going up and down that street,
as well as impacting public services like what if the plant needs some service and you have a ton
of cars there or you have you know cars it's already a narrow space on that street hurricane
and to have cars going up and down and when you have a fire truck go down that street no other
car can pass it it's stuck in the middle of the road so to add more access to more cars on that
street does not serve the community at all, and I hope you rethink that.
Thank you. Jane Villaz-Mitchell, Beverly Palmer, Elion Gans. Jane Villaz-Mitchell.
Yeah, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, thank you. I live literally around the corner from this location. There is no need for
a parking lot. The parking lot on the beach starts in Washington, but it extends several blocks.
I walk this area daily. You're talking about a four-minute walk to go from the parking lot
to this location. So just give these people passes so they don't have to pay the parking
and that's it. That solves it. And you know, seriously, zero need for a parking lot.
But on a larger scale, I see this whole project as a major campaign in the ongoing war on wildlife
in this area. So people who are promoting this say, well they're setbacks. That's not how wild
animals think. They see the commotion, they hear the noise, they stay away. So this is creating a
roadblock that is going to prevent wildlife from going from the Marina del Rey jetty through the
lagoon over to the Venice Canal. So it's going to create a roadblock and these animals are already
under assault. The July 4th fireworks was like a bomb dropping on these animals at the Marina del
Rey jetty going from hundreds if not thousands of pelicans to zero pelicans on July 5th. So we have
to look at this in the larger context. If we created a plan to wipe out wildlife in this area
we couldn't do better than we're doing right now. I'm urging everybody look at the big picture,
see how you can mitigate the impacts on wildlife
because when we wipe them all out and live in a dead zone,
nobody's gonna wanna live here, not me.
It's not the condos and the Teslas
that I love about this area, it's the wildlife.
And we are systematically exterminating them.
The California Coastal Commission
needs to draw a line in the sand and protect these animals.
And there is a plan that is on the city engineering website
that will do that, please follow that plan.
Thank you. Next Beverly Palmer, Elianne Gans,
and then Jim Fitzgerald. Beverly Palmer.
Good morning, thank you for having me.
I am an attorney, I represent Kenya Lee,
who you heard from earlier.
Ms. Lee explained that she is the most proximate neighbor
to this facility.
The environmental impact report that the city prepared
discloses that noise at Ms. Lee's residence
is well above safe levels during the entire construction
phase, but what I do want to make sure you know
is that she is by far the most impacted
from a noise perspective.
Other people live close by, but she is so close
that the noise levels are truly shocking.
The 98 decibels during pile driving is a noise level
that is like standing, you know, next to a jet plane.
So, and as we studied the city's revised plans,
we observed that the transformers for the project
are even closer to her house
than had originally been analyzed.
And there has been no analysis
of the additional noise impact there.
Now, Miss Lee bought this property
next to two residentially zoned parcels a few years ago.
And fairly recently, she bought a duplex
so she could be an owner renter.
So she could rent out that property and have an income stream.
And this project, handling 40 million gallons
of sewage a day coming through here,
she's really bearing a lot of the brunt of that activity
during the construction phase.
And Public Resources Code 302-12.5,
which I don't think has been raised,
it's a chapter three policy,
requires the commission to consider distributing
public facilities so as to mitigate the impacts,
social or otherwise, so that overuse of the public
if any single area is addressed.
This is not your typical thinking about overuse
where you have a lot of people coming to visit an area,
but this is really overuse of this area by sewage.
And you can mitigate that impact of that social or otherwise.
You have the authority to require the city
to help accommodate Ms. Lee.
They've already in the EIR agreed to relocate people
during working hours.
That's not sufficient for someone who has a family
and it doesn't mitigate for lost rental income
that was a reasonable expectation of Ms. Lee's
when she purchased the residence.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Elian Gons, I see that you're on two devices.
We seem to be having trouble promoting you
in on the device that's not the phone,
but you should be able to unmute on one of your devices now.
If you're using the phone,
you should be able to unmute by dialing star six.
Okay. Okay, can you hear me now?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hello.
Yes.
So I appreciated the presentations,
and I've heard all of the other issues.
I have several other issues which
has to do with polluting the air, noise, destruction.
We all moved into that neighborhood
because it was one of the quietest and most beautiful
in the area.
And now we're going to have problems with emergency
vehicles coming in because you've got work trucks
and everything else.
We've got children in the area that
are going to need to be much more
careful about where they're walking, what they're doing.
So more supervision.
I didn't see any monitoring about any of this at all.
I lived two buildings up from the supposed million dollar
parking lot that was purchased.
And so the noise and the air pollution
is going to affect me dramatically.
And I have people who live with me
who have respiratory issues.
So I'm very concerned about safety, security,
emergency vehicles, pollution, air pollution,
and all of that, as well as the unnecessary parking,
which has been discussed many times,
and the possibility of actually taking a look
around the corner and actually looking at it
from a different point of view.
There's no reason that we can't all be happy
and all have what we need.
The city can have what it needs
and the residents can have what they need.
That's it with me.
All right, thank you.
Jim Fitzgerald, we're having trouble
promoting you as a panelist.
You should be able to unmute now as an attendee.
Jim Fitzgerald.
While we're waiting for them to unmute,
we did have three more names signed up
that we're unable to find.
If I call your name,
please raise your hand in the attendee list.
Steve Bradbury, David Turnbull, Wendy Sue Rosen.
Again, Steve Bradbury, David Turnbull, Wendy Sue Rosen
and then Jim Fitzgerald, if you can unmute.
Okay.
Once Jim, the gentleman who tried to speak
during the general public comment,
I just wanna make sure we have that person covered as well.
Ah, yes.
Hey, okay.
We hear you, Jim.
Yeah, I just had a really quick question,
and my concern is that this project, as completed,
the end of the street there is essentially
going to be only utility on it.
And if in the future a different effort,
because we're trying to harden all of our infrastructure,
somebody says, hey, we should close this off,
because we don't want anybody to take out
this very important pump.
Does that kind of negate the entire parking solution
and kind of throw everything, a wrench into that design?
Because it sure seems like looking at the finalized plan,
putting the secure gate at the end of the street
instead of each of these two different utilities
would make a lot of sense for security.
And that's all, I'll get my time back.
All right, thank you.
And I will note that Jim was the person who just spoke,
it was the one from general public comment
who came back to speak.
I'm seeing no other hands raised
and no other speakers, so Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much Chris
and thank you to the public for participating.
Now I will return to the applicant
and you have up to five minutes for rebuttal please.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Commissioners Don Schmidt's again on behalf of the applicant.
First of all, I want to convey to this commission
that we are keenly sensitive to the concerns
that were raised by the people that spoke in opposition
to this application before you today, very much so.
There's been 11 or 12 community meetings
that the city facilitated through the EIR
and local permit process to do community outreach
and try to address their concerns.
I would point out that many of the concerns
that were raised are not really coastal act issues.
In fact, some of the concerns which were raised,
particularly in regards to the parking lot,
are in contradiction to the access policies
of the Coast Lact itself.
And we've all heard that before,
and there's always this tension, this dynamic as it pertains.
Would you put the time clock up for me, please?
As it pertains to providing adequate parking,
public parking, and that's not always a welcome thing
in a residential area.
That being said, this VAP does require seven parking spaces.
It is true that we have three of them actually
on the pumping plant grounds.
That's the maximum that we can accommodate.
But the LUP requires us to have seven.
And the Biz required, the beach impact zone
requires us to have two more.
And it's true that we put in an ADA spot as well,
although it's not required for this particular project.
That doesn't mean that we're cavalier
in regards to the concerns of the community.
And maximizing public access is something
that we're supposed to balance out
with the right of private property owners.
If it is the will of this commission
that that parking lot be fenced and that it have a gate
so that it can be closed and controlled at nighttime,
we will most certainly implement that.
I'm very sensitive to Ms. Lee and her attorney, Ms. Palmer,
and her concerns of she's immediately
adjacent to this project.
everything can and has been done
to try and assuage their concerns,
including specificity as it pertains
to the type of equipment that we have out there
to reduce noise impacts.
That being said, what they also left out
is that the city, I believe, has already scheduled
a meeting with them to talk about
if in fact that they are going to be damaged,
that there be compensation in regard to that.
Not a coastal act issue,
but I do not want this commission
to get the misperception that the applicant
Cavalier in regards to their neighbors. I'd ask you to take a look at the
cabinets which are back behind you. The sewer line which comes in already to
this area and has been there since the 1950s is about that diameter 60 inches.
Several of the speakers who expressed concerns about this project acquiesced
the fact that there has to be this project going forward. Can you go to the
next slide please. I'd like to talk to you about the about the geometry of the
site and how we have tried to maximize the setbacks from the surrounding area
and to be sensitive to the neighbors. So the giant 60-inch sewer main comes down
the Grand Canal and then you have already with the existing plant you have a
diversion structure and this backup plant will have to have a diversion
structure as well. We absolutely have to do that. The main 60-inch main is
located in the Grand Canal and the way these systems work is it diverts the
incoming effluent into what's called wells. It's basically a big vault because
it comes in and it flows into that area and these massive pumps. We're gonna have
three new 18 million gallon per day pumps for the for the auxiliary pumping
plant. That will be located in the subterranean portion of the project that
that you see right there in front of the building.
Next slide, please.
And then back behind it,
we have these very large transformers.
These pumps have a tremendous electricity demand.
There are requirements.
We can't put a block wall or anything in front of it.
There's requirements for access.
And there's an enormous backup generator also,
which is located in the building that you see right there
along with the electrical switching facility.
and the command and control center
for this critical infrastructure project.
So we've done the very best we can.
We shrunk down the size of the building
a couple hundred square foot.
We reduced the height to the maximum amount that we could.
We're smaller than much of the development in the area
and we're shorter than much of the development in the area.
And as it pertains to the biological impacts,
we have a very thoroughly vetted analysis,
study mitigation plan, your staff is comfortable with it,
but they're requiring that it be vetted further with them.
We will do whatever is necessary.
I understood that both Dr. Vanderhoek and Marsha
had some criticisms in regards to that.
I've known both of them for a long time,
but we will comply with whatever your professional staff
says that we have to have there.
I would note that the best management practices
have to be maintained in perpetuity,
that's special condition number seven.
It's a good project.
What we stand in front of you today,
ready to take any direction and suggested modifications
within reason, we only have so much space to work with.
We do have to have the parking lot,
we do have to have the diverter coffer
that brings the effluent in from the 60 inch line
to the pumps, we are required by law
have this backup pumping plant commissioners and so with that I want to
thank you for your time I want to thank the folks who spoken and testified our
neighbors and I'm available for any questions that you may have okay thank
you very much so with that I will close the public hearing and return to our
staff for any comments or responses all right thank you commissioners and I also
want to thank all the members of the public for providing their comments
today I do want to speak on a couple of points. Concerns were raised about
construction, noise, and vibration. The city has indicated that they will work
with the residents to resolve these concerns and that's noted in the
addendum. There are several mitigation measures that the city proposes to
address these concerns and related to the construction timing. The construction
hours are limited to the daytime and there will be no construction work at
night related to environmental impacts. You know, I would note that our site specific
analysis of the natural resources at the site indicated that these impacts were more
appropriately addressed under our wetland and marine resource policies. Additionally,
these impacts are temporary and not permanent. And thus, the approximate five to one mitigation
ratio is more than adequate. Related to parking, the city is proposing the public parking and
It maximizes public access consistent with the Coastal Act
in an area that is limited, very limited, in public parking.
Adjacent or in the nearby vicinity,
there is also a public lot, but it costs about $10.
And the on-street parking in this area
is free and closer to parts of the beach
that are farther away from the pier and the lagoon
in the canal trails.
As proposed, overnight parking would not be allowed.
Related to oil spill, there is one oil well
located at the site at 128 Hurricane Street.
To address these concerns related to the oil spills,
special condition nine requires applicants
to provide an oil spill prevention and response plan
that includes spill prevention practices
to have onsite spill response equipment,
that training be provided to onsite personnel,
an analysis of the worst case spill scenario
that would identify the specific equipment,
personnel and procedures necessary to contain a spill
of that size, and that the applicant identify and maintain a contract with a qualified third
party oil spill and response organization capable of responding to managing these spills.
And that concludes my comments unless, you know, I'll pass it on to Steve or Kate.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jen.
I'd just like to add a couple very brief comments and observations.
And just note that we also received comments from a number of speakers concerned about
the proposal for a public access parking lot
to be part of this project.
And I would like to know that public access opportunities
under the Coastal Act are required to be maximized.
This public parking lot is an important amenity.
It provides public access,
not just to the trail system along the lagoon,
which is also public, but to nearby beach areas.
And the city is proposing this important amenity
and it is consistent with the Coastal Act.
I would note that there is no overnight parking
as proposed in that parking lot.
And the city is proposing signs
showing those restricted hours.
So we do believe this is an important amenity.
I would also just like to note
a brief overarching observation about this project,
which is there is an existing pumping plant there today.
What is before us is really just the addition
of the additional auxiliary pumps,
which are intended to provide that redundancy
in the event that something goes wrong.
And the city is currently,
our understanding is that the city
is at the edge of their capacity.
In the event that there is a problem,
if a pump goes offline,
the city has been renting pumps
and that's not a good long-term solution.
So without this project and our staff's evaluation,
if we don't have this project and it's able to go forward,
we won't have that critical infrastructure redundancy
And we would be subject to potential spills in the future.
That concludes our staff comments.
I would like to note that we have our whole team here today,
including the commission's technical experts.
We have Jeremy Smith, the commission's coastal engineer,
who can address any questions regarding coastal hazards,
as well as Dr. John Engle, the commission's staff ecologist.
And with that, I'll just briefly turn to Dr. Hucklebridge,
our executive director, just to ask
if she has any additional comments
before closing staff comment.
Yes, thank you and thanks to the team.
I just wanted to first echo Jen's gratitude
to all the public that came out
and shared their comments and concerns
related to the project.
We really carefully listened and considered
all the written comments as well as the public testimony
that came in today and have a lot of I think,
we carefully considered them.
I think that the thing that this commission
needs to remember is that our purview today
is the Coastal Act.
And we need to be thinking about impacts
to coastal resources as required in the Coastal Act.
And there were a lot of comments that,
a lot of questions and concerns raised
that I agree are not Coastal Act concerns,
however legitimate and concerning they may be.
And I don't think we disagree there.
But our purview here is to address
the impacts under the Coastal Act.
And as you heard from our team,
I think we've done that in the staff report,
that are interested in hearing the commission's feedback.
And with that, turn it back to you, Chair Herman.
Thank you, Director Hucklebridge.
And thank you to our staff and the applicant
and especially to the public for coming out and engaging.
So I will turn it to my fellow commissioners
for comments, questions.
Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you, Dr. Hucklebridge, for directing us
to the issues that are directly within the purview
of the Coastal Act.
I wanted to direct staff's attention
and maybe a follow up to the testimony
from the public members who were concerned about
both noise and particulate thresholds being reached.
In particular, I was struck by the testimony
of Kenya Lee who talked about her two unit apartment
or two-unit building being impacted with children present
and also with a potential loss of income
related to the second unit on the site.
And I will just, you know,
to bring this back to the Coastal Act,
I will just note that Venice has been a historic area
of particular note with significant challenges
around both Venice and the city of Santa Monica
with significant challenges around eminent domain
and property being taken from the historic
African-American neighborhoods in the area
with the siting, with urban renewal programs
on a federal and state level,
with freeways criss-crossing through the neighborhoods
and specifically targeted those who were most vulnerable,
who also happened to be African American.
And so I would challenge the commission,
commission staff to, in addition to the conditions
that are set forth in the permit,
that require the city to work with the residents
on some of these mitigation factors,
including those related to particulate matter
and noise and disruption, to take a step further
to really consider the potential unintended consequences
of some of the residents who have already historically born
the brunt of government and local policies
that have had a negative impact
on the community character of the neighborhoods,
which is something that is within our purview
as the Coastal Commission.
But I feel very strongly about this.
And so I think we really need to look
at our Coastal Act authority
under our environmental justice provisions,
as well as those provisions around the neighborhood character
to think about how do we have a more equal fare
and just decision-making process,
understanding that the infrastructure is needed,
and this is something that cannot really be put on hold
as was explained by the representatives for the city.
I think I can, oh, sorry.
Please, go ahead.
In relation to the environmental justice issue raised,
we don't think this is an environmental justice issue.
We believe that supporting the equitable siting
of necessary infrastructure,
especially in areas with greater adaptive capacity,
further prevents harm to historically marginalized communities.
And then also the city did mention
that they are willing to work with the public
and they have several mitigation measures outlined
in the EIR that they have proposed
along with this application.
In addition, I think the city could maybe
address some of these issues a little bit more clearly.
And thank you, Jen.
I just wanted to add to that as well
that just building off what Jennifer just explained,
this is not one of those disadvantaged communities.
It is not flagged as such in Cal matters
or in the, I'm sorry, the Cal screening criteria.
This is one of the more upscale areas in Venice
with larger structures.
And as noted in our addendum,
it's important that infrastructure be cited equally
throughout different communities,
including in more upscale communities.
And so this is one of those cases
where we believe that we've struck the right balance.
This is located correctly,
not only because this is the area where this plan,
these additional pumps must be located here
for engineering reasons,
but because this is an appropriate area
based on balancing community character as well.
And just as Jenna noted,
it is our understanding the city though
is addressing those issues
and it's appropriate for the city to do that.
But I would recommend that we direct
some of those questions on how
they will specifically address those concerns
to the city representatives that are here today.
Commissioner Turnbull, Sanders.
Thank you.
Through the chair respectfully understood
that perhaps this area is not currently marked
by the Cal EnviroScreen or otherwise marked
as an environmental justice community.
However, if we do not take account of past
and the way in which communities were configured
prior to significant gentrification
and significant changes to demographics
As an example, the city of Venice and Santa Monica
in some areas potentially several decades ago
or even earlier would be marked
as environmental justice communities
and would be designated as such in the CalEnviroScreen
but because of changed circumstances
in part due to gentrification, displacement,
some of which has been government sanctioned.
I think we can't look at a snapshot initially,
a snapshot in time that doesn't take those things
into account and so I respectfully disagree
with staff's assessment as to this particular instance
for those specific reasons and I request
that we get a little bit more granular
on the recommendations to the city
to ensure that fairness is met out.
Again, this is not in excess of our specific authority.
I am citing to our environmental justice policies
and also looking at the community character provisions
within the Coastal Act to justify our further inquiry
and further delineation of specific conditions
for the city to be meeting.
Thank you, I'd invite a representative from the city
or Dr. Hucklebridge looks like you wanna respond.
I just wanted to thank Mr. Turnbull-Sanders
for those clarifications.
I think we agree the history here at redlining
and there's a long history in LA
and other cities up and down the coast
of unfairness and environmental justice.
So just wanted to thank you for those clarifications.
And I think I would wanna see if the city
has any thoughts on the question
and that you posed, sorry, Mr. Turnbull-Sanders.
Forgive me, on how the city might want to work
with these residents.
And I think we can consider what we can do as a commission,
but I think that I heard the city say
that they were willing to do that,
so maybe we can invite them up
and see if they have any thoughts on that preliminarily,
and then we can move from there.
That's great, through the chair.
So I think specifically I'm most concerned
about the particular site,
and there may be other sites in the area
that are similarly impacted,
but particularly with the person who gave testimony,
Kenya Lee, about both loss of rental income property,
the excessive both particulate matter
and the noise thresholds being met.
So even if construction is limited during daylight hours,
that still doesn't necessarily solve the problem
of the particulates and the noise thresholds.
And so looking at something that is fair for all parties
to ensure that again, not looking
beyond the Coastal Commission's authority,
but making sure that we are protecting
the community character
and also looking at our environmental justice provisions.
So I guess the question on the city's representative part
is what is the city willing to do
in terms of ensuring that the communities
that are during the construction period are not disadvantaged?
Through the chair, Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders,
we appreciate your comments very much.
And we also share your sensitivities
in regards to our neighbors,
in regards to this particular issue.
There has been a lot of information
been provided to staff up to and including some supplemental correspondence
just in the last couple of days which I believe is reflected in your denim
packet. Everything that can possibly be done in regards to mitigating dust and
noise is being done. The piles will be installed with a vibration technique as
opposed to the old giant slamming them down into the ground. There is going to be
best state-of-the-art dust and particulate management. There is a
a construction management plan and a traffic management plan all of which the project is
conditioned for and needs to be vetted with your staff. So look the reality is and I think we all
understand that this is a significant project and it has to happen but what is inherent on us is
to make sure we do it in as sensitive a fashion as possible and that's why we have minimized the
the size of the building, the height of the building,
so that it doesn't loom over the surrounding property owners,
and that we have security, that we have proper staging,
that we do everything humanly possible
to both build the auxiliary pumping plant
and minimize the impacts to the neighbors,
including and especially the immediate neighbor,
Ms. Kenya Lee.
And that is why also, in addition to that,
the city will be meeting with miss Lee to find out
whether or not there will be any damages to her property
from the construction and that there's recompense for that.
So that's already been put into motion as well.
And that being said commissioner,
if there is anything else that we can do to assuage
your concerns and the concerns of the community,
we'll do it, we'll do it.
We have to build the auxiliary plant,
but we will do anything and your staff reports
very comprehensive in regards to construction management,
traffic management.
We'll do whatever you direct us to do
just so long as we can proceed here.
Just through the chair one more time
and then I'll defer to my fellow commissioners,
I guess, you know, in the law,
there's something called the eggshell plaintiff.
And in particular, I think Miss Lee mentioned
specific challenges with her family members
and maybe having particular sensitivities.
And so I think general mitigation is great to have,
but I think looking into the specific needs and concerns
of those family members,
particularly in such close proximity,
may be different for other folks,
but just highly recommend that of the city.
And again, staying within the bounds of our jurisdiction
as a coastal commission.
But I think that is something,
and it sounds like the city's representative
is amenable to doing that, so thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Pressiata.
Yes, in one of my other lives,
I serve on San Diego's Metro Wastewater Organization
and we have had significant incidents in the recent period
as a result of weather, unpredictable weather
and challenges from unpredictable weather
that have overwhelmed our pump stations.
So I'd like to commend the city
for taking this proactive step.
Sewage spills are no joke.
Sewage spills create challenges for the fauna
and the wildlife and everything else.
And so I think I can join and look forward
to seeing how we can support this project to get forward.
Having said that, I am curious on more information.
I've never seen, or I don't know that this is a gated
community or how it's possible that a public parking plot
can cause so many challenges for a community.
So I'm just interested in getting more information
on the public parking lot.
And I also wanna associate myself with the comments offered
by our commissioner, our colleague that spoke on behalf
of the Lee family that's an adjoining property owner.
and I appreciate the city of Los Angeles taking proactive steps
to try to address mitigations that are reasonable
within the context of building such a facility.
But we're in the millions of dollars
in fines from the Water Quality Control Board related
to sewage spills caused by these weather incidents
that were unforeseen.
And I think it is critical that we find our way
into supporting on this project to move forward.
So I guess the only question I have
is staff can explicate what is the huge concern
with the parking lot,
but does the parking lot meet the critical resources
that we as a commission are responsible for monitoring
because sometimes people can choose
not to like public amenities that are critical
for the state resource or from the state perspective.
But I didn't see if this was a gated community
that needed to be protected from having public access
to public streets, public sidewalks and public everything.
So can somebody please share information
with me about that?
Mr. Hudson, Ms. Doyle, would you like to respond?
Yes, so the area is not, the residential community
is not a gated community, it is open to the public.
The main issues raised by members of the public
for the parking lot include that'll be used
by unhoused individuals that may cause noise issues
or other issues for the residents and the community.
And I would just add to that that this is an important area
for public access because we have this public trail system
that runs along both the canals
as well as those adjacent beach areas.
And there is a dearth of public parking within the area.
So we do believe it's an important resource.
I appreciate the response from staff.
So at an appropriate time, I would like to support
with a second, anyone who makes the motion
because it looks complex to make such a motion.
But I look forward to hearing from commissioner Lopez.
Commissioner Lopez, please go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yeah, I wanna just throw my full support
behind the comments made by commissioner Turnbull Sanders.
I think the issues that were raised there
were the ones at the very top of my mind
after having the opportunity to meet with Ms. Kenya Lee
and understanding the impacts.
I too have a five-year-old who sounds sensitive.
And so I can only imagine the concerns and the fears
that are going through her mind and heart
she thinks about, you know, trying to put her children to bed and wake them up and all those
challenges that come around a major construction site like this. And so big picture, I understand
the need for this facility and I wholeheartedly support completing it, but I want to make sure
that there are protections for her and her family given the potential impacts that have been
highlighted. And I agree with Commissioner San, Turnbull Sanders, I want to make sure that the,
Any mitigation we can put in place is within the purview of this commission, but as we look at
what we're supposed to do, which is protect the resource, make sure infrastructure remains in
place, and take care of private property rights, and to their own extent I see this as somewhere
in there. I don't know how to craft that motion. I'm still fairly new to this particular body,
and I know that I would not feel right if we did not find a way to make sure
that we have her concerns heard and felt before this project hits a point where we pass that
point of no return. Inevitably this project needs to get done. We've all heard about the desire
from the state to push additional resources or additional housing into resource-constrained
neighborhoods and allow for more ADUs to be built and higher impact areas and all that means
there will be more effluent through this particular pipe in the future as we look at infill projects
and higher density, which is a good thing for us in the big picture, but that means
more has to go into through this limited and very narrow channel, all that being understood,
fully supporting the project, but wanting to make sure that we can allay the fears and
given the history, understanding the red lining, the real impacts that are happening in communities
like this, again, housing being built here was not a place of luxury initially.
have to remember there's there's there's an oil well just a few hundred feet away right this
these were communities intentionally pushed away and so for those reasons i'm looking for some
guidance on how to make sure that again we hear a willingness but making sure that there's
protections that we can provide and if we can't a clear understanding of why we can't do that would
be important to me today thank you madam chair thank you commissioner termos anis did you want
Do you want to respond to that?
Just bringing it back through the chair to the staff
and looking at the special conditions
that the staff have included,
some of which are standard conditions
and some of which are special conditions.
And looking at, let's see,
on it looks like page 36 of the staff report
where the special conditions start
and looking at the construction and pollution prevention plan
may be a place to add some additional language
as to particulate matter and or noise mitigation.
Separately, there may be some other place
to put that kind of special condition into the document,
that I'm seeking staff support and request
for addressing some of these issues
while still remaining within our jurisdiction
under the Coastal Act to ensure that we have covered
all of our bases here.
I'll propose that we move,
there's a couple of other commissioners with questions,
so let's move to those questions
and we'll return to staff to address this momentarily.
So, thanks Commissioner Nada.
Thank you and as staff looks at that
to see what type of assurances we can get
through the conditioning process.
I just wanted to kind of remind us
that this is a major project like this
and a setting like this is precisely the reason
that the commission determined
that this raises a significant issue
and why we are having a de novo hearing
so that we can actually craft the type
of conditions that are necessary to respond
the specific circumstances of this proposal.
And what I'm hearing generally from the commenters that we've heard is that there is a general
agreement that a project like this needs to go forward.
And certainly my experience as looking at the pollution incidences along this stretch
a coast which are quite often and they you know surfers there routinely report respiratory
distress and other things from water quality from the sewer overflows onto the beach. So
I think that you know clearly this is needed from an environmental and public health point
view, but I think in terms of crafting the conditions that our staff worked
with the applicant to achieve is that I trust that the alternative that
was referenced several times in the public comment, that alternative
approach has been taken into account and incorporated as staff and the applicant's
I don't know if you want to respond to that,
Director Hudson at all and give some clarification,
but the process of coming up
with this proposed approval with conditions
includes consideration of all those various concerns
and incorporation of those as much as we can fit
into the coastal act jurisdiction, I guess,
is the way to put it.
So I just wanted, you know,
if you wanna make some comments about the process
that you went through
in terms of crafting these special conditions.
Mr. Hudson.
All right, thank you.
Yes, we worked with the city
and I'll let Jennifer walk through the details,
but many of this includes not just our standard language,
but close evaluation of this specific project
to ensure that the water quality area,
typical BMPs, best management practices are all in place.
And as mentioned earlier, in our evaluation,
we didn't believe that this qualified
as environmental justice,
but if the commission wished to make changes
to these conditions,
then we would need your guidance on that chapter three basis.
And that would be the recommended basis for you
would be to explain the environmental justice policy
approach and then we would just need the details
regarding what additional changes are being requested
for these conditions.
And then I think we would wanna ask the city today
if they would agree to any of these changes.
It looks like our staff is conferring as we speak.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks.
I'm not gonna, it seems like there's a good amount
of discussion around the impacts of construction
on the neighbors, and so I'm not gonna get into that.
I actually wanna talk about sort of a long-term impact
that can, in neighborhoods,
and that's around the transformers.
And so I wanted to ask the city about the operational
expectations of the overflow facility
versus the existing one.
I would note that the existing facility
has also a bank of transformers,
but they are behind a very significant wall,
like probably at least 12 feet tall
to protect both the environment and the neighborhood,
and the new facility has no wall,
and frankly, in many neighborhoods,
you have transformers and vaults
and those sorts of things to protect the neighborhood
from the ongoing,
I don't think anyone's lived near a transformer of this size,
but when it's on, it can be quite noisy,
and make this buzzing noise that can just really echo through a whole neighborhood and so I just and there's three of them in
This case and so I was kind of wondering what is the what is the?
So the design criteria and use profile that you would have for these transformers
Through the chair Commissioner Wilson really good observations
the development standards uniform building code the utility standards have changed and
We did query in regards to our ability to
The city spending millions of dollars to build this facility we would gladly build a block wall or something around
To shield the transformers. It's not just transformers also switching
boxes as well and
We would love to do it
But we have been told that we cannot do that that there we have must maintain unfettered access directly off of the street
On other commercial and residential projects that I've worked on. I know that to be the case now
Similarly in regards to putting them subterranean I do have Christine here from the city
engineering division and she could speak to this if necessary, but I'm being told we also can't
Put them underground in this particular case now again, I want to reassure you we do it
We happily do anything than we can to address these concerns these legitimate concerns of the of the neighbors
But did you want to speak to this? Okay. Thank you
Hello. Thank you. My name is Christine Hanojostis. I'm also representative from LA sanitation environment
So regarding the transformers located along Canal Court
One of the changes that we did make back in the 2022 time frame as a request from one of the residences
residences at the time
Was to include a CMU block wall on the northern property line to also provide some dampening from noise that could happen from the transformer
In addition to that prior to start of construction and it was soon as we have complete design drawings
One of our mitigation measures is to bring on an acoustical consultant as well to analyze the design and see if there's anything that
that we could be doing better from a noise perspective.
But do know that in this project we are working
to use the least noisy equipment
that is feasible for our project.
And within the design that you have now is the orientation,
sorry, you gotta turn your mic off while mine's on.
Okay, thanks.
In the orientation, it's pretty,
it's just right in the neighborhood as opposed to,
you know, there's two other sides of this structure
where they may or may not be located,
that you could have some sort of setbacks,
or I'm just saying, like, this seems
to be the most obtrusive spot that they could possibly
locate, and so I'm wondering if there
is a potential for moving these away
from those potentially sensitive receptors.
Because, like I said, the existing transformers
have for the existing facility or behind a fairly large, you know they're, it's at
least 12 feet tall as far as I can tell and so that's very protective of sound
and so these have nothing around them in the current except for some bollards
and so where are we in that? And we didn't get to the first question
which is what is the expected operational, like how long, are these
expect to be on 24-7 in terms of the transformers like in or or do they
switch on and off when there's the use of the facility so the anticipated uses
is 24-7 because this is an ongoing sewage pumping plant that will continue
to receive wastewater 24-7 so it will be running 24-7 then going back to the next
question or the one before which is like is there is there a potential for
accommodation in terms of moving them just so you can get them behind a wall
or taking up some of the space that you might have for some of your employee
parking to do that or what what what opportunity is there on site to to
potentially mitigate for this 24-7 noise impact. So we have looked into that
during the design process and unfortunately the area that they're
currently located is the best location. The reason being is where the employee
parking is is actually underneath that is our wet well and so we cannot put
transformers in that area unfortunately because it is a big sewage pit. On the
hurricane side we have existing utilities and our manifold that will
connect and allow the wastewater that's being pumped into our Venice dual
force main or coastal interceptor sewer. So we've evaluated you know siting the
building differently but unfortunately the orientation that we have right now
is the best for the space that we have available to us and that includes the
Transformers on Canal Court
Commissioner Wilson a
Great engineering response as a planner. Let me break it down a little bit more the anchor that you have on the geometry for this entire
Auxiliary pumping plant is the what what Christine referenced as the well
So you've got the diversion from the 60-inch main which runs underground canal and that brings the
the 40 million gallons a day into what they call wells essentially a giant concrete vault and
That in the vault are these 18 3 18 million gallons per day
Pumps, that's the heart and soul of it. And then there's a lid which is being placed over that and that is where
The three parking spaces are being picked up. We cannot put
Pursuit the building code. We cannot put the transformers over that then
Located back behind that towards the street is the minimum size building now
Just a little over 2,000 square foot that we have for all the electrical equipment
For the command center the backup generator and such which just leaves the the little strip there
Where we are putting the transformers?
We we looked at it
It's literally the only place that we can put it. I
I appreciate that. This is kind of for me the sort of most long-term, and I mean we're talking
about the temporal impacts of construction and the displacement potentially for in terms of
neighbors and all that sort of, but in terms of the long-term impact, aside from concerns around
the parking, which I'm not going to address at this moment, this seems to me like the most impactful
part of this, and so I guess to staff that what I'm hearing from the city
Is that is that they're going to do everything they can to minimize that?
I don't know what that is necessarily from what I have in front of me right now,
but is there a way that you got that that that staff can be vigilant
on this issue in terms of making sure that that is really the case, that that
that whatever the whatever engineering
solutions or mitigations possible to minimize the long term noise impacts
from these transformers to the neighborhood.
Would you guys make sure that that's prioritized
in our ongoing review of this project?
Yes, we're trying to figure out exactly how to do that.
I'm sure we'll have a break at some point
and you can do that.
Okay, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, all presenters.
Thank you, Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders,
for your comments.
I couldn't agree more.
It is a concern, it was a concern, and there's no doubt why this existing pump was put in
place when it was put in place.
I'm curious as to where the other pump stations are located that serve as the City of LA.
Certainly not within this discussion, but I am certainly curious, and our attempts,
Is there proposed pump stations for those old pump stations as well?
That's sort of a rhetorical question, but I'd be curious to learn about that at some
point.
Understanding what is and within our purview, understanding the focus on community character
in this residential neighborhood.
What is the current parking lot situation?
Is that an open parking lot for the public or is that a parking lot right now that's
just for those who are servicing the existing pump station?
So the existing lot at 128 Hurricane Street is a vacant lot.
There's no parking currently available on that site.
City recently purchased that site for the use of this project.
Okay, so it says parking lot.
is not actually a parking lot on the their proposing that is where the
proposed parking lot is going to go okay and so just to make sure I'm clear the
existing pump station will continue to operate in concert with the proposed
pump station that correct yes okay and the proposed pump station location was
was zone residential. Did I hear that correctly before it was rezoned to allow this potential
proposed pump station? Yeah, the current land use designation is residential. I'm not sure
where the city is at in terms of changing the zoning designation. And just to add one
quick note, that was the problem and that's why we agreed that this raised substantial
issue is the city have not yet changed the land use plan designation so there
is a special condition requiring the city to fulfill that process and to
obtain a certified amendment to its land use plan to change the land use
designation to allow for the project and I and I certainly appreciate that I you
know from a neighborhood perspective I think I'd be a little upset to put it
mildly that I bought property with the existing pump station,
probably with an expectation that that would be there,
with the surrounding properties being
zoned for residential.
And then to find out, and particularly
to Ms. Lee's property, that that residential is now
going to be rezoned to put a pump station literally right on her property
line with the transformers with all the issues you know that's being upset is
probably a mild expectation and so I understand that that may not be within
our purview here. But I think it it does impact the community character aspect of what is what is
within our purview. So it's almost it's somewhat disconcerting because it's almost you know this
this project is a must-have and I certainly understand that and I'm not minimizing the need
for this particular project, but it's almost say, to put it bluntly, too bad, too sad.
We have to do what we have to do.
We have to put it in this location, this location only.
Noise be damned, impact be damned.
You guys have to live with it.
And that's certainly upsetting to me.
I can only imagine what it's like for those who are on the ground floor having to deal
with this.
question with regard to the affluent so this services 220 households is that
this pump station is that roughly 220 thousand for the record Don Schmitz okay
and where does the rest of the is that because we talked about the West West
LA what does that mean they're probably a half a million people in West LA or
what does West LA mean to the city of LA and its affluent?
Through the chair, Commissioner Jackson,
you heard in some of the previous testimony,
the coastal interceptor.
There's, the city has multiple pump stations.
Only sand serves four million people.
And Hyperion, of course, is the plant.
So this is the end for the coastal interceptor
that comes all the way from the Pacific Palisades
through Santa Monica and down to this low spot in Venice
to be pumped up to the Hyperion plant.
But there's a whole series of pump plants
that the city sanitation district,
city sanitation has.
This is the largest, the existing one
is the largest pump station.
It's the critical low point in their system
to get the effluent up to Hyperion.
Thank you. Thank you for that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks for that. I wanted to key off where you're going or where I thought you might get to,
which was we have a loss of two residential zoned lots in this process.
Is it possible to vest those entitlements to the parking lot of this?
And so that in the future if the city wants to look at some affordable housing or some sort of housing in that space
That they would have that
That that we've vested in in that or it or what is the zoning of the parking lot now?
It is for residential, okay, so there's
But it has a density
Right. I mean has it has a density requirement to that residential
Okay. Yes, and what is that currently?
I would need to look for that information.
I don't know how to top my head.
Well, I was just thinking about in terms of mitigating
for the loss of two residential units,
maybe investing an additional two residential units
to that lot, and then at the very least,
we wouldn't have a reduction in residential units
as part of this project.
Is that unreasonable?
So they need to do an LUP amendment currently
in order to redesignate these.
Are you saying that in the future,
if you wanted to convert back from the parking
to residential, are you trying to build something
in now that would require?
It wouldn't require or just vest the right
to get the density that you've lost
from those two residential units that you're removing.
I'm not sure how to do that.
Let me think about it a bit.
I don't know how you vest that interest now,
but let me think about it.
I appreciate, thanks.
Okay, I'm gonna suggest we take a brief break
to allow some coordination.
So if we could all be back here at 1.10,
is that enough time, Director?
Okay, 1.10, please, thank you.
Okay, let's return to session
and I will perhaps go to Dr. Huckelbridge.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
So we have a few proposed changes to make
to our staff recommendation to some of the special conditions
to address some of the concerns that have been raised
by the commissioners, so I'll read them off,
and if you want to look through which condition
we're recommending a change to, we're a new condition.
So the first is special condition one.
We will be adding subpart F, a new condition
that says to add to the final plans inclusion
of long-term noise impact minimization measures
to the maximum extent feasible.
That's the first one.
The second two changes are both to special condition six,
and that's for a construction,
it's the construction plan.
So the first is to subpart B,
which is to minimize discharge of construction pollutants.
And we have just a couple of word additions here.
So the first, I'll just read off the condition
and note the additional word.
The discharge of other pollutants resulting
from construction activities such as,
And here we're going to add the word dust, chemicals, paints, vehicle fluids, petroleum
products, asphalt and cement compounds, debris and trash, close parentheses, into, and then
we're going to add the word air and continue it says run off or coastal waters shall be
minimized through the use of appropriate BMPs.
So that's the first change to Special Edition 6.
The second is to subpart D,
which is managing construction phase BMPs.
So here it reads appropriate protocol
shall be implemented to manage all construction phase BMPs,
including installation and removal,
ongoing operation, inspection, maintenance and training
to protect coastal water quality.
And then here's the addition and minimize noise impacts.
So those are, we are going to be changing
our staff recommendation to include those changes,
Our understanding is that the city is in agreement
with those changes, and with that I'll turn it back
to the chair for any additional discussion.
Okay, thank you, and just for the record,
the city was nodding their heads in agreement
with our statements by Director Hucklebridge.
Thank you, okay, so I'll turn it back to my colleagues.
Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders.
Just so I'm on the right motion,
is this the motion in resolution
with the de novo dual permits on page 34?
Is that where we're at?
Okay, correct, thank you.
I move that the commission approve
Coastal Development Permit Number A-5-VEN-22-0068
pursuant to the staff recommendation
and including the modifications as delineated by our chair.
Second.
That's a motion by Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders
and a second by Commissioner Escalante.
We have a roll call vote please.
And I recommend a yes vote.
Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner Escalante.
Commissioner Escalante.
Oh, sorry.
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Notoff.
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner preshiato yes yes commissioner Turnbull Sanders yes
Turnbull Sanders yes commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes commissioner O'Malley
yes O'Malley yes chair Herman yes Herman yes the vote is unanimous thank you the
motion passes commissioner and I believe we have two more motions with the second
motion I move that Commission approved coastal development permit number a dash
5-VEN-22-0069 pursuant to the staff recommendation and with the amendments that the staff director
included on the conditions and I'm requesting a yes vote.
Commissioner Preciado did you want a second? Second.
Motion by Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders, a second by Commissioner Preciado. They're asking
for a yes vote. May we have a roll call, please. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson, yes. Commissioner
Kelly. Yes. Kelly, yes. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez, yes. Commissioner Nadal. Aye. Nadal,
yes. Commissioner Presiato. Yes. Presiato, yes. Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders. Yes. Turnbull-Sanders,
Yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley. Yes. Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante. Yes.
Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon. Yes. The vote is unanimous. Thank you. The motion passes. Commissioner.
Thank you Chair Harmon. For the third and final motion I move that the commission approve coastal development permit number 5-24-0123.
to the staff recommendation and the modifications is provided by our staff director and I'm requesting a yes vote.
Second.
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Turnbull Sanders a second by Commissioner Presiado. They're asking for a yes vote and we'll have a roll call please.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Nada.
Aye.
Nada. Yes. Commissioner Presiano.
Thank you, thank you.
The motion passes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
to the commissioners and staff
for this thoughtful discussion and work.
Okay, now we're gonna break for lunch
and may I suggest that everyone be back here at 2.30
if that's sufficient.
Thank you, we're on our own for lunch today
so please be back at 2.30.
Okay, everyone, thank you, hope you all had a nice lunch.
We will get back to our calendar
and I think it brings us to item 13B.
Okay, thank you, that does bring us to item 13B.
This item will be presented via Zoom by Dulce Cortez,
a Coastal Program Analyst in our South Coast District.
We do have a PowerPoint if we could pull that up please,
and Dulce, please take it away.
Good afternoon commissioners.
Item 13B is a request by the City of Santa Monica
and the Bay Foundation for Coastal Development Permit
to implement phase three
of the Santa Monica Beach Dune Restoration Project.
The project involves installation
of approximately 38.55 acres of new for dune
and back dune habitat along Santa Monica State Beach.
This phase builds on the success
of the prior 3.25 acre phase one
and five acre phase two pilot projects
and expands the restored dune system
to cover nearly 19% of the city's Sandy Beach area.
The applicants are proposing
a passive living shoreline project
to enhance dune habitat and natural beach resilience
while maintaining public access
and recreational opportunities.
Next slide, please.
As shown in this aerial photo,
the projects I span Santa Monica State Beach
within the city of Santa Monica.
Phase one, shown in yellow,
is located in the Northern Restoration Area
while phase two, shown in light green,
is also located in the northern portion of the beach.
Phase three is depicted in green
and includes both northern and southern restoration areas
extending from the city's northern boundary
at Wil Rogers State Beach
to its southern boundary at Venice Beach.
Phase one and two of the project were previously approved
by the Commission and restoration of these areas
has been completed.
The phase three portion of the project
that is the subject of this application
includes approximately 31.45 acres
north of the Santa Monica Pier
and 7.10 acres to the south.
Next slide, please.
The project will use low profile symbolic
posting cable fencing, surge of hand seeding
and container plantings of native dune vegetation
to possibly form dune hummocks.
No sand import or mechanized equipment is proposed.
All symbolic posts and cable fencing
will be no higher than three feet
and the seaward sides of the restoration areas
will remain unfenced and open for public use.
Public access is preserved through designated
25-foot pedestrian corridors
that will extend throughout the restoration areas
and the project design pulls back from the beach berms
and recreational nodes to minimize disruption.
As a living shoreline,
the project is intended to enhance beach stability,
buffer against sea level rise and storm surge,
and restore ecological function to an urban beach.
Next slide, please.
The project has been designed to balance
and balance the preservation of public access
and recreation with the creation of new dune habitat.
Staff believes the project accomplishes this balance
by preserving lateral and vertical public access
through and across the site, minimizing visual impacts
and avoiding sensitive recreational zones.
While the project will occupy some sandy beach area,
the public will still have full access
to all areas outside the beach,
outside the beach of the designated restoration areas.
Okay, I think Dulce is frozen, at least on our end.
We'll wait for it to regain connection.
Or Steve, if you wanna go ahead.
I can jump in while we wait for Dulce's camera to reset.
Dulce has dropped out of the meeting.
She might be reconnecting.
All right, I can proceed.
And if I could ask for which slide number
we're on currently, I will pick up.
Slide four.
Q.
Dulce actually just came back so we see her.
Oh, hi.
Sorry.
Okay, start over side floor.
Sorry.
We lost you.
We're still on slide four.
Okay.
The project has been designed to balance the preservation
of public access and recreation
with the creation of new dune habitat.
Staff believes the project accomplishes this balance
by preserving lateral and vertical public access
through and across the set.
Okay, yeah, we lost connection again.
Yeah, Steve, I think you're gonna need to take over.
I'll take over and Dulce will still be here
to help answer questions.
So thank you, Dulce.
All right, starting from slide four,
the project has been designed to balance the preservation
of public access and recreation
with the creation of new dune habitat.
And we do believe the project accomplishes this balance
by preserving lateral and vertical public access
through and across the site, minimizing visual impacts
and avoiding sensitive recreational zones.
Now, while the project will occupy some sandy beach area,
The public will still have full access to all areas outside the beach, outside of the
designated restoration areas.
And the public's ability to access the beach to go along this part of the coast will be
maintained at all times.
And that includes the ocean and the sandy shore between the dunes and the mean high
tide line.
Now, the project site is highly accessible to environmental justice communities and is
located within walking or transit distance of disadvantaged neighborhoods.
To strengthen equitable access, we have a special condition 3 which requires educational
signage with QR codes that will be provided in multiple languages, including Spanish and
English, and at least one infographic display will be installed near the pier to explain
the project's goals.
Next slide, please.
Special condition 3 requires a detailed dune habitat creation plan.
This includes a native plant pallet refined by commissioned ecologists, the use of site-appropriate
seeds and placement of driftwood that excludes burned or hazardous material to protect marine
resources. Temporary sand fencing and planting will be used to facilitate dune formation without
mechanized grading. Ongoing maintenance measures are also required. Monitoring data from phases 1
and 2 show the restored dune enhanced beach aesthetics, increased biodiversity, and improved
resilience. And this third phase will build on that success and represents a scalable model
of nature-based shoreline protection that I would just add we hope will be repeated in other
coastal communities. And our staff has received several letters from members of the public after
the staff report was prepared expressing concerns about this project. And they noted concerns
ranging from potential fire risk, crime, garbage accumulation, habitat related pests, and public
access, concerns about public access impacts. In response, Commission staff has addressed these
issues, both in the staff report and additional information has been provided to the applicants,
provided by the applicants, and we have responded to the concerned parties. The staff report
explains that the fire risk is not expected to increase due to the careful
placement and management of driftwood along with the use of low-lying fire
resistant native vegetation. This project would not create conditions that would
encourage illegal camping or increase crime as the restored dunes consist of
sparse vegetation and will remain low in height. Concerns regarding potential
litter are addressed through coordination with LA County beaches and harbors
which has reported no complaints related to trash during implementation of the
earlier phases 1 and 2. And to further support public access, phase 3 includes
even wider strategically place pathways that will be designed to
accommodate families, seniors, and other beachgoers. Moreover, larger areas of
Sandy Beach are maintained for public access and recreation, both seaward and
landward, between the restoration areas. And I would just note that like phases
one and two, we will maintain public access on all sides of these restoration areas. So
between the restoration areas in the water, landward of these areas, and to and around.
Finally, because the project site is located on state tide lands leased to the city of
Santa Monica, the city has coordinated with California State Parks, the acting agency
for the state, to ensure that the dune restoration activities are consistent with the terms
of the lease and the allowed use of the property. State parks review and approval prior to commencement
of alterations provides an additional safeguard that the project aligns with state requirements
while advancing habitat restoration goals. Overall, the project is designed to enhance
coastal habitat while maintaining shoreline access and continuing to serve environmental
justice communities. Next slide, please. In response to concerns about visual impacts,
The staff report notes that the low dune profiles
and sparse visitation used in phases one and two
have proven to integrate well with the beach setting
as seen in these photos.
While private views are not protected under the Coastal Act
or the city certified LCP,
public views are considered and staff has found the project
consistent with the relevant visual resource policies.
The project will not preclude any permitted beach events
as it was developed in coordination
with the city of Santa Monica to ensure spaces
for continued recreational and event use.
Next slide please.
In closing, staff believes that the proposed project
has been designed to avoid significant adverse effects
to public access, marine resources, scene equality,
and it provides important climate resilience
and habitat benefits.
And as conditioned, we'll be consistent
with all chapter three policies of the Coastal Act.
And thus, we're recommending the commission
approved this project subject to the special conditions listed on pages six
through nine of your reports emotion to approve this project can be found on
page five of that report this concludes staff's presentation I would just note
that we are available for questions thank you very much thank you mr. Hudson
okay um are there any ex partes on this matter all right seeing none then we
will open the public hearing and we will begin with the applicant. Yes we
have Tom Ford here in person. How much time do you need sir? Five minutes
would be great and if I could maybe retain two or three minutes for a
rebuttal if necessary. Absolutely. Thank you. Fantastic. Five minutes on the clock please.
Alright. Thank you commissioners. Very excited to be here today. That's my
first time going through this process. So if I omit something, please correct me. But
nonetheless, the purpose of the project I think was very well outlined in the staff
report that was presented by Dulce and Steve. I would also note that we've put in a number
of these projects, stemming from Manhattan Beach, another project in Dockweiler Beach,
So two and perhaps third in Santa Monica, and then up off of Zuma and Westward Beach.
And in all cases, they've just been wonderfully embraced.
Years of environmental work and creating habitats and restoring habitats.
I don't think I've found one that had as many positive common aspects to it and the way
it's been received by the public.
I really can't go further without thanking the hundreds of volunteers who have contributed
thousands of hours to this effort that you just saw outlined.
I can't wait to see how many hundreds and thousands more we can engage moving forward
to this next scale of this project.
I have to thank the City of Santa Monica for their leadership.
They were on the ground working with us as many as 15 years ago when we started planning
that initial pilot phase which is still sitting there and looking and functioning fantastic
10 years later. So thank you to them. The commission staff, the Coastal Conservancy
staff and state parks also all played a very key role in helping us inform our processes,
our approaches, asking great questions for us to help clarify exactly what we're trying
to get done out there. And what I want to include is I think we've got a few
letters of support that came in later than made it into your packet, notably
from Senator Ben Allen's office, from LA County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath, and
from another organization with called the Black Surface Collective that does
outreach getting folks to the beach and getting them in the water to enjoy that
full coastal experience that I know we all value so highly so thanks to them
for leaning in and I suppose it'll be all part of the file once once this
concludes and I'm here to answer any questions that you might have and let
you know that the Bay Foundation is thrilled with the staff report all those
four special with those conditions we agree with fully and I think we can
meet all of those and look forward to doing so. And then perhaps quickly what
doesn't show up on the page and what I've had the opportunity to experience
repeatedly over the past 10 years doing this work. Folks come down to the beach
in LA, millions of them every year, and I'd like to say that this was kids but
but it was also adults.
And they go, I'm sorry.
You can have plants on a beach?
And I go, yep.
You can have flowers on a beach?
Yes.
Oh, my god, are those butterflies on a beach?
And as much as the conservation values of these projects
speak to my interests as an ecologist
and hone in on one aspect of our strategic plan
and our goals and our mission at the Bay Foundation,
the other part is certainly
serving the people of our community.
And to widen their experience and their imagination
to understand that a beach can look like that
and to know that a beach that looks like that
and functions like these do
is giving them a beach that will be there
throughout their lifespans is plenty for me.
And as for the public access,
because we struggle with this sometimes with my staff.
They're like, oh my gosh, those kids are in there,
they're gonna disturb the birds.
I'm like, those kids are building a fort
and chasing each other around with some rack
that piled up there and I, perhaps as a parent,
couldn't be more delighted to see all that going down.
So thank you for your time and your consideration today.
And if this goes through, we just can't wait to get to work.
Thank you very much.
Okay, Chris.
Okay we have a total of 12 speakers signed were to speak for this item. We
have two in person. We'll start with Mitch Silverstein followed by Don Schmitz.
Awesome. Chair Harmon and commissioners, Mitch Silverstein California policy
senior coordinator for Surfighter Foundation. On behalf of Surfighter and
especially our 4,000 LA chapter members please vote to approve the City of
Santa Monica's living shoreline project as conditioned. Surfighter strongly
supports proactive sea level rise planning that uses nature-based solutions to protect our beaches.
Building on the Bay Foundation's successful pilot dunes nearby, this project will deliver multiple
benefits for LA's most popular beach. Like the presentation said, dunes are nature's way of
retaining sand on the beach. It'll literally bring, you know, as the dunes mature, they'll protect
infrastructure from coastal flooding as well. So this will make LA's biggest most popular beach
more resilient to sea level rise. There's also dunes have a really rare
native coastal habitat value so it'll literally bring new life to the beach
that includes pretty flowers, cute birds, and lots of colorful butterflies as well.
It'll enhance the beauty of a very urban beach which really needs that. Also the
restored dunes offer really great opportunities for the city, the Bay
Foundation, Surf Rider LA, and others to connect the greater LA community with
nature. This habitat's gonna offer amazing educational and volunteer
or stewardship potential.
Also, I'd like to thank the South Coast Commission staff
for working with the applicant
to really make this project much better
than it already was in terms of preserving public access,
which is gonna be unrestricted.
We're just, Surfrider,
beach access is core to our mission.
So if this project was negatively affecting access,
I would not be here today speaking in support.
So I really looked closely at this
and I believe beach access is completely protected.
And then lastly, this is an adaptive thing.
I know that there's some concerns about it,
but this is not destructive shoreline armoring.
If in five years there are some issues
or it's not performing as expected,
it's so easy to adapt dunes.
You can just change them.
So on that, please approve this project.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Don Schmitz.
And then our first zoom speakers will be Matthew Benton.
Jay Eugenia Armacora and Paul Schneider.
Don Schmitz, go ahead.
Commissioner, it's Don Schmitz on behalf of myself.
I'm not here representing the applicant
on this particular item today.
It's been my honor and pleasure to participate
in the working group with the League of Cities
and the Coastal Commission.
I've also hosted a number of seminars and symposiums
on sea level rise, and we've talked about
all the different options and the tools
we have in the toolbox and some of them are very soft.
But it's a gradiation, graded scale.
So you have beach nourishment.
And then you have sand dunes on the beach nourishment.
Not good for withstanding wave attack,
but it holds the beach in place.
And then you start looking at things
such as artificial headlands and artificial reefs.
So this is a great interim step
because fluvial erosion or wave erosion
is not the only thing that takes our beaches away.
You get wind which carries the sand away as well.
And of course the habitat values are, it's incontrovertible.
That's a really excellent thing for us to get.
I, as the previous speaker mentioned,
I wouldn't be in support of it
if I thought it was in contradiction to access,
and that's very often a problem with some of these things.
But I think that both the applicant and the staff
have done an admirable job to make sure
that this critical recreational beach
will not have its access opportunities degraded.
So, I know it takes a lot of time.
I know it takes a lot of work.
I know it takes a lot of money.
And so, I thought it worthy and important
that I step up and be counted
and support this application.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, to Zoom, Matthew Benton,
Ayuhania Ermakora, and Paul Snyder.
Matt Benton, go ahead.
Thank you, my name is Matthew Benton,
and I'm serving as the Coast and Climate Program Lead
for Surfrider Los Angeles.
I'm here to support a yes vote
for item TH13B Santa Monica's Living Shorelines Project
in line with the staff's recommendation.
I have been incredibly grateful
to have traveled to many beaches
along our great coastline in California
in a firsthand scene,
the positive impacts of sand dunes all along the coast.
Sand dunes are not only an incredibly beautiful feature
on a beach, they are a critical habitat
for native plants and birds,
as well as a critical protection from storm surges,
coastal erosion and sea level rise.
LA beaches have undergone a lot of transformation
over the last century.
For example, the beaches at Santa Monica and Venice
a hundred years ago were approximately 75 to 100 feet wide,
but now feature over 500 feet of sand
that cover sections that have been radically transformed
over the last century.
A lot of the sand has been dumped from sand dunes
along the coast and in order to accommodate greater tourism
and greater attention.
So now we have this opportunity which the Bay Foundation
has gifted us to really restore this beach
in a beneficial way for decades to come.
I appreciate the Bay Foundation's past successes
to rewild our LA beaches with their dune test plots.
And I'm excited for this product to continue the efforts
creating protections for both the people in our city and our native species. I appreciate
the commission's time and opportunity to speak on the matter and I encourage you to vote yes
on TH13B in pursuant to staff's recommendations. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Next eight, excuse me. Eugenia or Makora, Paul Schneider and then Tim Noonan.
Yes, good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners, and Staff.
My name is Eugenia Macora and I serve as Los Angeles Chapter Manager for the Surfrider
Foundation.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of item TH-13B, the Santa Monica
Living Shore Lines Project, Phase 3.
As Mitch and Matt has mentioned, this project is exactly the kind of nature-based solution
and surf rider supports on our coats
and it's very much needed.
By restoring dunes along the Santa Monica beach,
we create nature protection from sea level rise
and erosion while keeping the iconic shorelines open
and accessible to all people.
Santa Monica has been a leader in climate action
and this project delivers directly
on its climate action and adaptation plans
Since 2016, the Bay Foundation pilot students project
have shown that dune retains sand, reduced flooding,
and subordinated plants and wildlife.
Unlike seawalls and other hard infrastructure,
students are living systems, they adapt, they grow,
and they can be adjusted without permanent harm
to our coastlines.
So the benefit goes beyond resilience.
and restore habitats for birds, pollinators,
and native plants in one of our most urbanized stretches
of the coast.
And I see it myself during beach cleanups,
collaborations that we have with the Bay Foundation
previously where we saw like pollinators
coming back to the area.
They also enhance the beach experience,
reminding us that this is not just
recreational space, but living ecosystems.
Importantly, these projects maintain full public access,
parking, volleyball courts, and pathways remain open.
So this project offers
sales perspective model
and how Los Angeles, California,
can adapt while protecting both.
So on behalf of Saffrada Foundation,
I respectfully urge you to approve
a staff recommendation and vote yes.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next, Paul Snyder, Tim Noonan, Ashley Olsen.
Paul Snyder.
Hi everybody, just want to make sure you guys can hear me.
I guess we can hear you.
So I want to thank everybody
for taking the time to come here today.
What I want to do is urge you all to vote no
on this absolutely horrible idea
and I'll be very strict to tell you why.
I've lived in Santa Monica for 14 years.
I live on the beach and I see exactly what happens
to the beaches in front of my house every single day.
I have tens of thousands of hours of video footage
of the cameras pointing to the beach.
And even though the applicant and Surf Rider Foundation
will tell you the beautiful plants and birds and butterflies
and these picturesque short of bullshit statements
that are just not real.
Unfortunately, take a walk down to Dockweiler Beach
where we talk about the plants and the birds
and the butterflies, and you'll see exactly the opposite.
It's homeless encampment next to trash pile,
next to plastic bottles with nobody maintaining it
and nobody taking care of it.
Go on social media or anywhere you want
type in Darkwiler Beach, you will see the videos that I'm telling you about or take
a second to stop reading from a piece of paper and go see what these sand dunes actually
look like.
They're full of tens of thousands of pieces of trash that nobody is maintaining or taking
care of.
There are no butterflies.
There's homeless encampments and garbage.
If you look at how this pilot was tested on phase one, it was done away from people in
an area without residents and without 10 million tourists.
This dynamic changes dramatically when you put it next to the Santa Monica Pier.
That has over 10 million tourists every single year.
There's no valuable testing showing that it's restoring, which is another key word.
We keep referring to restoring sand dunes.
The Santa Monica beaches to the right and left of the Santa Monica Pier were manmade.
There was never intended to be any sand dunes on any of these areas, and for good reason.
When you look outside my house every single morning and see 50 to 100 homeless encampments
and people sleeping on the beach riddled with trash that is not maintained now, and you
take that into account with residents, tourists and everybody else, putting trash dunes around
the Santa Monica Pier is a huge mistake. If you want to vote yes on this, then please,
I urge you to move it at least 600 feet away from the Santa Monica Pier. I agree with sand
dunes, I think they're a great idea if they're maintained, but putting them close to the
pier is going to be a nightmare for you and a waiting lawsuit.
Thank you. Next is Tim Noonan, Ashley Olsen, and then Amani Spielman. Tim Noonan.
Before my time begins, could you pull up slide seven from Steve Hudson's deck, please?
Yes, give us a moment. Thank you. Just want to enlarge that area that's proposed so they
can see it. We'll just blow that up a little bit. That'd be great.
Please continue, sir. I'll begin. Esteemed commissioners. As a resident
homeowner along Palisades Beach Road, I've been tracking with great great excitement the first
two phases of this project. But then our community changed with the Palisades fire. What many thought
to be impossible has become the new normal. I am now very concerned about the practical nature
surrounding the maintenance of the restoration areas and therefore I'm currently opposed for
the following reasons. The grass and fauna will create a dangerous fire hazard for residents
as these areas are closer to the homes than the shoreline, as in the first phases.
The homeless encampments, which already are a prime source of fires,
will make this hazard even more relevant. With coastal winds and climate change,
one would hope that the Palisade Fire has taught us a few lessons.
A simple fact from the CAL FIRE website is, areas within 200 feet of structures,
the grass must be cut to three inches in height. Native brush shall be reduced in quantity to
three inches in height. This does not apply to individual native shrubs spaced a minimum
of 18 feet apart provided such shrubs are trimmed up from the ground to one third of their height
with all dead material being removed. That is the Cal Fire website. The trash that is currently
combed daily along the proposed phase three will instead soon rest in large amounts within the dunes
and become an eyesore and increase the fire hazard. The homeless population who already
illegally camped in the newly designated areas will surely increase due to the shield that the
area will provide from wind. The resistance from residents and businesses on this project
is not a discredit to climate change or environmental concerns rather than as one
practicality and resources. Under the state operating agreement of the state beach,
the City of Santa Monica is doing clean and maintain the beach area. This requirement can't
be outsourced to a non-profit volunteer group that does not have the budget or staff to maintain the
dunes. The City of Santa Monica Coach Commission believe this project should continue. I would
think they would be moving the dunes 200 feet away from the homes and businesses by essentially
moving them closer to the water. This would protect us from fire risk. I'd like to note that
the pending item has a provision that will hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from
From any damage this item causes,
not sure how that responsibility shifting.
Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Change the film such liability makes sense, thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Ashley Olsen, Almani Spielman,
and then Cameron Montesanto.
Ashley Olsen.
Hi, I am a conservation biologist
and a member of the Environmental Commission
for the city of Santa Monica.
But for today, my most important role
is I'm a resident of Palisades Beach Road,
directly impacted by phase three
sand dune expansion project. I strongly support this project because it directly addresses the
loss of biodiversity caused by decades of coastal alteration. Nearly every inch of our shoreline has
been reshaped by human activity and stripped of the natural features that once supported thriving
ecosystems. Expanding the dunes gives us a chance to bring back what we have lost. Native dune plants
stabilize the sand and provide food and shelter for insects, pollinators, and shorebirds. Restored
dunes can create critical nesting and foraging habitat for species that have been pushed to the
brink by coastal development such as a western snowy plover. Equally important, this project
will help shift public perceptions of what a beach should be. For too long, people have been
conditioned to think that our beaches are flat and raked in artificial landscape. By restoring dunes,
we teach residents and visitors to value the beach in its natural form as a living, diverse ecosystem
rather than an engineered backdrop for recreation alone.
This project represents a chance to repair ecological damage,
improve biodiversity, and change how we connect with our coastline.
I urge the commission to support this expansion
not only as a climate adaptation measure,
but as a moral responsibility to restore and protect
the coastal ecosystems we have nearly erased.
Lastly, I understand that our community is very shaken
by the Palisades fire, and I know my neighbors
carry deep concerns about the increased fire risk.
However, suggestions that the dune poses a fire hazard
are simply not credible.
Coastal dune habitats consist primarily
of low-growing, salt-tolerant native plants
with high moisture content that do not behave
like fire-prone dry brush.
To equate dune vegetation with inland wildfire fuels
is to ignore the ecological science of coastal systems.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Amani Spielman and Cameron Montesanto.
Amani Spielman.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Oh, thank you.
Thanks for having me.
I'm a 30-year resident of Santa Monica,
60-year of Los Angeles, and I absolutely
love the Santa Monica Beach the way it is for many reasons.
But number one, I agree with the previous statements
that it is going to be a huge homeless magnet,
and it is going to increase problems and safety.
I understand the environmental concerns in wanting to salvage the sand and what have
you, but in this case, I think it's just the wrong timing.
My kids had the three kids' privilege of doing junior lifeguards at the beach where
you plan on putting this, and I know that this is going to compromise a lot of our wonderful
beach activities for our residents and those who come from other underserved areas.
It is a fire hazard in that the homeless often create fires, sad but true.
Will Rogers currently is a disaster and has some ecological problems and needs cleanup
and repair.
I would just be with you to consider taking that funding and tabling this for now and
focusing on the real issue with Will Rogers right there that has some actual environmental
challenges and safety challenges. So all in all I feel this is really dangerous
and as the previous residents have said we've seen it in practice in Playa del
Rey. I've been there and I understand what they're saying and I think that
maybe we could table this for now and prioritize our funding. LA is has a real
challenge with our funding right now so we have to be practical with the fire.
the Palisades residents need our beaches too, so it's going to reduce the amount
of beaches, it's going to reduce the amount of area we have to entertain for
the Olympics, and that's where we need help physically as well. Thank you for
hearing me out, thank you. Thank you. Next is Cameron Montesanto, and then I will
start calling names that we aren't able to find. Cameron Montesanto. And you
should be able to unmute. I see that your camera's on. There you go. Thank you. Hi. I would just like
to say that I would encourage the voting of yes on this measure. I've lived in different places
and I've seen the way that dunes can change a landscape and I admire how they teach people
that this is not a dead ecosystem. This is not somewhere that is lifeless. This is a place with
so much nutrients and availability for life to grow. And I think that changing people's understanding
around that is very important. Not to mention the economic value of maintaining a beach through
natural systems like Duning ultimately will return for many years to come.
That's all I have. Thank you. And then we had three names that we weren't able to
find Stephen Kelly or Stephen Kelly, Jonathan Brandler and Lauren Bash. If
you've heard your name please raise your hand. Stephen Kelly, Jonathan Brandler or
for Lauren bash.
I do see Paul Snyder is raising his hand.
Maybe there's someone with him.
I'm allowing you to unmute and Paul is either Steven Kelly,
Jonathan Brandler Lauren bash with you.
I was actually trying to reach out to John Brandler.
He's legal counsel that wanted to speak,
but I'm unable to reach him.
I'll try one more time.
Okay. Thank you.
And besides that, I am seeing no hands raised.
So I'm not sure.
OK.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to assume that we weren't
able to reach that last person.
OK.
Thank you.
Well, then I will return to the applicant.
I think he had asked for three minutes
to respond to public comment.
Sir.
Thank you.
And just a couple maybe qualifiers.
We've certainly seen some tremendous conservation
values. That I believe that's a Type 42 grinder. We're gonna go check on it.
Sorry everybody at home is like what is he doing? All right. Thank you. So we
have seen some really fantastic response amongst these sites to the return of
rare threatened and sometimes endangered wildlife to our coastline. So that's
very encouraging indeed and no butterflies of thousands of endangered
El Segundo blue butterflies returning to the beach in Manhattan Beach
which we encourage everybody to go down there at the right time of year so they
can see that they're relatively short live they're about this big and they're
beautiful and blue and love seeing them flit about certainly we are sensitive
and aware of many of the existing issues on Santa Monica Beach it's a highly
urbanized beach. There's a lot of uses down there and it is our assertion that
our project has not worsened any of those existing practices and continue to
work with the city of Santa Monica to do the best as well as others and agencies
in the region to improve the condition and functionality of our beach and I
wanted to, oh, and then the other one, it was mentioned briefly, I think in the staff
presentation, and we've avoided the beach volleyball courts, we're working with all
those existing uses, and that's also with any other the permitted sites on the
beach for a wedding party, or a big party, or the junior guards program, so
we've done our best to position all of these things around those, so those
existing uses can persist. And that's what I know on the share. Thank you.
Wonderful. Thank you very much. Okay. With that, we will close the public hearing and
return to staff. Mr. Hudson, if you have any comments you'd like to make.
Thank you. I would like to respond to a few of the points by some of the opponents. And
basically that we have responded in great detail in the staff report to these assertions
that dune restoration projects such as this one might result in increased instances of
crime, homelessness, fire hazard, or pests, or garbage on a site, and in our experience
we have found these claims to be false, that there's no evidence that this is the case.
We do have experience with many of these sorts of restoration projects in the past, including
on this very beach, uh, with phase one and phase two, which included exactly the sort
of restoration of other similar dune areas and the city and the applicant have confirmed
that we have not experienced these sorts of issues. Uh, now particularly as noted in the
staff report, uh, we have not seen any increase in fire hazard. These are sandy beaches and
dune restoration projects involve sparse vegetation.
So this is not a verdant grassland,
but it's sparse native dune vegetation within the sand.
The woody debris is natural wood
that might wash up on the beach.
And it does not present any sort of increased fire hazard
for these homes that might be located
several hundred feet landward.
In terms of garbage,
these issues are manageable by the city
and they manage garbage and crime in all other areas
of the beach and that will continue to be the case here.
So we do not agree with any of those assertions.
And I would note that it's important
that those sorts of assertions without evidence
should not be used to prevent these sorts
of good dune restoration projects from going forward
or habitat restoration in general.
In this case, I would note that this is unique
in that the city of Santa Monica has developed
a partnership with the Bay Foundation,
which is something that we'd like to see
more of going forward.
What we have had as an issue,
and we've seen opposition from neighbors
in regard to other dune restoration projects,
is a desire by residents, typically,
to see what they consider to be a clean beach,
and that is maintenance of continued beach grooming.
And we have a history of that in Santa Monica.
This project is unique, though,
that the city is proposing to modify their beach grooming practices to set aside certain
limited areas for this dune restoration. And I appreciate that partnership that the city and
a foundation have formed here and we're looking to hopefully use this as a model in other areas.
So we do believe that these issues have all been thoroughly addressed and vetted in the staff
report but I would note that we are available for questions.
Okay thank you very much I appreciate it so I will return to the Commission and
ask if any of my colleagues have comments, questions, motion, Commissioner
Nada. I overall I just want to say it's great to see this type of soft
approach to coastal erosion concerns. I do want to just express sensitivity to
people's concern about fire. This is, you know, a traumatized area that has, you
know, gone through a lot and I want to I feel reassured from our staff that
they've taken every precaution they can to and have not really had any
that this type of restoration has contributed
to any increase wildfire risk.
So I'm ready to make a motion when the time is right.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, just one question.
The barriers as they were presented, right,
are rope on steel.
How long do you imagine those being up?
I mean, are those forever?
And if so, who's in charge of maintaining?
Because I know that rope wears over time.
So I'm just wondering longevity here, replacement time,
what's that look like?
All right, that yes, the idea is that that's,
that post and cable type fencing would be maintained
for the life of the development.
We would have them come back and continue to monitor
and evaluate this project over time,
but it is intended for now for the life of the development.
Interesting, okay, thank you.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the speakers today.
I am fortunate to be a neighbor of Manhattan Beach
and have seen firsthand the benefits of the restoration
that has taken place in that city.
And it is, I often look with envy as,
and I've scratched my head a couple of times,
and hey, maybe this is something that we can look at
in Hermosa Beach.
But I am a fan of what you all are doing.
Appreciate all the efforts.
And you're right, it's amazing to see the number of volunteers
out there giving of their time on weekends and late nights
to make a difference.
So thank you to all who are truly making a difference
to provide some stability and sustainability
in our beautiful coastline beaches.
Commissioner Notoff or Commissioner Jackson, whoever.
If you have it ready, Commissioner Notoff.
All right, with that, I move that the Commission
approve Coastal Development Permit Number 5-24-0853
pursuant to the staff recommendation
in requesting a yes vote.
Second.
That is a motion by Commissioner Knottoff,
a second by Commissioner Jackson.
They're asking for a yes vote.
And if we could have a roll call vote, please.
Commissioner Lopez.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Knottoff.
Aye.
Not off, yes.
Commissioner Preciado.
Aye.
Preciado, yes.
Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders.
Yes.
Turnbull-Sanders, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly. Yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is unanimous. Great. Thank you very much. The
permit is approved. Okay, now we are moving on to item 14, the Deputy Director's Report for the
South Coast District, please. Thank you, Chair Harmon. Good afternoon, everybody. Item 14 is
the Deputy Director's Report for South Coast District Orange County. We're reporting two
waivers for projects in Laguna Beach in San Clemente and one CDP amendment related to the
Orange County Transportation Authority's debris containment wall along the railroad in San
Clemente near the Mariposa access point. We aren't aware of any opposition to these items
so we're asking whether three or more commissioners object in either waivers or the amendment in the
report. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwing. Are there any ex partes? Seeing none, any
public speakers on the DDR? I know we just have one available for questions.
Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the
deputy director's report? Seeing no objections, the Commission can curse. We
are now on item 15a please. Great, thank you. And Emily Greer, our lead analyst on
this project is going to do the staff presentation. Go ahead, Emily, as soon as you're ready. Thanks.
Thanks, Carl. Good afternoon Commissioners. Item 15A is an appeal of a coastal development permit
that was approved by the City of Huntington Beach for the construction of 10 new three-story single
family residences at 1802 to 1820 Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach. The applicant is 1810
PCH-HB-LLC and the appellant is John Mahood. Next slide please. The subject site is located at 1802
to 1820 Pacific Coast Highway in the city of Huntington Beach. Although Pacific Coast Highway
in this area is the first public road paralleling the sea, the subject site is located on the inland
side of Pacific Coast Highway and therefore it is not located between the sea and the first public
road. The site falls within District 4 of the Downtown Pacific Plan which is part of the city's
certified implementation plan. The subject site is surrounded by residential development.
Next slide, please. As seen on this slide, the locally approved project includes the construction
of 10 single family residences across 10 vacant lots. The three to four bedroom homes range
between approximately 3,400 square feet to 4,000 square feet in size, with attached two to three
car garages at a height of up to 35 feet. Four of the lots include ground floor accessory dwelling
units ranging from approximately 400 square feet to 450 square feet in size. All residences
are designed with upper level balconies and rooftop decks which include approximately
9.75 foot tall roof access structures. All vehicular access to the homes is located in
the alley at the inland side of the site, therefore no public on-street parking spaces
will be lost. Next slide please. The primary grounds for the appeal raised by the appellant
is that the approved development is inconsistent
with the character of the community.
The appellant also contends
that the city's noticing was misleading.
However, this is not valid grounds for an appeal.
The appellant contends that the proposed project
is not compatible with the proportions, scale,
and character of the surrounding neighborhood.
The appellant alleges the roof access structures
are a fourth story,
which is inconsistent with the character of the area
and believes they're an abuse of the ordinance,
which allows for a 10-foot height projection
beyond the allowable height of 35 feet.
The development as proposed is consistent with the development standards of the downtown specific
plan including height and allowable height projections, setbacks, landscaping, and parking.
Additionally, the development is consistent with the pattern of development along Pacific Coast
Highway and District 4, which generally consists of three-story approximately 35 foot tall single
family residences on narrow lots, such as the ones approved by the city in the subject proposal.
The image on this slide shows the stretch of residences one block south of the subject site.
Additionally, the downtown specific plan includes a definition of the term story, which explicitly
states that a covered roof access structure should not be counted as a story.
Therefore, these 10 single-family residences would be considered three stories and would
be consistent with the surrounding three-story residential structures.
Therefore, the project would have no impact on the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Next slide please.
The standard of review for the subject appeal is whether a substantial issue is raised regarding
conformance with the City of Huntington Beach's certified LCP and the Public Access Policies
of the Coastal Act with respect to the grounds raised by the appellant. In this case, the City's
decision to approve the proposed project does not present any inconsistencies with the certified LCP
with respect to community character. Additionally, the locally approved project does not result in
any adverse impact on coastal resources such as public access and public use. Furthermore,
the project does not raise any coastal issues of statewide or regional concern. Next slide please.
Staff therefore recommends that the Commission find no substantial issue with regard to the
contentions on which the appeal has been filed. The motion and resolution can be found on page
four of the staff report. This concludes the staff presentation and staff is available for questions.
Okay great thank you very much. Are there any expertise on this item? No? Okay then we will
open the public hearing and begin with the appellant. We do not have the
appellant sign up just because item and I do not see them online. Okay then we'll
move to the applicant. And then the applicant is Grant Keene. They are on
zoom we are moving them in right now. Let's give it a moment. And Madam Chair
just for the record we did reach out today to the appellant but didn't receive a response so
we did make that effort just wanted to make sure you knew that. Okay thank you Mr Schwing.
Hello and Grant go ahead. Yeah sorry about that I was just having some technical difficulties here
but yeah thank you to staff, thank you to Emily and leading that effort and thank you to all the
commissioners for your time today. I just wanted to say that I'm very happy with the process.
And it's nice to see that when we design a project that is 100% per the LCP standards,
all zoning standards parameters, et cetera, that as a developer, when we have a set of standards
in a goal post and we adhere to them that we can go through this process and also see
staff and hopefully commission's approval. So thank you all and I support the staff's
no substantial issue decision. Okay great thank you. All right thank you and we did not have any
other speakers signed up for this item we just had two from the local government that are available
questions great thank you Chris and I'll bring it back to our staff I don't know
that there's much to respond to there but giving you the opportunity in case
you'd like it nothing further thank you okay thank you mr. Schwing okay so we
will close the public hearing and I will return to the Commission are there any
comments questions or a motion okay Commissioner Wilson I move that the
The commission determined that appeal number A-5-HNB-25-0023
raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds
on which the appeal has been filed under section 30603
of the Coastal Act.
I recommend the yes vote.
And if I could speak to my motion, that would be great.
Second.
A motion by Commissioner Wilson,
a second by Commissioner Kelly.
Commissioner Wilson to the motion.
I just want to speak to something
I mentioned yesterday, which is,
Sometimes people view these appeals as a bit of a hassle
or something that sort of stands in the way
of a developer moving forward through these things,
but these appeals without cost,
I believe that process moving through the commission
actually offers a service to the local jurisdiction,
in which case if there was no appeal
that the local jurisdiction would move through
in terms of the Coastal Act,
then it's on them directly in terms of the interpretation
the Coastal Act and the expertise of their staff versus the expertise of this staff and
the staff of the commission and quite frankly the state, it's supposed to adjudicate that.
And so all I'm saying is that it is much more difficult to litigate the these types of appeals,
if it was just going to the local jurisdiction that they would have to defend that versus
coming through this filter.
And so while this may take a little bit of time and some, you know, you know, 90 days
in some cases and sometimes less, and sometimes a little bit more, the service actually being
provided by this review of these, of this appeal really helps the local jurisdiction
in sort of defending their position in their interpretation of the LCP.
So I just wanted to speak to that because oftentimes people view these, these appeals
and these processes through our commission is somewhat of a burden.
But for local jurisdictions, this actually can be quite a benefit to them
in terms of protecting them from future litigation for these decisions.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
OK, may I have a roll call vote, please?
Commissioner Nada, I not off, yes.
Commissioner Presiado, I presiado.
Yes commissioner Turnbull Sanders yes Turnbull Sanders yes Commissioner Wilson
yes Wilson yes Commissioner O'Malley yes O'Malley yes Commissioner Escalante yes
Escalante yes Commissioner Jackson Jackson yes Commissioner Kelly yes Kelly
yes Commissioner Lopez yes Lopez yes Chair Harmon yes Harmon yes the vote is
Thank you, Ms. Miller, no substantial issue has been found.
Okay, so now that brings us to item 17, the Deputy Director's Report for the San Diego
Coast District.
Thank you.
And in this report, we are reporting on an emergency permit waiver that was issued to
the City of San Diego for work to shore up an existing lifeguard station, including installation
of temporary structural reinforcement
for the existing structure
and installing replacement structures
for interim operations.
And this is at 3141 Ocean Front Walk in Mission Beach,
which is adjacent to Belmont Park.
We're also reporting two waivers for projects
in Solana Beach and Imperial Beach,
three CDP amendments for projects in Carlsbad
as an ocean side and one CDP extension in ocean side.
We aren't aware of any opposition to any of these items.
And we're asking whether three or more commissioners
object to the waivers amendment or the extension.
Thank you, Mr. Schwing.
Are there any ex partes?
Any speakers?
We had one person sign up to speak,
but we are not seeing them in Zoom, Ryan Gad.
And then we also had one available for questions.
Okay, thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objection, the commission concurs.
So that brings us to the end of our calendar today.
We will adjourn to closed session,
but before we do, I'd like to hand the mic over
to Commissioner Wilson, who has a few words
he would like to say.
Thank you.
This is, when I have meetings on this day,
this is, as we know, September 11th.
There's a person that I want to mention that's from my past,
and so I'd like to, if we can at least personally,
close today's meeting to pause in honor,
and I have some notes here, in the memory
of Richard Guadagno.
He was a 38-year-old manager of the Humboldt Bay Wildlife
Refuge, who lost his life on Flight 93
on September 11, 2001.
And he's believed to have been among the passengers that
rushed the cockpit that day.
Rich was known as a hands-on manager and a friend to all.
He's the type of person who said what he meant
and meant what he said.
And sometimes, maybe, you know.
But he was very diplomatic, I would say.
His colleagues remember him as the Renaissance man.
I heard that a lot because he really took on all aspects
of this job in terms of his interest in every detail,
both macro and micro of the natural world.
And he had a significant hand in developing
the Humble Bay Refuge Center, which bears his name now.
He was known for being very inclusive.
He had a mission to spark public interest
in fish and wildlife itself, so he really wanted to get,
because he believed that the humans that interacted
in those spaces would be the long-term protector
of those resources, which he was very dedicated to.
So, he was in Fish and Wildlife for 17 years.
He had a rich career.
At the time of his passing, there was no shortage of folks
that were calling out his praises and his work.
And I, you know, as you know, as a person who was...
one issue I have brought here before is billboards,
and there were some on the wildlife refuge.
and after he became manager, they weren't there anymore.
And so, I won't speak to the bureaucracy
that maybe he didn't go to deal with that.
So I just wanted to thank Rich for his service
and his sacrifice and his dedication
to both the nation and the community of Humble Bay.
loves it. Thanks. Thank you. Our thoughts are with Mr. Kudrow today. Okay, we will be
closing and adjourning into closed session now. Can I just like commissioners Lopez and
Presiado know that the link went to their coastal email account. Email was received.
Thank you.