Good morning. Hello everyone thank you for being here and online we're so happy
to be in Redondo Beach today and so we will call this meeting of the California
Coastal Commission to order and we will begin with a roll call please.
Commissioner Bauchico? Commissioner Calfi? Here. Commissioner Escalante? Here.
Commissioner Hart here but this is a problem maybe it won't be but commissioner
Jackson here Commissioner Kelly here Commissioner Larson here Commissioner
Lopez here Commissioner not all here Commissioner preshiato here Commissioner
Turnbull Sanders here Commissioner Williams here Commissioner Wilson here
Chair Harmon here you have a quorum great thank you very much now we'll move
to the virtual meeting procedures please thank you Simone. Zoom audio thank you
very much Simone. Good morning this Coastal Commission meeting is occurring
both in person and through zoom this meeting is also being webcast and can be
viewed online at Cal-Spam.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 web page, paper forms, and a scannable QR code for
paperless submittals are available on the Commission staff table just outside
the meeting room. For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures
on the Commission's agenda webpage, which is a guide on providing comments via
Zoom or by phone. Members of the public speaking during general
public comments may be given up to two minutes to speak at the discretion of
the chair. Request to speak during the general public comment periods 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 comments are typically allowed two to three minutes
to speak at the discretion of the chair. We will accept a request to speak on a
regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing on that particular
item. If you have internet access please go to the Commission 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 the meeting organizer.
When 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 amuse the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Great, thank you very much.
And now we will move to general public comment, please.
Actually before we do that, we'll do agenda changes.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
Thank you, and good morning, Chair Harmon, Vice Chair Hart,
and commissioners.
I will go over the agenda changes for today.
First, item 14A, the City of Ventura LCP Amendment.
Time extension for short-term vacation rentals
is moved to consent.
Item 14B, the County of Santa Barbara LCP Amendment,
or outdoor lighting and signs, time extension
is also moved to consent.
Item 14C, the County of Santa Barbara LCP Amendment
for Housing Element Update and Rezone is postponed.
Item 14D, County of Ventura LCP Amendment
for Coastal Hazards, time extension only is moved to consent.
And item 14E, the County of Ventura LCP Amendment
for the Housing Bill Implementation Ordinance
is moved to consent.
That concludes our changes to today's agenda.
That brings us back to item four, general public comment.
And with that, I'll turn the mic back over to you,
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
Now we will go to general public comment.
Thank you.
Sounds good.
For members of the public, I will
be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers
and invite you to speak.
When is your turn?
Each speaker will be allowed two minutes
during general public comments at the discretion of the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom,
we'll be bringing you in as a panelist.
As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload.
This may take a moment to speed up this process.
We will bring several people in at a time,
but please remain muted and keep your video off
until we ask you to speak.
After your time is up,
you will be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room,
I will call your names in the order they appear
on our sign up list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium
and introduce yourself when you approach to speak.
There is a raise hand function
that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio,
you can raise your hand by dialing star nine.
If you are participating by Zoom,
you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item
and are able to do so, please raise your hand now.
When is your time to speak?
We will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on the phone by dialing star six.
First up, we have the following.
Elizabeth Kramer, followed by Cindy Hardin,
followed by Lydia Ponce.
Please come up to the podium.
Question, Mike, please?
Didn't mean to scare you.
Sorry, sorry, good morning.
My family has been tied to Camp Emerald Bay
on Catalina Island for four generations.
This camp, run by Scouting America,
offers young Californians from all walks of life
the opportunity to experience nature
and help preserve a unique ecosystem.
My grandfather spent a summer as camp director in the 1940s.
My father was on nature staff in the 1950s
And I was a sailing instructor in the 1990s.
And all three of my children attended and worked
at Camp Emerald Bay.
And I've seen them soar in part by the influence of this camp.
My son developed incredible leadership skills
and was on the waterfront staff and was
inspired to study biochemistry at UC Irvine.
My older daughter is on the spectrum.
And the safe environment of camp helped her expand her comfort,
helped her expand her confidence and social skill.
Those that know her are surprised to see
the confident young woman that she is today.
My younger daughter, now a senior in high school,
has embraced her love of nature and adventure.
She also used her time at camp
to expand her leadership skills to impact others.
Over the past six years, I volunteered on the weekends
at Camp Emerald Bay.
So I've been able to see how far its impact
reaches beyond scouting.
The camp welcomes school groups
and other nonprofit organizations like the YMCA.
It offers disadvantaged youth
from across Southern California
opportunities they would never have otherwise.
All of these youth, whether on staff or campers,
gain huge benefits from the opportunities
to expand their comfort zones.
Whether kayaking for the first time
or tackling a challenging origami project,
the program opportunities are designed to contribute
to their growth into successful
and productive members of our community.
I would urge the Coastal Commission to do what it can
to help the Western Los Angeles County Council
of Scouting America preserve and expand access
to this incredible resource.
Thank you.
Thank you, Nexus, Cindy Hardin, followed by Lydia Ponce,
followed by Margaret Molloy.
OK, good morning, Commissioners.
Cindy Hardin with Los Angeles Audubon and Nature Nexus
Institute.
I'm always talking about Biona because I run field trip
programs there and public events, too.
And that note, thank you for finally addressing the drains
and capping the unpermitted drains that
were installed ages ago and that problem has been solved, thanks to you all.
But today I want to talk about one west bluff which is a development immediately adjacent
to south area B. The fire marshal mandated that all vegetation within 100 feet of the
development be cut down to three inches and this has been going on for over a month and
And they have completely decimated that hillside, 100 feet of it that was thriving coastal
sage scrub habitat that had been put in as a mandate for the development to go forward
some 20 years ago.
First of all, fire marshal obviously needs to be enlightened on the benefits of coastal
sage scrub habitat and these kinds of mandates.
In addition, the clearing, it's just soil.
It's devastating.
The California Knack Catcher habitat is there, and that bird has been sighted there.
I implore the commission to please make sure, as the damage is done, all that vegetation
is gone, that replacement native habitat be installed, and probably through the HOA, which
paid for this initial project under threat of fine from the fire marshal so
a lot of fingers in this pot so to speak but education and restoration is so
important especially this is directly adjacent to Biona so whatever is
happening there thank you for your time and I hope that we can see some
resolution on this thank you Liddy Ponce Margaret Malloy followed by Ali being
followed by Ellie Ella Bodarsky. I don't think Lydia Ponce is here. I know, but
she's not in the room. I'm Margaret. Please go ahead.
Hello, Miss Turnbull Sanders. You will be dearly missed. Thank you for your
service. Thank you for highlighting the importance of environmental justice. I
really hope that trailblazers like you have people in their footsteps. We'll
carry this important torch forward. This is a government agency. There are
enforcement duties. I take it seriously as a member of the public. Coming before
you has forced me to educate myself as imperfectly as that is and your staff
and you have a responsibility. Public resources code section 30319 requires
disclosures of all lobbying representatives by the applicant in
advance of any contact on their behalf to the commission staff or commissioners.
Violations of that are enforced by your enforcement agency it says it on Google.
California Commission is the agency that enforces violations of public resources
30319 the code requires applicants for post coastal development permits to
disclose the names of all compensated individuals communicating with the
Commission on their behalf prior to that communication. Violation includes
immediate denial of the development permits by the Commission. That's an
enforcement opportunity you have. Political Reform Act, California Code of
Regulations 18600 to 18611 requires individual lobbyists to be registered
with the Secretary of State and lobbying firms are required by 18612 to 18615 to be
registered as lobbyists with the Secretary of State prior to any contact with commission.
Finally, CCR 13200 to 13208 is claims of a vested right.
requires an application to the Commission, a hearing board for the
Commission findings. None of these are arbitrary, they're all mandatory. Thank
you. Thank you. Next is Ali Bean filed by Ella Budox. Good morning. Good morning
commissioners and I echo Margaret's statements that your voice is gonna be
sorely missed but I hope it will be replaced in full force. I wasn't going to
speak on general public comment but yesterday in Venice, I'm from Venice, I'm
on the neighborhood council and I'm chair of the Homeless and Housing
Committee. Yesterday in Venice there was a major sinkhole. A water main broke a
hundred and he said it was built in 1911. I talked to the engineer and Venice
Boulevard north, right by the ocean.
I went over there.
The sinkhole was literally the size of this whole
commissioners area.
It was gigantic.
And just recently on the canals, the same thing
happened, a water main broke, and this torrent about four
feet tall of mud came coursing down the alleyways and went
into people's garages.
So all to say, the infrastructure in Venice is
very old and it's like right on the edge right now.
This is the second, maybe more than that.
I don't know if it's the only two I know of
because they're right in my environment.
And I spoke to the guy on the news and he was asking,
he said that there was also problems
with the electrical grid.
So just, the only reason I'm mentioning it
to the Coastal Commission is I know we're about
to potentially see a lot of density proposed
on the coast in building.
We've all been talking about it for a long time.
And just to keep in mind in Venice and probably other areas,
I'm not sure, but Venice being so old and not replaced yet,
I don't think we can withstand it.
There was about to be a 40 lot consolidation
right at that spot.
There's other lot consolidations.
I've never heard one that big,
but there's gonna be eight affordable housing units
are gonna have more lot consolidation.
So just, I don't know what we do.
I guess it's more a city thing,
but just to keep in mind as we approve density
to really just think about the fact
that we don't have the structure to support it yet.
So just come up and thank you for all you do.
Ella Bogdansky.
Hi everybody, I'm Ella Bogdansky.
I'm a naturalist and outdoor educator
at the Bionawetlands with Nature Nexus Institute.
And I wanted to say thank you first of all
for investigating the one west bluff habitat
devastation of this coastal sage scrub that
is habitat for the federally protected and threatened
California nut catcher, as Cindy was talking about.
It's my hope that that habitat can be restored going forward
before invasive weeds grow in that disturbed soil.
Because as we've seen throughout all of the wetlands
there, the invasives are much harder
to deal with the longer that they
have to establish themselves.
So fingers crossed about that.
Not far from that area, about a mile away,
is area C of the Biona wetlands.
And there are also a bunch of invasives there.
So my hope is that with the help and support
of Fish and Wildlife, we can increase public access
to the area so that we can have more stewardship and education
going forward.
And it is also an area that is potential habitat
for the Nat Catcher.
It was seen foraging there in 2010 in December,
and we are hoping that with a bit of habitat restoration,
taking out invasives and allowing for the coastal scrub
to thrive there, that the Nat Catcher can find home
in that space as well.
So thank you for all of your help, and I'll see you soon.
Thank you, Nexus Ingrid M, and then we'll go to our Zoom.
That'll be Lydia Ponce, we found her on Zoom,
followed by Eileen Bochen, followed by John Callender.
You three are on Zoom, so just be ready,
we'll be moving you to panelists.
I'm completely unprepared, good morning.
First time here, about 38 years in Venice.
Very happy renter at a historic property.
And I've been an affordable housing advocate
for three decades plus in Venice,
particularly for the area of Oakwood, believe it or not.
Looking at me, you may not believe it,
but I'm extremely passionate about Oakwood.
So the fight continues.
It's a very general public comment.
Thank you very much.
Affordable housing will always be the treasure
that we continue to preserve and advocate
for in Venice in general, and particularly
for very affordable housing.
Because we have very needy people still in Oakwood.
And I'm standing tall for them.
Thank you so much for paying attention
to that very serious matter.
Thank you.
Next is Lydia Ponce, followed by Eileen Bouken.
Lydia, if you can unmute yourself.
Yes, thank you so much.
Good morning, relatives.
I could not be there this morning.
I just have a challenge to be at home
for other people to come see property and whatnot.
Anyways, I am calling about,
and I wrote that I wanted to speak about humanity
because since the last time I spoke
with the California Coastal Commission,
I'm gonna say that the gentle reminder
of racial and social justice
is the foundation of environmental justice.
And what I see over here in Venice
is that there is no helping hub mutual aid
for the people that are being swept up by ICE.
There is no direct services
from our council person, and it just lays the truth down right before our very eyes.
I can't express this enough. We have calls daily on the west side, and for the people who actually
come to participate in their employment happily, they're being picked up. And you know the the
The doubt that someone like myself passed upon the people who were in power, be it the
neighborhood council, be it the people on all those committees, they're doing the biddings
for Tracy Park.
That's all it is.
They're not doing the bidding for the people, not only who come here to work construction
and or teach or work at the local hospitals and do the things that they do even as students.
It's an easy pick to pick up people at car washes.
you know what do we do for the families that are left behind I don't see anybody doing anything
not not the city not the city councils not the neighborhood council so I'm calling them out and
calling them in their um humanity is performative and as long as they're not inconvenienced I'm gonna
miss Efie greatly I'm gonna miss your voice Efie and I'm gonna pray continue to pray for everyone
and hope that we can be better relatives.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Eileen Bochen, followed by John Callender,
followed by Janet Rogers.
You guys will be promoted to the panelists.
Eileen Bochen, you're on the phone.
Can you unmute yourself, please?
I have, thank you.
Eileen Bochen Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods,
speaking on my own behalf.
In a written submission to the San Francisco Planning
Commission on September 3, and in public comment
on September 11th at the Planning Commission hearing,
I made the following comments and I quote,
the two so-called Family Zoning Plan ordinances,
250700 and 250701 contain proposed amendments
to SS Local Coastal Program.
Both ordinances falsely claim consistency
with the Coastal Act.
Ordinance 250-701, page 11, lines three through six
claim consistency with public resources code 30604-G
but misquotes PRC 30604-G.
It eliminates the provision of, quote,
protection of existing, end quote,
in terms of low and moderate income housing,
which de facto makes it inconsistent
with the Coastal Act, unquote.
On September 19th, in a written response to this comment,
the deputy director for citywide planning replied,
and I quote, we believe the LCP amendments
are consistent with the Coastal Act.
There is nothing in the LCP amendments
that would be contrary to the preservation
of existing affordable housing, unquote.
Thank you.
Thank you, next is John Callender, followed by Janet Rogers, followed by Adriana Guerrero.
John Callender, are you going to unmute yourself?
Okay, and I do have slides, and there they are, great.
Thank you for the chance to express my concern about the proposed development at 501 Sandpoint Road in Carpentaria.
As I said, my name is John Callender, I previously served for 15 years as a member of the Carpentaria Planning Commission,
And for the past 30 years, I've been part of an ongoing survey
of bird populations at the Carpentaria salt marsh,
which adjoins the project site.
That bird survey dates back to the 1970s.
I've personally surveyed birds there more than 90 times
over the past 30 years.
Please go to the next slide.
So every survey includes a count of all the birds identified
and a map showing where each species was seen.
It's a little hard to decipher here,
but if you look carefully at this map,
you'll see that a small area in the southernmost part
of the marsh where it connects to the ocean
by a narrow tidal channel is where most bird species occur.
That area just inside the entrance
is by far the richest place in the marsh
in terms of bird diversity and abundance.
Large flocks of shorebirds, waterfowl, and other species
congregate there throughout the year,
but especially during migration.
Please show my next slide.
So that pattern has been consistent in our surveys
the marsh for the past 50 years, the Carpentry Assault Marsh, like all surviving coastal
wetlands in Southern California, is critically important natural habitat.
This particular spot in the marsh is by far the most sensitive in terms of environmental
impacts, and this is precisely where the proposed project would be cited.
I encourage you to reconsider this project's approval and require a full environmental
impact report.
This project's environmental impacts are likely to be extreme, thoughtful, and appropriate
decisions about that development can only be made if decision makers are informed about
those impacts. And an EIR is the appropriate way to do that. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Janet Rogers. Janet, if you're going to unmute yourself, please.
Yes. Okay. I have a presentation, yes. There it is. Thank you. I'm Janet Rogers, co-chair
of the Embarcadero Coalition. The public trust doctrine is about public trust, as well as
land and water management. Next slide. The Port of San Diego is changing the visitor
serving definition to commercialize the bay. State Lands Commission staff says the Coastal
Commission will evaluate the master plan replacement for compliance with the public trust doctrine.
Is the public trust doctrine devolving? Next slide. Homes are not allowed on port managed land.
Redrawing boundaries so Chula Vista has homes on Tidelands doesn't hide the land grab by
developers. Next slide. State Lands told the seaport developer the indoor event center wasn't
a coastal-related function. Adding an outside balcony should not make it compliant. Next slide.
The port creates a new category, not in the public trust doctrine. Golf is not
coastal related. Coastal enhancing doesn't exist. The new definitions undermine the coastal act and
the public trust doctrine. Next slide. Stateland staff is considering top golf on the port because
it's part of a larger complex with restaurants and other features. Why would restaurants make top
golf visitors serving? Next slide. How many restaurants make non-compliant uses suddenly
okay? Will casinos be allowed if they're in a bigger complex? Is the public trust doctrine
devolving? Next slide. Chulam Vista is considering a non-coastal related sports facility anchored by
a tennis club with an IMAX and a stadium. Port commissioners rallying cry is progress over policy.
They scoffed at a master plan. Developers are defining the plan. Next slide. The changes affect
the whole California coast. Are you opening the flood gates to allow anything? Please
save our public access, our coastal environment, and keep the public trust. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Adriana Guerrero, followed by Janice Feldman, followed by Alice McNally.
Adriana Guerrero, if you can unmute yourself. Okay, we're going to try this again. Adriana,
I'm going to promote you to panelists.
Accept it, please.
Adriana, I'm just going to try to unmute you.
OK, we'll come back to you, Adriana.
Let's go to Janice Feldman.
OK, seems like you're not available as well.
OK, let's try to allow you to talk.
Janice Feldman, we're going to allow you to talk.
Janice, if you can unmute yourself.
All right, moving on.
Alice McNally.
I'm here.
I'm here.
Who's here?
Janice Feldman's here.
What's your name?
Okay, Janice, go for it.
Thank you.
I should start.
Okay.
My name is Janice Feldman
and I'm a resident on Sandpoint Road.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comments
on the proposed project of 501 Sandpoint Road.
I'm very much opposed to this project
and frankly stunned that the California Coastal Commission
approved any level of project on its tiny, fragile piece
of land adjacent to the Carpentaria Salt Marsh.
I'm very concerned about the impacts
this proposed project will have.
The marsh is allegedly a state protected wetland.
The California Coastal Commission
should not facilitate its development.
Keep in mind that 501 is in the middle of a tidal wetland
which floods twice a day.
Thank you for the gentleman, John Callender,
for putting his presentation forth as well.
In 2017, I proposed replacing my current home
with a single family resident.
I was held to a hundred foot setback
from the emergent wetlands with no variance.
I own one of the largest lots on Sandpoint Road,
yet I was held to a higher standard.
As a result, I was not permitted to build my home.
Next slide, please.
Why should I have been held to a different standard
than the proposed project at 501,
which was granted a special condition
of a 20 foot setback from the mean high tide mark?
Also, I was never notified about this project at 501,
and I understand that my neighbors were either.
I encourage the Coastal Commission
to require the applicant at 501
do a full environmental impact report
that would allow for a thorough review
and to follow the same requirement
as I and other neighbors have had to do.
We all need to play by the same rule set
and not be influenced by one developer
who seems to be receiving unique privileges
over the rest of us.
Thank you for reconsidering your approval
of this inappropriate proposed project at 501 Sand Point.
Okay, thank you, Janice.
We're gonna try Adriana Guerrero.
I see you moved to panelists.
I'm gonna unmute you.
Go ahead and speak if you can.
Okay, I think we're good.
Okay, good morning Chair, commissioners, staff,
and community members.
my name is Adriana Guerrero
and I'm the executive director of Salted Roots.
I'm here today on behalf of the community of our community
and the Surf Justice Collective,
a coalition of California based nonprofit organizations
that advocate for equitable coastal access
and connection to the ocean through surfing
and nature-based experiences.
I wanna take this moment to express our deep gratitude
for Commissioner Effie Turnbull's standards
on the occasion of her final meeting
and to honor her remarkable leadership
as the Commission's Environmental Justice Commissioner.
Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders has been a guiding force
in integrating equity, access, and environmental justice
into the heart of the Coastal Commission's work.
Under her leadership,
the Commission adopted its first ever
environmental justice policy,
affirming that coastal protection is inseparable
from access, equity, and the fair treatment
of communities of color in California's First Nations.
Her impact extends far beyond policy.
It is visible in real tangible outcomes
like the May 2023 decision approving
the Pacifica Coastal Development Permit,
which corrected inequities and surf school access,
ensured that nonprofit organizations
creating pathways to the ocean are included and supported.
That decision was a milestone for many of us
who have long advocated for community-centered,
equitable access to the beach.
Commissioner Turnbull Sanders once said,
equity demands more. We must work diligently and deliberately to create full and inclusive
participation in process, policy, and benefits. That conviction has reshaped how this commission
listened, acts, and leads. On behalf of Salted Roots and the Surf Justice Collective and the
many communities across California whose coastal access has expanded because of your vision,
Commissioner Turnbull's standards. Thank you. Your legacy will continue to guide us as we carry this
work forward ensuring our coast truly belongs to everyone. Thank you. Thank you very nice.
Alice McNally, if you can unmute yourself. Followed by Lila Renaro, followed by Ron Dyer Voss,
followed by Tom Miltner, and then Diana Sandoval. Alice, go ahead and unmute and speak.
Good morning commissioners. We all know that the 1800 tons of radioactive waste,
108 feet from the surf at San Onofre, must be moved to higher ground before it's too late.
Surf Rider says 70 percent of our California sandy beaches will be lost by 2100.
Kate Hucklebridge has said that you need to do something. Start by making SCE accountable.
The Coastal Commission has ordered Edison to do inspections and report back on more than one
occasion, and at one of the last meetings they had still not, in fact at the last meeting, they had
still not complied. I believe Commissioner Anne Nordhoff had inquired about this report at the
last meeting in Long Beach. Don't let them get away with this. Trump's executive order to streamline
licensing and expedite a pathway to approve reactors within 18 months may soon rule out
environmental considerations such as climate change and sea level rise. You better act fast.
Thank you. Thank you, next is Lila Reyeno. Hello. Hello. Hello. Can you hear me? Loud and clear.
Go ahead and speak. Okay, great. Thank you. Greetings, Honorable Chair and Commissioners.
I am Lila Renero, a concerned citizen residing in the coastal zone of Pedro Point in Pacifica.
I'm also a founding member of Pacifica Homes Are Not Hotels. Our city recently passed a revised
short-term rental ordinance, which has been put in effect in the non-coastal areas of our city
and includes key points such as a primary residence requirement for all STR operators,
a limit of one STR per owner or operator within the city limits,
an operating limit of 60 nights per year for unhosted STRs.
Our family moved to Pacifica in 2012
because we loved the neighborhood
and its family-friendly vibe.
In 2019, the house directly uphill
and across the street from us was purchased
by an out-of-country investors run by a corporation
and turned the former residents into a full-time mini hotel.
Living downhill right under this STR
has been one of the most stressful situations of our lives.
During this time, we've had to deal
with many safety issues and nuisances,
including loud noise, cigarette and marijuana smoke,
illegal parking blocking access for emergency responders,
eyesores of overflowing garbage and property neglect,
entitled guests throwing debris towards our house,
lack of privacy, the list goes on.
The owners even hired a lawyer who sent us letters
threatening legal action for having called the police
to help with enforcement of these issues.
Because of the proliferation of SDRs in Pacifica,
our community has experienced population decline
and the loss of families and children in our school systems.
Loss of funding for services, including police,
inflation of housing prices and rising rents
that shut families out of the market,
devastating drops in the value of the homes of residents
unfortunate enough to live near unhosted STRs,
strain on the infrastructure,
the degradation of security and community
and the loss of our neighborhoods character.
Witnessing many of our fellow Pacificans homes
east of Highway 1 being restored to full-time residences
has been a beautiful thing to see.
residents in the coastal zone are relying on the California Coastal Commission to help us in
supporting this much improved STR ordinance to be implemented ASAP for our side of the town when
it comes before you. Thank you for your time and attention to this important issue.
Thank you. Next is Ron Dyer-Voss, followed by Diana Sandoval. And I don't see Tom Miltner,
so hopefully Tom, if you're there, please raise your hand. Mr. Ron, go ahead.
Hi, my name is Ron Dwyer-Voss. I'm a resident of downtown Oceanside in the coastal zone. I'm also
the vice chair of Oceanside Housing Commission. Nearly a year ago, our city council with great
community support passed an inclusionary housing ordinance raising the percentage of
new housing development that needed to be dedicated to affordable units from 10% to 15%.
You know, this has been very
successful throughout the routes to the city, but we have not been able to
implement it in the coastal zone because your commission hasn't approved it yet.
We just asked that you try to do this soon.
We have hundreds and hundreds of new units of housing being built in the coastal zone,
and each time, as recently as last night, developers and staff and council were
required. The difference between 10 and 15% is a lot. And it's an environmental justice
issue. It affects how many lower income families can live near the coast. It's because it primarily
affects our downtown area. It affects how many folks who work in our stores and restaurants
and walk to work versus drive and park near the coast.
So I know you guys have a lot to do
and you do a lot of important work,
but I think a year is long enough to wait.
And I'd ask that you ask staff to process
and approve our inclusionary housing requirement
for the coastal zone as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Diana Sandoval.
I am followed by Tom Miltner.
We don't see him as of yet, but Tom, if you're there,
please raise your hand.
Diana, go ahead and speak.
Good morning, I have a presentation as well.
Unfortunately, we didn't receive the presentation.
Would you still like to speak?
Yes, I did submit it this morning for the record,
actually last night for the record.
So good morning commissioners, I'm Diana Sandoval,
a property owner in Santa Barbara County Coastal Zone.
I'm here because a new, unpermitted hazardous gas line
was unlawfully installed on my property
and in an eschia creek to serve an unpretended structure
at 3215 Foothill Road.
As you're aware by now from the illegal bridge construction
and the unrecorded block public trail,
Santa Barbara County has a history of unlawfully
exempting this 22 acre property owner,
reported to be from a billionaire family
from local and state laws and regulations,
including the Coastal Act.
On the slide that you cannot see,
the photo on the left shows a new unsupported gas line
crossing the eschia and creek
with no emergency shot off clouds.
second photo showed a close-up confirming it's a new gas line
installation and new development. In another slide you would see a video in
which on August 20th 2025 Santa Barbara County staff confirms that a new gas line
was installed. Furthermore the county noted in writing that the gas line was
not exempt and required permits. Despite that the county is now strategically
attempting to complete the new hazardous gas line with the new meter
installation to claim an exemption. Please do not allow Santa Barbara County
and this property owner to backdoor an exemption for the unlawful new gas line
via a new meter. The new line and new meter service structure with no
certificate of occupancy. A new gas line in the Esha is not exempt. Please direct
the county to open a violation for the new gas line and require immediate
removal or full CDP processing. Thank you. Thank you and that completes our
our public speaking Tom Melter we didn't see him so we're going to go ahead and complete
it there.
Thank you very much Simone and I will return to the Commission to see some questions.
Commissioner Galante.
Thank you Madam Chair and appreciate all the public comments especially those beautiful
wishes well wishes for our Commissioner Jermall Sanders to the just Ms. Sandoval at the end
about county since we didn't get to see now we didn't see the thing but yes I'd
be happy to risk happy to respond so we did receive that report and Miss
Sandoval had submitted an appeal request to our office but we had to reject that
appeal request because there was no action by the county regarding any new
development on the property in question we did reach out to the county and the
county requested confirmation from our staff whether or not replacement of
simply the gas meter within the ground well would be exempt and under the
repair and maintenance guidelines and the certified LCP we concurred with the
county that replacement of the gas meter itself would be exempt the county
informed our staff that they didn't believe there was any gasoline
replacement so we haven't confirmed that but that's information from the county
staff. We did note in our letter responding to the county's request that
if there was any gas line replacement within ESHA so within the creek
specifically that would trigger the need for a coastal development permit and we
wanted to be clear with the county so we don't have information yet from the
county that such gas line replacement occurred and they have not processed an
exemption or other determination of any such work but we did put them on notice
that we did agree with Miss Sandoval that any work in the creek would trigger
the need for a closed apartment. Agreed. So what's the next step? So Miss
Sandoval should reach out to the county regarding where the applicant is at in
the process to confirm the work and what applications the county has before them.
if there was work in the creek then that would require a coastal permit the
county is processing a coastal development permit for the related work
to that bridge that Miss Sandoval has discussed at previous hearings so our
staff's recommendation to the county would be if there is any additional work
that should be ideally consolidated into one CDP application and processed by the
county. Thank you Mr. Hudson appreciate it. Commissioner Lopez yeah just a
question about the inclusionary component of a update. I'm wondering if
we can better understand where that is in the process from 10 to 15 percent
seems low in Monterey County where 20 and most projects come in at 30 so I'd
love to see this one at 15 if they're supporting thanks Commissioner Lopez
we're looking into it I have messaged my staff to see what the status is I don't
know anything I don't know any of the details but we'll we will get back to you
as soon as we to the Commission as soon as we have a sense because I have the
same question. Thank you very much. Commissioner Prosciato. And I have a
follow-up. The discussion by the speaker on the inclusionary housing element is,
you know, gratifying to hear, but one of the things that I'm becoming more and
more aware of is affordability and inclusionary is a different thing for
different folks. And so I'm interested in understanding if it's stratified,
meaning usually there's a comparison made to the median income of a particular
county and then the median income has a threshold for you know everything under
30% of median and then 40% of median etc. This has translated for those of us
who are not in the housing development world into low low income housing and
and then working communities housing
and then new professional housing.
And these three labels that I just described
are within that inclusionary program.
And so I'm interested in seeing if in the context
of including communities into the coastal zone
that if those elements are included
and what's the scale of the project?
Do you have to have 1,000 units to have all these elements?
or can you have 20 and have these elements?
And so those are interesting things.
And my intention is not to prolong your examination.
It's just to understand better what is inclusionary
and for whom.
I was gratified to hear about in the testimony this morning
that for service workers who would walk to work
or bicycle to work, I suspect that means
that people are earning minimum wage and tips
and that they could afford to live in the communities
where they work.
So I'm interested in seeing if that kind of detail
is available.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
OK, seeing no other comments or questions,
we'll move to item six, the executive director's report.
All right, thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, commissioners.
My published executive director's report
can be found on the Commission website, but as usual,
I'll spend a little bit of time
going through several of the items.
So first off, I'd like to let everyone know
about a few upcoming educational opportunities
and guidance documents that are available for public review.
First, the Coastal Commission
will host a public webinar, excuse me,
titled Coastal California Futures, Equity, Resilience,
and the Permitting Process on November 4th at noon.
The webinar will help the public and future applicants
consider communities that have been excluded
from decision making and most impacted by environmental impacts
in coastal development permit applications.
Participants will learn a six step approach
to integrate these considerations
into coastal permitting process.
And you can register.
There's a link on our website.
It's also in my executive director report.
Staff released the draft nature based adaptation strategies
guidance for public review on September 29th.
The guidance provides a set of principles
that aim to guide the commission on future permitting
planning actions related to nature-based adaptation strategies. It includes
various commission permitting pathways for nature-based projects, how these
projects may be analyzed under the Coastal Act, and key considerations and
topics that should be addressed when designing and implementing such projects.
The draft is available for public comment until Friday, October 24th, and you can
send comments to our statewide planning staff and the email addresses again on
on my executive director report and on our website.
Senate Bill 1077 requires the California Coastal Commission
in coordination with the Department of Housing
and Community Development, or HCD,
to develop written guidance for local governments
to facilitate the preparation of LCP amendments
that clarify and simplify the permitting process
for ADUs and junior ADUs in the coastal zone.
The deadline for completion of this guidance
is July 1st, 2026.
We are working with HCD on developing this guidance and are now soliciting feedback from
local governments and members of the public on their experiences with ADU permitting procedures
in the coastal zone, including any specific topics that would be helpful to include in
the final written guidance.
Feedback is encouraged through a public input form that can be found on the Commission's
new SB 1077 webpage or by emailing SB 1077ADU at coastal.ca.gov and again all
that contact can be found in the ED report as well as on our website. Thank
you. Next, I am pleased to report that the California Coastal Commission has
published its 2024 year in review, highlighting the agency's accomplishments
across all core program areas. The report showcases our continued commitment to
protecting California's coast while advancing responsible development, equity,
and climate resilience. Highlights from our year in review include clearing the
way for nearly a thousand new housing units and condition with conditions to
address climate and equity concerns, support for low-cost visitor
accommodation and improve short-term rental regulations, expanded public access
and enforcement actions to protect public access and sensitive habitats. The
The full report is now available on the highlight section of our homepage and we really encourage
commissioners and the public to review and share it.
And we're already working on getting the review for or getting the year in review for 2025
out earlier in the year than we did this year.
So we've kind of nailed down our process on getting that report out but please do take
a look.
It's a pretty cool report.
Next I'd like to report on a couple of conferences and meetings that staff have engaged with
engaged in over the past month.
A number of commission staff were able
to attend the California chapter
of the American Planning Association's annual conference
in Monterey last week.
This year's theme was waves of change,
reconnecting communities, and sessions focused on topics
like housing affordability, climate resilience,
equity, and mobility.
The commission statewide coastal resilience coordinator,
Kelsey Ducklow, participated on a panel
with staff from BCDC and several Bay Area local governments
to discuss how the state and local governments
are starting to implement SB 272 to advance sea level rise planning on
September 24th I facilitated a zoom meeting with several affordable
housing developers to get their granular and unvarnished feedback on barriers
they experience when pursuing projects in the coastal zone during the meeting
we heard about the myriad challenges affordable builders face in and out of
the coastal zone and brainstorm some ways we could improve our process and
communication. I appreciated how thoughtful, candid, and solutions oriented
the conversation was. And I would like to thank Natalie Spivak, from Housing
California, for collaborating with our staff in Sacramento to assemble such an
experience in an accomplished group. We view this as just one important step in
an ongoing journey and I'm committed and excited to build this partnership as we
think through how to approach longer-term systematic improvements. Next
step, I have a few announcements from our public education program. Saturday
September 20th was the 41st annual California Coastal Cleanup Day. As always
the cleanup was a huge undertaking and an even bigger success, highlighted by
the first ever treasure hunt with volunteers finding donated prizes like
theme park tickets, baseball game tickets, sporting equipment, and even an e-bike.
I got to personally witness one of those cool they have these gold trash pickers
that that was sort of how the if you found one of those that was you
indicated got a prize and I got to experience that at the site I was in in
Oakland it was pretty cool a whole bunch of little kids that got a huge Yeti
cooler it was pretty funny they were they were not excited their parents were
more excited reports are still rolling in from around the state but initial
Total's show that over 35,000 volunteers removed more than 275,000 pounds of trash and recyclables
from our state's shoreline.
Even more exciting, for the first time in its history, cleanups took place in all 58
counties of the state, illustrating that we are all connected to our coast no matter where
we may live.
And a special thanks to our public education team and Evan Schwartz for propagating this
event every year.
They do an incredible job.
Clean and Green Program Manager Vivian Maddock will be interviewed in Spanish on the KBBF
Spanish radio program Nuestra Tierra on October 13th to promote the November 2025 expired
marine flare collection event and expired marine flare management in California.
Thanks to Vivian for expanding the reach of this critical water quality program to Spanish
radio listeners.
I'd like you to save the date for the upcoming California King Tides Project statewide.
Our next King Tides are occurring on December 4th and 5th, January 2nd and 3rd, and in southern
California and some northern California locations on November 6th and on December 6th.
On these days, the public is invited to safely photograph the highest tides of the year and
upload their photos to a community science project that documents current flood risk.
us plan for future sea level rise and creates a living record of changes to our shoreline.
You can find location specific tide information at a link on our website as well as on my
ED report, as well as learn how to upload photos and explore the King Tides photo map.
If you'd like to plan a local community event, please let us know.
Finally, California K-12 students are invited to enter art or poetry with a California
Coastal theme and the Commission's annual Coastal art and poetry contest.
Winners will be selected to receive certificates to art supply or bookstores,
tickets to the Aquarium of the Pacific, and have their work exhibited in a year-long traveling
exhibit. The contest is open now and entries are due by January 29, 2026. Finally, I have a few
announcements related to staff. Last month, the Coastal Commission bid farewell to additional
summer interns across our teams and units. And our statewide planning unit,
Katie Fivie from the University of California Santa Barbara, collaborated closely with the
Commission Housing Coordinator, Shahar Amte, to evaluate state housing laws and how those
interact with local coastal programs. Also in statewide planning, Will Dean from the
Bren School at UCSB, worked with the Commissioned Statewide Coastal Resilience Coordinator,
Kelsey Ducklow, primarily to advance work on a group master's project, for which the
commission is a client that aims to develop a framework to guide local planning for managed
retreat, as well as other sea level rise related topics. In the Central Coast District Office,
Hallie Bolig from UCSC was the commission's Peter Douglas intern this summer, and worked
with district staff on developing a comprehensive database on coastal armoring in the Cayucas
neighborhood of San Luis Obispo and also supported the Commission's housing team
by researching recent changes in California ADU laws and preparing a
report on their implications. My sincere thanks to these driven and dedicated
young people. We're grateful that they chose to spend their summers and time
and energy with us and we hope we get to see them again. I also wanted to announce
that Kelly Cuffe from our statewide planning unit retired last month after
26 years of service with the Coastal Commission. As an environmental scientist in the statewide
planning unit, she developed key resources and training materials for the public, local
government partners, and our staff on a variety of coastal ac topics. Kelly was an integral
part of the team that created the Commission's California Coastal Trail Mapping Project in
2021. And as part of the interdisciplinary team with staff from public access, mapping,
and statewide planning, along with state coastal conservancy
staff, Kelly researched, identified,
and digitized hundreds of segments of the coastal trail
to broaden coastal access.
More recently, Kelly coordinated the commission's open space
and conservation easement program,
working with the state coastal conservancy, MRCA, local
governments, land trusts, and other entities
to secure permanent protection of environmentally sensitive
habitat areas, agricultural resources,
and scenic beach sheds in the coastal zone.
While working at the Coastal Commission,
Kelly also kept busy singing in a choir,
playing ukulele, and sailing
at the Santa Cruz Yacht Club, traveling the world.
On a personal note, I have to say that Kelly
is one of the kindest and most supportive people
we have ever had on staff.
She cared deeply about this agency and its mission,
and she will be greatly missed.
Kelly, we wish you a relaxing
and well-deserved retirement.
And last, but certainly not least,
I would like to take a moment on behalf of staff
to extend our sincere gratitude to Commissioner Turnbull
Sanders for her dedicated service to our agency
and to our state.
Commissioner Turnbull Sanders had the unique honor
to be appointed by Governor Brown
as the commissioner's very first environmental justice
commissioner.
And in that role and under her leadership,
she worked with staff to develop the commission's EJ policy
and launch our EJ program.
Since then, she has focused our attention
on the environmental justice issues
surrounding the Commission's decision-making
and work to build out the legal framework
for how the Commission considers environmental justice,
all with a goal of ensuring that our coast is truly open
and accessible to all people.
Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders,
in honor of your tenure in the Commission,
we have drafted a proclamation that I'd like to read.
So this is a resolution commemorating
the California Coastal Commission's first appointed
champion for environmental justice, Eppie Turnbull-Sanders.
Whereas Eppie Turnbull-Sanders started her career
as a presidential appointee
with the United States Commission on Civil Rights
and has had a distinguished career in higher education,
law, and government.
And whereas Eppie Turnbull-Sanders was appointed
by Governor Jerry Brown to the Coastal Commission
on January 13th, 2014.
And whereas Governor Brown appointed Commissioner Turnbull
Sanders to be the agency's first environmental justice
commissioner on February 21, 2017,
and whereas Commissioner Turnbull Sanders helped
guide the development of the agency's first environmental
justice policy, which was unanimously adopted
on March 8, 2019, and whereas Commissioner Turnbull Sanders
has used her dynamic combination of legal acumen and community
leadership to defend public access and coastal resources for all people with
a particular focus on uplifting environmental justice communities that
are disproportionately impacted by pollution and other hazards. And whereas
Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders has announced her voluntary departure from
the California Coastal Commission as of October 8th, 2025, therefore be it
resolved that the California Coastal Commission thanks and honors Commissioner
Turnbull-Sanders for more than a decade of service protecting the state's
coastal resources and may it further be resolved that the California Coastal
Commission commends Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders for her leadership as
the agency's first environmental justice commissioner and for her commitment to
ensuring that California's coast is accessible and welcoming to all people.
We're gonna take this opportunity for all of us to say a few words about
Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders. I'm gonna start just very briefly by saying
And I think that's a good point.
Our whole state owes you a debt
of gratitude.
The legacy that you are leaving
through our environmental
justice policy is profound.
And every time we've had a
meeting, I've learned something
from you.
And I just, you'll be sorely,
sorely missed.
So with that, I know there's
going to be a lot of comments.
Let's start with Commissioner
So, okay, see, I tried to write it down, so when I stepped on this, on those dias like
over 70, seven years ago, and only then Dana was the chair and Commissioner Turnbull Sanders
was the vice chair.
And, you know, commissioners, terminal senators welcome me with the warmest embrace and full
of friendship and understanding and you kept that tight embrace around me ever since.
You have been a role model in a trailblazer, a commission, your leadership bringing environmental,
social justice to every aspect of this agency,
decisions or processes or priorities.
From the drafting of the policy to the community outreach
to every difficult vote you've had to take,
to stand for what's right.
And your legacy is indelible.
And I will proudly honor your work and your moral compass
for as long as I'm here and in every aspect of my life,
You're after.
And because she always said it best to quote the great Dr. Maya
Angelo, my wish for you is that you continue,
continue to be who and how you are,
to astonish a mean world with your acts of kindness.
And if I can add, your wisdom, your courage, your strength,
your joy, the joy and that light that you bring
into this world, your impeccable style,
goodness if I'm gonna miss you so much but I can't wait for our next adventure
the Rama de llama my soul sister I love you and I think the universe for your
friendship. So I don't have as long a trajectory with you as as many others
here on the Commission but it is important for me that we build on the
work that you've started that many of the commissioners have continued to
honor and so we'll be referencing the good policy work that you helped develop
for this agency I'm sure for decades to come. I don't know if I'll get to serve
10 years but the time that I'll be here will help to remember the good spirit
that you create. We've had a very short time together on this body but I will
say that in my nearly 20 years of doing public work there's a type of person
that I notice nearly immediately and you are that type of person and it's the
type of person that leads with grace. There's a way to fight and there's a way
to build consensus within the fight. I've seen you do that and as I did my
research on this body considering putting my name in the hat, your
fingerprints were all over the pieces that I saw that I wanted to be a part of
and continue to champion.
So thank you for what you've done.
You've set an amazing platform and bedrock
for us to continue to work off of.
I'm sad that our time together was so short,
but I'm excited for you and all the new adventures
that you'll continue to have.
So thank you for your work so far
and all that I know that you'll do in the future
on behalf of all California.
Effie, I think you can see the inspiration
that you bring with you.
So, your grace and your, I want to highlight your doggedness.
You stick with something and you see it through and you are very thorough with how you, you know,
bring all the pieces together to make a whole and we, I will miss you very much.
I knew of your work before I joined the commission.
I respected the work you'd done when I was at NRDC
and Cruz Reynoso who was on our board
and you had worked with them.
So I felt honored to be able to share the dais with you
after knowing of your good work before I got here.
So I thought, you know, last month actually in Fort Bragg
I thought when you very pointedly questioned
some of the decisions that were in front of us
I thought that you had just brought everything
to a great culmination to demonstrate the breadth
of the issues that you bring to this commission
and you've made it a better place
and the Coastal Act is a more just as application
because of you.
So thank you so much and I hope that we remain friends.
Oh, wow.
To have so much to say and not even know how to begin.
I didn't prepare anything.
I didn't think about doing it here.
I wanted to talk to you myself.
So I just want to say a lot of people
don't realize how much I've depended on you over the last.
For me, I've been here almost 15 years.
And when Effie came, she was such a ray of light
and intelligence.
And your kindness and your heart is so big.
I just instantly wanted you to be my friend and my cohort.
And then when I was chosen to be chair for those years,
I refused to do the job without you.
because I knew I had to have that kind of support.
And unfortunately, during that period
was when my husband was very ill.
And I had to rely on Effie to run loads of meetings
that I couldn't make.
And you were always superior at doing that job.
I think you're irreplaceable.
You certainly are in my life.
And I don't want to go on about this.
So I just want you to know that you can't get away from me.
Wow, it's really tough. Somebody said, don't go. Yeah, that would be, I know, I know it's
time for you. You know, we were talking about it. And when Effie came on the commission,
her daughter was two years old. Now her daughter's in ninth grade. And incredible. Your children
are just so beautiful and it's just such a funny story you told about when you
would try to leave you know to come to meetings and your daughter would have
her fingers on the glass and you know what was the word come what was it don't
go to the Comostal Commission don't go I'm sure you can relate but I mean for
For me, the role that Effie has played has been so central.
And it's not because she responds or talks on every issue,
but it's that when she does speak, everyone listens.
Everyone listens.
And it's usually deep and well thought out always,
I should say.
I don't recall you ever speaking in a way that I thought,
okay, that's not worth your hour.
Not that I do that with anyone, but really seriously.
just like on the Bruce's Beach issue you gave a significant statement on that
and it I think it gave us information and knowledge that we just could not
have had otherwise in a perspective we never could have had and just so many
issues Effie I just I really my respect for you is really there's no way to
measure it I'm gonna miss you so much it is a it is gonna be a huge hole however
saying that I want to repeat something that you said to me is that it's okay
it's okay for you to step away at this time because you have embedded your
environmental justice views your environment you know this concept it's
not only embedded now within all of our policies as part of the environmental
justice policy but you've embedded it in all of us so that you feel I really
appreciate what you said that you don't need to talk all the time it shouldn't
be the one the one it should be the all and it is the all we will carry this
forward I will as long as I am on this Commission and you know that I am just
so grateful to you for everything so thank you so much Effie and obviously
we will always be friends. Thank you so much. Commissioner Kelly. Commissioner
Turnbull-Sanders, it has been an honor to serve alongside you on this body when
I was applying and in the process of reviewing the years of footage of these
meetings studying you and studying the way that you educate your wisdom but the
avenue in which how you share that wisdom both with the public with
applicants or with our fellow commissioners you are one of the most
incredible teachers I have ever had the opportunity to learn from and your I
want to second what Dr. Hart said that you're the way that you have permanently
left a legacy on this Commission on the work we do and the state and the public
we will forever be benefit from that wisdom and the way in which you've let
us all to embody what you have taught us and so I hope you feel very confident
that you have helped to propel this organization and this state forward in a
way and I think really used it's the language that you use and how you take
what we all know to be true about environmental justice,
about our coastal resources, about public access,
and about impacts, and who is most greatly impacted,
and how we have to mitigate those impacts
in ways that lift up community.
But the way that you say it and how you spell it out
so clearly and eloquently is truly a masterful,
just it is a professional linguistic,
story that is we will never have someone who can do what you do, but you know that we are all going
to continue to try and to live up to that legacy that you've left for this commission and just I'm
so grateful that you are willing to dedicate and donate the amount of time that you have to this
body because we know that you could be doing anything you set your mind to and so successfully
supporting that work, and so, whatever the next chapter is,
I'm excited, elated for you, and to see what comes next
and where else you leave your mark in this world
and to your family and those that you've had to leave
to go to the Comostal Commission
as a mother who's my son thinks I'm on the Coast Guard.
that it is it is one of those those sacrifices that we all have to make to
be here and to do this work and I know you have sacrificed for many years so
thank you and to your family and others who didn't get to have that time with
you thank you to them for lending your talents and treasures to this community
we are grateful. Thank you. My kids are thrilled that I'm gone for three days.
Last night I made a comment at our little mixer about the quality of
commissioners that we have and how impressed I was just as the new guy
watching these videos similar to my colleague during the application process
and then actually meeting you in person and sitting next to you and being
dazzled and like Fort Bragg just blew me away with your your comment in
particular and it will forever resonate and as I was sitting there beyond
impressed I was like first of all I could never have written that probably
even with the help of chat GPT it would have never been as well thought out
articulated, and that was just a, you know, that's a microcosm of who you are
and what you bring to this body. And, you know, I can't, our time together has been
short, you'll remain on my speed dial. I appreciate what you've done for this
body and for our state, your legacy will live on and I can only hope, I aspire to
be you know half the commissioner that you've been you've you've you are a model
from all of us to emulate so thank you for your leadership thank you for your
courage and thank you for always be willing willing to stand up to do the
right thing it's been a pleasure hmm
where do I start well I'll just all I look we always say we associate ourselves
ourselves with all the comments that are made.
I associate myself with all of these comments that were made.
I'll bring this to a more personal space, which
is going back to 2019, my first meeting on the Coastal
Commission.
I definitely was dropped into the fire.
My very first meeting was in my local community.
And I think it was on that very first day,
Yeah, that it was like the most contentious,
charged thing possible.
It involved environmental justice issues
and all the stuff, very emotional.
And so somehow I was sat next to Effie.
And I have to say that I'm so grateful for that,
because she was very calm.
And also in the subjects that we were talking about,
unlike me, I'm very stream of consciousness.
Our attorneys have said, sometimes
it gets us into trouble.
But Effie, every word has purpose and meaning.
And I'm just extremely grateful for that.
Well in that moment, this was a very convoluted process.
We have even processes that are convoluted
for the commission itself.
We have a lot of these double negative motions that are made.
We have these amended motions that can be made,
especially in that very complicated process.
And Effie was next to me giving me the advice.
Okay, so now this is what's gonna happen here.
And during that time,
Like half the audience is staggering me with their eyes.
A few commissioners were staggering me with their eyes.
And I won't say who.
And I will say that without Effie sitting next to me
through that process, that might have been my last meeting.
I don't know.
Seriously.
So just on a personal level, that experience,
I carry with me all the time.
I talk about it with new commissioners often.
And yeah, so it's indelible in my experience here.
Certainly, F.E.'s example, her, just her,
And I don't see her demeanor in these very contentious spaces
has elevated the commission, and the conversation,
and the state of California, I think, quite frankly,
in these times.
We could use a lot more of that at the moment.
And so just thank you so much for your friendship,
and your time in this space.
As people may know, we're colleagues to a great degree.
We have a lot of differences on this commission.
But we work very hard to move that through
with great respect and dedication to the mission.
And an FE is the pinnacle of that from my perspective.
So thank you.
Any further comments before I turn it over
to Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders?
Mr. Coffey.
Can I say thank you?
So to our public who's participating today,
you all know this,
but commissioners serve three days a month
on their free time.
And that's important here
because many of our commissioners have noticed
people have families and including Commissioner Turnbull Sanders so the
Comostal Commission is taking up a lot of personal time and so that's evidence
of your commitment to public service and that that's a very big deal also you're
not just serving the public in a role you are bringing your entire self to it
and people see that and you make it safer for others to also join in public
service, so thank you for that. And just personally you and I have had
opportunities to talk through some tough issues and I just can't thank you
enough for your leadership and mentorship and it's been a great pleasure.
Thank you.
I honestly can't believe this is your last hearing this I didn't realize that
till yesterday, so we're gonna miss you.
Since I started following the commission,
was around the time I think you started,
and so it's just gonna be very different without either.
There's some big shoes to fill,
and yeah, you have an incredible legacy,
and I just wanna personally, I just really appreciate
when I joined, just how welcoming and warm
just our conversation had been,
and appreciate everything that you've done.
So, thank you.
Mr. Alex.
You know, it feels inappropriate
to be the last one giving comment,
but I also don't want to be left out here.
I think part of being on a board
is making sure you speak when you're on the board.
But, you know, I've been here maybe the shortest time,
but our office has been affiliated with this board
and on this board for a longer time.
So I think this is on behalf of kind of a long line of us
from the tank governor's office, and hopefully, Megan,
you'll say some words to close it out,
so I'm not the last one.
But it's clearly impossible to do anything
other than to associate myself and our office
with the comments that have been made.
I've seen a lot of people roll off of boards,
and I don't recall hearing just such unanimous praise
for somebody and the impact that they've had.
And so, just clearly, the legacy you're leaving
is enormous and it's not not just big shoes to fill but I think it's it's a
foundation that's been laid so it's something we're building upon not
trying to fill that's happening here and so on behalf of our office myself
thank you I wish I would have had more time to get to know you but
congratulations thank you and Commissioner Turnbull Sanders before I
I turn the floor over to you. We're going to take a public comment. Anytime. You turn
the mic on, please. There you go. Okay. I think after today I can call you Effie instead
of Commissioner. I guess I just want to go back to how this seat was created. It might
have been mentioned somewhat during public comment, but I remember when Autumn Burke,
who was an assembly member, agreed to carry this bill.
It was Robert Garcia of the city project
and Mars grow deans of Azul who really pushed this forward
with commissioner Turnbull Sanders.
And it was not a done deal.
I mean, it was not an easy path to do
because we were changing the coastal act
in a way it needed to be changed, okay?
We had to, the commission had to have the ability
to take into consideration environmental justice issues.
And up until that point, it was not able to do that.
So, and I, you know, Robert Garcia was one of the people,
he was the person who first alerted me
to what happened at Bruce's Beach.
I had lived in Manhattan Beach and I didn't even know that
until he brought it to my attention.
And he, you know, fought hard on that issue.
So I just kind of want to, that issue
didn't get resolved for 100 years.
That's a very long time to correct a terrible wrong.
So you're really kind of like the bellwether
for this position.
I mean, it's a very specific thing.
And you mentioned some of the language.
But the statute requires the members to live in and work
directly with low-income communities of color
that are disproportionately impacted by pollution
and other environmental justice issues.
It's a very serious role.
No other commissioner up here has that role
or anything similar.
I mean, it's distinct.
And the person who takes on that role
has to really keep that in mind
with everything that they do.
So I don't think we could have done any better
than to have you be the first
and to set the standard for what people have to meet.
I've been stunned that you've been able
to balance family, your work, which is very hard
and the work you do here.
It's almost an impossible job.
And I don't think the public,
I mean, every commissioner has a big job.
And this job is hard.
And I've been watching you for a very long time,
participating for a very long time.
And it's just not easy,
but I don't think the public really gets that.
But I wanna thank you from the bottom of my heart
for all the work and time and guidance and wisdom
that you've poured in to your work here.
And I hope that the next commissioner
will meet that standard.
And I, but I wish for you also that with all the free time
you're gonna get, that you have wonderful
inventors in the future.
So, good luck.
And there are a lot of other NGOs that may not have known
that this was gonna be in the executive director's report
that I work with, that I know I'm expressing
their feelings as well.
So thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Jordan.
Okay.
Moro Ray, please.
Well, Madam Chair, commissioners, staff,
and commissioner terminal senators in particular.
I'm here to thank you for all the years you've given
in service to the people of California.
I remember when you first joined the commission
back in 2014, 11 years ago.
At that time, there was no term being used anywhere
called environmental justice.
And it was not a well known public term
and had not a lot of exposure.
And I was at that time in charge
or heading up the effort to save Manning Ranch.
And I asked to have some ex parte meetings with you
which you agreed to when we met at a restaurant
near your house there.
And the second meeting, you asked me a question,
a question I'd never heard anybody ask about Banning
Ranch or any other project.
And that was, are there any communities of color
or areas of disadvantaged people near Banning Ranch?
And have you considered how that impacts them?
That was almost like a revolutionary question
those days. And you got us thinking in a whole new way of what impact Spanning
Ranch was going to have and what saving it would mean to all the communities,
disadvantaged communities in that whole area. So you've changed our way of
approaching this and over the years you've changed the Commission's way,
indeed the state's way, of looking at these kind of issues. You have done such
a visible force in this but you have moved mountains so quietly you know
without creating a big fuss or you know bringing down the wrath of the
public or anybody else so the public has so much to thank you for in this state
and I want to thank you and on theirs as well thank you very much and
congratulations on your new position. Thank you I hope you feel our gratitude
Commissioner. Would you like to make a comment? Just trying to process all of
that I really am deeply moved by everything that everyone has said and I
I feel that back in a very meaningful and reciprocal way.
So back at you, everybody who spoke,
this has been a wonderful experience
to be on this commission for so long.
But I think one of the most important things to think about
is the acts of public service.
And there are so many staff members
who have given decades of their lives
to serve on the Coastal Commission staff.
And I wanted to start by congratulating Kelly Cuff
on her retirement and really thank her for her service
and appreciating what it takes to be able to help
support our mission at the Coastal Commission.
I also would like to thank governors Brown
and governors Newsom for allowing me to serve
on the commission for so long.
And in particular, our environmental justice,
our EJ staff, and our AV staff back there,
thank you for all of your work over the years.
And in particular, our executive director,
Dr. Hucklebridge, and our prior executive director,
Jack Ainsworth, and our current environmental justice staff
led by Javier Reyes Padilla and Chino Uzuwehe
and prior staff members, Sumi Selvaraj and Noaki Schwartz
and others who helped to develop
the environmental justice policy.
And it really is what I think what some of the commissioners
have mentioned, environmental justice
is all of our responsibilities.
It's not just one commissioner.
I will take a little issue
with the environmental justice policy
in that while the legislation was passed
to make it more clear,
I think even if we didn't have
the environmental justice policy
through the provisions under the California Constitution
and other laws,
we still have the ability as a coastal commission
to enforce environmental justice provisions
and make that part of our work.
And so if anything were ever to happen
to the environmental justice policy, remember that.
In the meantime, I also would like to thank
our local government members who without their partnership,
we wouldn't be able to do that.
The staff is doing a great job
with getting environmental justice provisions in LCPs
and really appreciate the local jurisdictions
for doing that.
all of my commissioners and past commissioners and present,
thank you for taking up the mantle.
As Commissioner Hart had mentioned,
we are at a place I think where we've integrated
much of the work into our staff reports,
into the way in which we operate,
the way in which we engage.
So I'm really confident that that work is gonna continue.
Want to thank also my family, my village,
My daughter, who was mentioned, I have a son also,
and my husband, Ed, and a whole village of friends and family
and grandparents and aunties and uncles
who watched the kids when I was at the Coastal Commission.
And in particular, I wanted to thank the public,
because without the public, we wouldn't even
have a Coastal Act.
We wouldn't be here.
We wouldn't have a Coastal Commission.
And it's important that the public remain vigilant
and focused on issues that involve truth,
fairness, and justice.
And those are underlying democratic values,
no matter what other folks may say.
And those are principles that we all own
and we must continue those.
I really also appreciated in particular Miss Ponce,
Lydia Ponce and her remarks at the commission.
And I appreciated what she said about having an invitation
to be better relations and meaning better relations
to both living and inanimate objects along our coast,
better relations in terms of how we connect with one another.
And at the core of the environmental justice policy
are fundamental values that are going to be true no matter
which way the political winds may flow.
And those are embodiment of care, compassion, fairness,
justice, truth, understanding, love.
And I challenge you all.
It's all up to us.
the public, the commission, the commission staff,
to keep up that good fight,
and occasionally get into a little good trouble doing it.
But it's important that we protect our coast,
all living things along the coast,
and protect our public access for future generations,
and continue to practice deep repair
of historic and continuing injustice,
And making sure that those historic injustices that
have had a disproportionate impact on certain communities
receive the care and attention that are necessary.
And in these times, I think about one of my favorite quotes.
It's by Gwendolyn Brooks.
And it really embodies how I feel, I think, at this moment,
and how I think we need to move forward into the future.
and it's a poem by Gwendolyn Brooks that goes,
we are each other's harvest,
we are each other's business,
we are each other's magnitude and bond.
Thank you all.
That was beautiful, thank you.
Okay, before we take a break,
I'm gonna ask if there are any other comments or questions
on the executive director's report, Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much chair.
Yeah, just let's just go back to normal business now.
It's just no problem.
Oh my goodness.
OK.
I just wanted to ask, with the Nature Based Solutions policy,
which is fantastic, it's such a great report,
is that going to be coming back to the commission
after the public has a chance to weigh in?
I believe so.
I believe it might be coming in December.
In December, OK.
I'm not positive about that, and I'll check on it,
but I think that's what I remember.
really look forward to that and also particularly I'd love to know what other
state agencies have adopted it or particularly I'm always interested in
what State Parks is doing it's so critical to what they're doing along the
coast. My understanding is this is a Coastal Commission guidance document but
we've obviously worked with other state agencies extensively on how to think
through nature-based solutions so I'll make sure that that's part of our
presentation when we do present it to the Commission. That's great. And yes I'm
getting confirmation and we're gonna be bringing it to you for adoption in
December in December okay thanks so much is it coming it's coming like from
above give one of those earpieces pretty close I also just wanted to really
quickly compliment you on the 2024 year in review I mean this is exactly the
kind of document that we need to promote our work with the legislature with the
governor and with the public it's so easy to read and it really tells the
story of how much we've accomplished how few it's I think it was like what we
rejected one local action it's just incredible so I just wanted to
compliment you and particularly all of our staff that's involved with that and
I can't wait for the 2025 edition thank you thanks chair. Commissioner
Pressiata. I just need clarity has the executive director done item 60 or is
that Sunday we'll work on after the break. 60. That's coming. Okay, thank you. Okay,
seeing no other comments now it's time for the break and hugs. If we could all
come back at five minutes after 11 please. Okay, thank you everyone and we
will return to our calendar and I'll turn it over to Director Hucklebridge.
Thank you. So the first thing, the next item is 6C, the leg report and we would
like to trail this item until Friday. This is the last week for the governor
to either sign or veto bills from this year's session and there are still a
couple of bills that are of interest to the Coastal Commission that are in play
and so we're gonna trail it to kind of give us the hopefully the most fulsome
report we can get. So we'll bring that back on Friday and then that brings us
to item 6d which is the discussion of the draft strategic plan. So I have a
presentation for this item whenever there's a chance to get that up and just
wanted to start off by letting everybody know how excited I am to bring this item
in front of the Commission. This today is an informational briefing only. I will
present here the overall framework for the plan, describe each of the goals and
objectives at a relatively high level and then really what we're interested in
this feedback from the Commission from the public and opportunities are you
know for today and there will be additional opportunities into the future
with the the plan of bringing it back to the Commission for adoption in December
so I really would encourage commissioners and public if you haven't
already to read through the plan it's not too long it's only about 10 pages
pages, which is down from about 45 from the last one. There's a lot more detail in the
written version that I won't cover today. And then one final comment just to remind
everybody, it is a draft. There's work to do on the plan. It's not a fully polished
document. So I just, but it was time to get it out into the public to get the feedback
as we sort of finalize and polish it to bring back to you in December. Next slide, please.
So before I jump into the strategic plan, I wanted to ground us in our agency's mission.
And I'll read it now.
The Commission is committed to protecting and enhancing California's coast and ocean
for present and future generations.
It does so through careful planning and regulation of environmentally sustainable development,
rigorous use of science, strong public participation, education, and effective intergovernmental
coordination. So this mission and the chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act
serve as the North Star for the work of this Commission. This has been true since
the inception of the agency, however it's important to note that the world is
very different from when the Coastal Act was first adopted. And while the policies
and the chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act have truly withstood
the test of time, the challenges and opportunities that come from
implementing those policies have shifted and continue to shift. So the purpose of
this strategic plan is to help the Commission meet today's moment and the
unique climate we find ourselves in today. The purpose its purpose is to
serve as a roadmap to guide the Commission over the next five years in
our work of protecting public access and coastal resources for generations to
come. Next slide please. So the draft strategy consists of five goals. Each
goal includes objectives and specific actions to achieve those
objectives. The five goals are not meant to be inclusive of all of the
Commission's responsibilities. Instead they represent areas of focus for the
Commission for the next five years. These goals will support us in fulfilling our
mission given the challenges we face so I'll go through each of the goals here
and then I'll delve into each one in a little bit more detail in the next
several slides. The first goal, goal one is to ensure coastal access for all. Goal
two is to plan for resilient communities. Goal three is to improve external
communication and engagement. Goal four is to protect coastal resources and goal
Goal 5 is to build and maintain a resilient organization.
So now, as I said, I'll kind of delve into what we mean by each of these goals.
Next slide, please.
So goal 1 is to ensure coastal access for all.
This goal focuses on one of the Commission's most deeply held core values, that our coast
is a place that is open and accessible to all people, regardless of background, income,
or geography.
objectives under this goal include first to plan for 50 years of public coastal
access. Someone didn't quite plan for sustainable coastal access. So this
includes protecting existing access ways by ensuring the vulnerable access ways
and beaches are resilient to the effects of climate change. It also includes
creating new opportunities for the public to experience the coast. We'll do
this through updating our digital tools and resources, exploring new partnerships,
and expanding our approach and tools related to protection of public trust
resources. The second objective is to prioritize affordable access, recreation,
and overnight accommodation. Under this objective, the Commission will
reduce inequitable barriers to coastal access by expanding opportunities that
are free or lower cost. Actions under this objective include expanding the
California Coastal Trail and really focusing in on lower cost overnight
accommodations as a top priority. We'll do this by developing new strategies to
expand lower cost overnight opportunities of all kinds and finding
ways to connect existing lower cost accommodations with the communities that
need them the most. The next objective is to break down barriers to coastal access.
This objective gets to the heart of the overarching goal by implementing actions
that ensure our coast is truly open and accessible to all people.
Under this objective, the commission will work with California Native American tribes
to support co-management and land-back efforts while also finding ways to reduce conflicts
between public access and protection of tribal resources.
We will also grow our Whaletail grant program and expand our public education efforts.
The final objective under this goal
is to enforce the public's right to access the coast.
And this objective is really about upholding
the integrity of the commission's regulatory decisions.
As you all know, we have a small but mighty enforcement
team that works diligently to ensure
that public access and coastal resource protections
are complied with.
Under this objective, we will seek to strengthen and expand
our enforcement program, improve messaging
about enforcement outcomes, and build a more formalized
Condition Compliance Program.
All right, next slide, please.
Goal two is to plan for resilient communities.
This goal addresses the Commission's role
in preparing our coastal communities for rising seas
and increased effects from climate change.
As climate change accelerates,
our planning and regulatory frameworks must evolve
to meet intensifying threats
and ensure that coastal communities and ecosystems
are collectively resilient.
Under this goal, we have several objectives.
first is to ensure that LCPs address sea level rise and climate change. SB 272
which we've already spoken about today requires that LCPs address sea level
rise by 2035. The Commission will need to drive these updates forward by
providing technical support, policy guidance, and funding assistance. So more
specifically under this objective we will continue our work with a local
government working group, prioritize and expedite LCPs and CDPs but mostly
LCPs and LCP updates that align with SB 272 and seek additional funding for our
local assistance LCP grant program. Finally we will continue to innovate on
climate adaptation strategies. We have a lot of work to do in this space and we
really need to get focused. Second objective is to prioritize principles of
environmental justice and resilience planning efforts. As you heard earlier
this morning the Commission has worked hard to develop to fully develop its
environmental justice program since our EJ policy was adopted in 2019. Our next
frontier is how to effectively prioritize EJ principles into our
resilience planning efforts with local governments. Under this objective we will
conduct a comprehensive review of implementation of our EJ policy to
identify our successes and what has worked as well as where there are
opportunities for improvement. We will also improve our internal coordination
and training as well as provide education and guidance about incorporating EJ
into LCPs and CDPs.
The final objective under this goal is
to advance climate resilient housing
and transportation planning.
If we are to be successful in planning
for resilient communities, it is critical that land use,
public access, housing, and transportation planning be
integrated into climate adaptation efforts.
In the coastal zone, this means facilitating climate smart,
affordable housing development that supports our coastal
workforce and encourages long-term
and encouraging long-term adaptation planning
for vulnerable transportation corridors.
We also need to get creative with the tools we have
to address at-risk infrastructure.
Under this objective, we will continue to advocate
for Coastal Act consistent housing policies
and expand our coordination with HCD.
On the transportation and infrastructure front,
we will encourage multi-benefit climate adaptation solutions,
facilitate regional and programmatic approaches
to beach loss and encourage climate-friendly,
multimodal transportation projects that improve coastal access and recreation.
Next slide, please.
Goal three is to improve external engagement and communication.
This goal acknowledges the critical importance of the relationship between the public and
the commission.
Over the years, we have worked hard to engage directly with those that are affected by our
decisions, but we must do more, especially to reach those who have not had a voice in
our decision making.
This objective describes how the Commission will improve its efforts to reach a more diverse
audience, and how the Commission will improve its own tools and process so that the public,
local governments, applicants, and other stakeholders can interact with the Commission more effectively
and efficiently.
The first objective under this goal is to engage more people.
Under this objective, the Commission will explore ways to reach a broader audience.
This includes improving our website, strengthening our Spanish language program, and expanding
our use of social media.
We will also double our efforts to connect with inland communities, including through
holding a meeting at least one at one inland location per year, and working to expand the
reach of our public education programs.
The second objective under this goal is to improve commission process and transparency.
Under this objective, the commission will prioritize the development of a streamlined
user-friendly systems that make it easier for the public to access records,
understand procedures, and participate in decision-making. We will do this by
developing an online portal for submittal of CDP applications and public
comments and expanding access to our records through our public portal. We
will also seek to clarify the Commission's process and timelines for
appeals. The last objective under this goal is to foster stronger relationships
with California Native American tribes.
California Native American communities have been the stewards
of our coastal resources long before the Europeans arrived
in California.
Traditional ecological knowledge
and tribal cultural practices can teach us a lot
about sustainable coastal management.
To strengthen our relationship with tribes,
the Commission will seek to establish consistent dialogue
with tribes to understand their priorities
and concerns coastal management.
And we will also explore ways to strengthen the coastal protections
of tribal cultural resources, and work to build our own internal capacity to engage
with tribes effectively.
Next slide, please.
Goal four is protect coastal resources.
This goal focuses on how the commission will continue to protect coastal resources, including
species and habitats, agricultural areas and communities, marine resources and uses, and
open spaces, to name a few, especially in light of the threats posed by climate change
and sea level rise.
The first objective under this goal
is to preserve and restore coastal wetlands and habitats.
Under this objective, we will prioritize
the expeditious review of restoration projects,
also wildfire resilience and vegetation treatment projects.
We will update our guidance
on coastal habitat identification,
mapping, buffers, and mitigation policies,
explore increased use of preservation
of at-risk coastal habitats as a mitigation tool.
The second objective under this goal
is to protect marine resources.
Our marine environment is increasingly
under pressure from climate change, pollution,
and competing ocean uses.
To effectively protect our marine resources,
we will expand our staff expertise
on emerging marine science topics
and implement innovative educational planning
and regulatory strategies to reduce plastic pollution.
We will also continue to participate in offshore wind
planning efforts for the state and prioritize
decommissioning of aging oil and gas infrastructure.
The final goal here is to prioritize resilience
for coastal agriculture and open space.
These vital coastal resources are under constant pressure
from the impacts of climate change,
expansion of the built environment,
and the growing demand for housing in the coastal zone.
To ensure we are meeting the Coastal Act's mandate
to protect ag lands and open space,
we will expand our toolbox
of agricultural land protection approaches
and ensure we understand the vulnerability
of agricultural lands and open spaces to climate change.
Finally, we will update our timberland protection practices
as part of this objective.
Next goal, or next slide, please.
The last goal, goal five,
is to build and maintain a resilient organization.
If we are to achieve any of the goals
that I have just described,
a healthy and resilient staff is critical.
I have said this before,
but the strength and successes of this commission
are grounded in its staff.
We've gone through a lot of transition
over the past several years,
and we have some work to do to ensure
that our staff have the training and the support
needed to thrive in our complex work environment.
The first objective under this goal
is to inspire an organizational culture
that is inclusive, curious, solutions oriented,
and adaptable.
Our work is increasingly complex,
and as a result, we are asking our staff
to be knowledgeable on a broader array of topics,
and at the same time, the pressure to move faster
and to be more efficient is intense.
We need to provide our staff with the environment
and the support to be successful in this atmosphere.
This will involve investing in staff training,
mentorship, and professional development programs.
This is especially critical given the large number
of new staff we have welcomed into the agency
over the past few years.
This feeds directly into the next objective,
which is to improve staff retention.
As I mentioned, we have gone through a lot of transition,
including the retirement of a significant portion
of the agency's senior staff.
This has resulted in the loss of institutional knowledge
and more pressure on the remaining staff.
As I just described, we've onboarded
a significant number of new staff.
And I have to say, we did a really good job
of recruiting a fabulous crop of new analysts and staff.
Now we need to create a work environment and community
that makes them want to stay.
To do this, we will solicit feedback from staff
on job satisfaction and areas for improvement.
We will also expand our professional development
and leadership training opportunities.
State salaries have been an issue for many years
and it is hard to compete with local
and federal government agencies that pay,
in most cases, significantly better than the state.
We unfortunately do not set state salaries
and have struggled to make our voice heard
the state bargaining process. Moving forward, we will continue to pursue any
and all opportunities to increase salaries for our staff. And lastly, we
will work within each district and program to identify workload priorities
to help staff manage their significant workloads and ensure that they can all
have lives. Next slide please. So that concludes the brief presentation of the
goals and objectives. Next steps logistically for the commission there
the public comment period for this draft strategic plan is plan is open now
and will remain open through November 10th. If you go we have a website or a
web page on our website and the the URL is here you can easily find it from our
web website and that will allow you to check it out to send comments and other
opportunities for how to get in touch with us. We will revise the draft based
on comments we received from public, from commissioners, also from staff, and then
consider adoption at the December 2025 hearing. Next slide please. So with that
again there's no formal action required from the Commission today. It's
just an opportunity to provide feedback both from again here feedback from the
public but also to have you know hear your feedback and and we'll go from there
so with that I'll turn it back to you chair. Thank you very much Dr. Hucklebridge
and I'll start by asking if there are any public comp excuse me public comments
on the draft strategic plan. Yes we have two in person and one on Zoom so we'll
start with Don Smith and Steve Ray in person and then Peter McNamee,
McNamee, excuse me, here McNamee go ahead and we'll move you to panelists
and we'll call you when we're ready. Before we start the clock I do have a
presentation. A very brief one of course, two minutes, got the memo. Good good good
morning commissioners my name is Don Schmitz. Our firm is proud that we
represent a lot of religious institutions and organizations both in
and outside of the coastal zone. Next slide please. So I'd like to talk to you
about a very important federal law, you may have heard of it, the Religious Use
and Institutional Persons Act. It's actually the acronym is RULUPA. I left
out the land use aspect of it and it's a very very important law and very
complicated. Next slide please. So basically we're having trouble with our
PowerPoint. It's important that you recognize and promote the presence of
religious facilities within the coastal zone and we just moved right on to the
next slide that's fine. This is already well within your comfort zone. In fact
what you've been speaking to in regards to environmental justice, religious uses
or something that is already protected within that and I did give you a handout which has
a letter that was written by the Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice under
the Biden administration in March of 2024 and it was sent to decision makers and planning
departments in federal agencies, states, counties, and cities all over the United States of America.
Ralupa is powerful and it's complicated.
Now your most excellent staff is more than up to the task, however one of the things
that is envisioned as Dr. Hucklebridge just spoke to is training in regards to this.
Ralupa sets a whole new standard, and Ralupa requires that there will not be substantial
burdens placed on religious institutions and their applications for their land use.
And that's not just limited to churches and mosques and synagogues, that's also for their
housing for the people within the institution, community centers, et cetera.
So it's an important issue.
I'm short on time, but I'm hoping that you will support a recommendation at RULUPA being
incorporated.
Thank you.
Next is Steve Ray.
Well, good morning again, Madam Chair, commissioners, staff, and members of the public.
I'm Steve Ray.
I'm a planner.
I, not my profession, I just do it all the time.
I write a lot of strategic plans.
Every project I've worked on, I write a strategic plan for it.
So I'm all in favor of a strategic plan here.
And I will say the staff has done an excellent job of presenting one.
And I like strategic plans that are comprehensive, but short.
And they've succeeded here in that regard.
I want to address two specific issues related to the plan.
And I had more time, I'd do more comments.
But anyway, first of all is enforcement in goal one.
Enforcement, in my opinion, is such a key element
of the work that this commission does.
And the commission has kind of taken the position now
that they're trying to resolve most enforcement issues
through permitting actions that are taken.
And that's a worthy way of doing it, that's a good goal.
but sometimes resolving these superman actions
just won't work.
And I think the commission should pay more attention
to the sometimes punitive nature of enforcement
and resolving some of these issues as well.
But I think the commission needs to place
much more emphasis on enforcement.
A lot of problems can get solved in the future
by resolving a few problems of the past.
second issue is follow-up and monitoring it's mentioned barely in the plan but I
think in this requires hiring more staff and I know that's a whole issue in and
of itself but effective monitoring and follow-up to permits that are issued
would go to resolve a lot of problems as well over the period of time thank you
Thank you very much.
Thank you, next is Peter McNamee, can you unmute yourself, go ahead and unmute.
Thank you, enactment of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act represented a seminal
turning point in our state's history voters empowered the commission to conserve and protect
California's coastal zone as a vital environmental resource, your strategic plan is an important
articulation of the Commission's goals, objectives, and commitment towards fulfilling its mandate
from California's voters. I applaud the Commission and its staff for outlining a smart strategic
course to actualize that mandate. In the past half century, as the implications of climate
change have manifest, you've adapted your strategic actions accordingly. This draft
strategic plan is the latest iteration of that adaptive evolution. As such, it is important
the Commission's strategy continue evolving to address new emerging challenges climate
change confronts us with. One of the most significant such challenges is the rising
number of people forced to migrate from communities becoming less and less habitable due to droughts,
excessive prolonged heat, wildfire destruction,
storm disasters, and sea level rise.
The impacts of this migration are felt both
by the communities these migrants leave
as well as the communities they migrate to.
Climatologists anticipate globally that for every degree
of climate warming, a billion people will migrate
from adversely impacted areas to safer climate havens
better suited for sustainable habitability.
Because the vast bulk of Californians live
in communities abutting the coastal zone,
this migration will have a huge impact
on coastal development, use, and conservation.
Demographers have already begun to study and report
on how communities are coping
with what is becoming the biggest mass migration
of people in our state's history.
Initial impact assessment shows
declining population growth in southern portions of California.
I urge the Commission to recognize growing challenge of climate migration and to incorporate
effective specific goals in this new strategic plan.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And that concludes our public speaking.
Thank you very much.
I will return to the Commission.
Commissioner Presiano.
I need to make sure the mic is close enough to me.
So Dr. Hucklebridge, I want to compliment you and your entire team for the development
of the framework and also I'm glad it's not a 40 page strategic plan that it's digestible
10 pages.
It seems to me that when you have too many things that you're trying to accomplish, we
we overwhelm ourselves. I have a couple of comments related to what I consider one of
the primary goals under the first goal, which is this idea of lower cost visitor serving
accommodations. I'm bringing up the issue because recently, I see that I have my little
NASCAR going here. In the city of Chula Vista, in partnership with the Port of San Diego,
we recently opened a $1.2 billion convention center hotel. This facility is everything
we always wanted to have. This facility is outstanding, it has, and hopefully it will
continue to be such a facility for a long time.
There is only one element of it that I believe really meets the idea of having equitable
or inclusive access to the space.
Every evening, there's a lottery competition for about a hundred pastors into its amenities.
I think it's become a rite of passage now in Chula Vista to see, did you get one of
those passes because it's available to the entire state.
It's not just for Chula Vistans,
but it really gives you access.
And for $12, you can have a similar experience
to those conventioners who are visiting,
who are staying for three or four nights
at 550 bucks a room,
who are paying $40 a day to self park,
That's $65 a day to valet.
What I'm getting to is that this facility is exactly what it's supposed to be.
It's supposed to be an anchor tenant in that bay front that for over 60 years served as
part of the military industrial complex of our country, and that bay was walled off to
the rest of us.
It had some parks and things like that, but really it was a central part of our economy.
And now we have a new economic sector that's emerging, convention, business, and et cetera
that's providing a lot of economic benefit for our community.
In fact, I think in February, where they had a job fair, they had, you know, six or seven
thousand interested parties that came. And in fact, we know that a significant number
of the employees who work in this hotel are Chula Visten.
All of that is to say the following. I'm hoping that there's room in the plan to consider
maybe new approaches to creating accessible spaces for visitor, visitor serving accommodations.
And by that, I mean in other ways that we all add this caveat, which will help my comments
make sense.
So we're building 12,000 more homes in Chula Vista.
And to be able to do that, we had to mitigate the environmental impacts of that development.
And so the developers have set aside land and protected areas and basically have used
mitigation banks to address some of the challenges that they were going to create.
I'm thinking and I'm hoping that we may have room for some sort of pilot for cities like
Chula Vista and National City.
By the way, in Chula Vista and National City, we have visitors serving accommodations within
a quarter mile of the bay front in both Chula Vista and National City.
And I think there might be an opportunity to see if we can create mitigation spaces
where these one star, two star, three star accommodations that are more family and working
family friendly can be part of our process.
And to that end, by the way, I'll prepare, I'm working with one of my staff to prepare
a memo to submit this, so I'm hoping it's more accurate and more coherent and more specific.
But I think in a similar way that we have mitigation banks and mitigation opportunities
in other kinds of development, that in the coastal zone, we may be able to create visitor
serving accommodations that are in fact mitigations.
And so that a family that wants to enjoy Gaylord doesn't have to have a $500 night room, but
even if they had a $140 night room, something very accessible, you still have to pay the
$40 parking, you still have to pay for the $28 burger, you still have to pay for, well,
if you want to have a stake, apparently you have to spend about 60 bucks.
And so what I'm getting to is that we have a goal and we have planning that is underway
with many projects all over the state that have this inclusionary component, but I don't
know if they've been thought through in the context of what does it really take for a
family or a community member to participate in the five star hotel or in this case a five
star hotel and convention center.
So I'm just proposing that we broaden how we think about this and maybe see if our developers
can come up with proposals that create access to the postal zone, create access with low
cost visitors serving opportunities that function like that key thing that Gay
Lord does which give access to the community and the general public for a
few hours or for a whole day and still allow you to you know not have to take
out a loan to enjoy the facility. Another comment that I wanted to make that's
separate from this but it's related to goal number four is if in your planning
process we start thinking about what these mitigations to protect our
natural resources will cost and so in in mid October in mid August I sent Dr.
Hucklebridge an email it had an image of the tsunami wall that was built in
Japan after the 2011.
And that tsunami wall goes on for miles and miles and miles and miles, and it has trees
components and I'm sure it's absolutely wrong in our context, but it seems to me that it
is a very significant capital project.
And sometimes I see us working on mitigations to bring back or restore an estuary or bring
back and restore small chunks of land but I worry that in 2020 in 21 heard me
I worry that in 20 or 30 years the type of infrastructure we'll need to protect
against the sea level sea level rise will be more than just restoring an
estuary or a salt marsh or something like that that will be needing huge and
and maybe very consequential, expensive public projects.
And I'm just wondering, in that context,
if we're preparing for those eventualities
and getting the public and our public policymakers
and Sacramento ready for those kinds of investments.
And lastly, truly lastly,
I volunteered.
I think we were in the Santa Monica Hills
when I encouraged us to form a commission or subcommittee
to look at new sources of income
that could support the sustainability
and the longevity of the commission staff.
And I'm glad to see that in the strategic plan
that will probably be implemented mostly by staff
that you have that in mind.
I'm still very much interested in seeing
if there's a way the commissioners can help in that process.
But I'm glad to see that it's already an element.
And so I will submit a written proposal
in the coming weeks and hopefully it can be incorporated.
I even came up with a number where you could include it,
but I'll leave that to my letter.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And before we move on to the other commissioners,
I just want to note this is really just the beginning.
We're opening up the public comment process here.
There's going to be a lot of opportunity, of course,
for the public to comment, but for commissioners ourselves
to really dig in and engage.
So just bear that in mind as we move forward.
It'll be to Commissioner Wilson, then Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you.
And I appreciate this process as always.
I'll limit my comments, try and be brief here.
I did appreciate that there is a reference
to workforce housing in the document.
I had to find it.
There it was.
So I guess a part of this is I'll
just take it from the perspective,
kind of a more rural perspective.
I really do appreciate the preservation element in relation to the agricultural resources
and agricultural lands in open space.
There certainly is a threat to those from even more recently in terms of some of the
ADU and STR implications in that we're getting conflicting land use issues that can occur.
And so I think it's important for us to both allow for those things to occur, but in ways
that don't conflict.
And it's actually not that hard, especially when you have a lot of land.
And so I think we need to make sure that we're having policies that are addressing that.
I also want to mention in there that while we're talking about agriculture and open space,
the word aquaculture, only references to offshore aquaculture
are the aquaculture, which, of course, in my district
is 80% we produce of the oysters in the state of California.
It's not just there.
There are innovations around aquaculture
up and down the state that I think
we need to be thinking about in terms
of being flexible with and understanding that,
not just from shellfish, but we're
I was talking about seaweed and other things,
and not just in bay or those spaces,
but also adjacent landslide opportunities for aquaculture,
which we're seeing opportunities for.
So from that perspective, I kind of
feel that's part of the resilience element of this,
and that we need to be talking about flexibility
in our commercial and industrial zoning areas
in terms of being future focused.
Oftentimes, a lot of our planning
is through the rear view mirror about what the world looked
like and how we operated at those times.
As you know, in Humboldt Bay, 900 acres
of coastal-dependent industrial lands, which
is the equivalent of the size of the Port of Oakland.
And so we've been looking for ways
to think about what that really means and how to be innovative.
And I would like some reference to that sort of future focus.
And also in commercial zones as well,
we're seeing changes in our small towns, coastal towns,
in terms of understanding mixed use
and what it means to have residential principally
permitted in the downtowns in at least second stories
and those sorts of things.
And so that's important really around working waterfronts
and the innovations around that and figuring out ways
that we can be encouraging and flexible.
And oftentimes when I'm in those communities,
we're seen as something that is stagnating.
I mean, in terms of that's an experience that people have
that maybe they had 10 years ago and 20 years ago.
And I know that we as an institution
are much more advanced now than we were then,
but we need to maybe sort of encourage
that creativity within those communities.
And then on the affordable accommodations,
I do like the language that we have in there currently
in this, but also we have some resources to help,
I think, expand and help plan for communities
and I'd just like to see us see what we can do
leverage some of those resources. That's all I have for now, this is great. Really
appreciate the opportunity to get into this and I'll write some of the stuff up
later. Thank you. Commissioner Lopez. Thank you Madam Chair. I'll be quick. I just want
to lend my support to the concept of allowing access to carne asada over
the $60 ribeye steak. Wanted to put that out there so if we can find a way to do
that I would definitely be appreciative and supportive, and being the broken
record that I am, I saw five mentions of housing in the document,
four were in the introduction, one elsewhere, specifically focused on the
resilience piece of housing, so for me as we move forward here I would love to go
back to the words of the illustrious Mike Wilson who at the last Commission
meeting actually referred to housing as perhaps infrastructure for our visitor
serving regions that really need that housing to house the folks who make up
that who strengthen our capacity to welcome people to the coast through the
rural lands of Vixer and the more urbanized version of Monterey and
Pacific Grove in my region we just completed a study through beacon
analytics of our workforce and the average ag worker in Monterey County is
about 50 years old but the average person working in hospitality is 31.
Right so I think about who's making up that workforce today and can they afford
to live not even the concept of buying but just to live in the community that
they're serving and so I think we should be calling out that important piece in
this document in a way and highlighting it and I get that we're restricted in
how to a degree but finding a way to mention it and acknowledge it maybe more
So then we have so far would be something that I would ask for and as we continue to work on this document together
Thank you, madam chair
mission Unata
Thank you
and I just want to say this is a really important time to bring this and be putting this together because
Next year is the 50th anniversary of the California Coastal Act. So this is really an opportunity to
highlight and shine
And I kind of think of this as really bringing coastal management into the 21st century.
What does coastal zone management look like in the 21st century?
We have a changing coastline.
We have a dynamic coastline giving challenges with climate and sea level rise.
We have population growth in California that I don't think anybody foresaw in when the
And the Coastal Act was passed and that's putting housing pressure all across the state.
So elevate those issues and really show, be able to show how the Coastal Act is adaptable
and can address those issues.
And I think this is just, I just wanted to say what an exciting opportunity this is.
And I can't say how much I love that it's only 10 pages long.
I mean, that is what somebody people will actually read it and of course the thing they will read the most is the first page
So I'm very interested in working with staff to make that really pop bring people in and
Highlight the good work. So I'm look forward to
hearing from what public comment on this and working with staff to
Make a beautiful little package that we can share with all
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate all the comments by my fellow commissioners.
I think all of those are very important.
And thanks to our staff, you guys are so fabulous, and our executive director of the leadership,
it just, you know, it shines, it comes through the people, you know, we're here for a mission
and a purpose, and I can see it in the face of those staff.
So, you're doing a great job.
Kate and I, it's reflected on that awesome slideshow
and those beautiful pictures,
and then 10 pages, the limit of 10 pages,
and I wanted to sort of volunteer and whatever.
You know, I love speaking in Spanish in front of cameras,
so, it was true.
So, I lend my whatever you need, I'll be there.
We'll fight. We'll fight for the mic. All right. Seeing no further comments. Thank
you very much, Director. And we'll move on to item 6E, please. Thank you. And I'm going
to turn the mic over to Megan Hall, who will be joining us via Zoom for item 6E.
Megan Hall, you can unmute. Oops, apologies. Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? Yes. Great.
Great. All right. Good morning chair and commissioners. Item 6E is a presentation on the commission's draft 309 enhancement grants assessment and strategy for fiscal years 2026 to 2030.
This is a discussion item only and an opportunity for the commission and the public to provide comments on the draft assessment and strategy.
First, to provide some context, the Coastal Commission is part of California's federally
approved Coastal Management Program under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
As one benefit of participating in this voluntary program, states may receive funding annually
through the Coastal Zone Enhancement Program, which is detailed in Section 309 of the CZMA,
to fund improvements to the program.
These improvements generally consist of updates to enforceable policies or policy guidance.
Annual Coastal Enhancement Grants are typically around $386,000 per year.
Some examples of past or ongoing projects that have been funded by Coastal's own enhancement
grants include the Public Trust Principles and Action Plan, which was adopted in 2023,
updates to the Commission's Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance, which was adopted in November
2024, as well as two products that are in development and will be coming to the Commission
soon for adoption, the Nature-based Adaptation Strategies, which we heard about this morning,
and the Plastic Pollution Reduction Guidance as well.
Next slide.
So what exactly is the 309 Assessment Strategy?
So to receive this annual funding to conduct important program improvements, the Commission
is required to complete an updated assessment and strategy every five years that follows
a comprehensive template provided by NOAA. The template has required questions for each
phase of the assessment as well as the strategies. Once approved by NOAA, the strategy portion
of the document guides the Commission's annual applications for enhancement grant funding.
So in this case, the strategy we've developed here will guide work for grant years 2026
2030. It's also important to note that there are some bounds on topics that can be addressed
through the annual grants and in the assessment and strategy. Section 309 of the CZMA details
nine enhancement areas in which program improvements can be made, and the nine enhancement areas
are shown here on this slide. The first step in the whole document is the assessment, which
describes status, trends, and summaries of significant changes in all nine enhancement
areas from the period of 2021 to 2025.
It also describes the extent to which challenges
and opportunities for program enhancement may exist
and identifies high priority program needs.
Based on the initial assessment of all nine enhancement areas
and stakeholder input, Commission staff
selected four enhancement areas to conduct
a more detailed in-depth assessment.
Next slide, please.
The four areas selected are coastal hazards,
special area management plans,
which in the commission's terms means LCPs,
public access and wetlands.
Next slide.
Public and stakeholder input
is also a critical source of information
for the assessment portion.
For this 2026 to 2030 draft,
commission staff leveraged other ongoing outreach efforts
to gather information that could support decisions
on priority enhancement areas
and ultimately strategy development.
Some of these efforts include the public engagement
associated with updates to the commission's strategic plan,
as well as surveys conducted for the program's
CZMA Section 312 evaluation,
which was conducted last year.
Additionally, staff conducted targeted outreach
with several standing commission working groups
and partner groups.
This informational item today,
as well as the public comment
and tribal consultation periods that are open right now,
also provide additional opportunities
for public participation.
Next slide.
The completed assessments,
incorporating stakeholder feedback,
identified key needs, opportunities,
and management priorities
for the four enhancement areas mentioned above.
First, the assessments identified coastal hazards
and adapting to increasing hazards
as a prominent theme across all of the enhancement areas.
Additionally, we found that improved guidance
to interpret and apply the Coastal Act as needed,
both for topics where guidance already exists
but may be outdated,
and for newly emerging topics
where guidance does not yet exist.
Finally, the assessments and stakeholder input
identified a need for continued training for staff,
local governments, and the public
on complex and emerging issues related to coastal hazards,
community engagement, and more.
Using these findings, staff developed three strategies.
These strategies are also reflected
several of the objectives in the draft 2026-2030 strategic plan that we just discussed, aligning
these two five-year planning documents. Next slide please. So first, strategy one, this strategy has
the goal of improving statewide resilience of coastal communities and coastal resources through
one or more new and or updated policy guidance documents. Specific anticipated outcomes include
updates to the Commission's critical infrastructure guidance
and updates to the Commission's sea-level rise policy guidance toward the end of the five-year
period. Both of these changes would be to ensure guidance is consistent with other state guidance
as well as science documents that have been released. Other resources may be developed as
well depending on evolution of priorities. Next slide. Strategy 2 will aim to update
outdated components of the Commission's LCP update guide and potentially create new sections
of the guide on emerging or high priority topics. Existing sections that will be updated are the
Coastal Hazards section and the Timberland section, both of which are currently inconsistent with some
other state policies, processes, and rules. The strategy will also include developing and
implementing an outreach and training work plan to improve accessibility, understanding, and use
of this guidance as well as other existing commission guidance by local governments,
commission staff and the public.
Next slide.
Finally, strategy three.
The goal of strategy three is to update long outdated guidance on analysis of wetland restoration
and mitigation projects to reflect current practices, incorporate new scientific developments
and address coastal hazards.
Guidance updates are expected to increase transparency and facilitate the process of
of Wetland Delineation and Wetland Project Review
for staff, applicants and agency partners.
Next slide.
To conclude, I will walk through
the next steps in the process.
The public comment period is open now
and will remain open and written public comments
can be submitted via email or by mail through November 16th.
And apologies that I did not include the email address here
where you can send comments,
but it is written in the staff report
and I will try to update it in this presentation
to post after as well.
Once all comments have been received,
Commission staff will review comments, make revisions,
and submit the final assessment and strategy to NOAA
by the January 30th deadline.
Meeting the submission deadline is important to ensure
that the Commission is eligible to receive
Section 309 funding under the fiscal year 2026
CZMA funding cycle.
This concludes my presentation,
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. I'll ask if there are any public commenters on this item
Yes, we have a total of two one we don't see so far but Susan Jordan, she's attending in person and
Then Navi Fari is on zoom
It looks like Susan soon Jordan was signed up for a different item maybe put you in the wrong spot so
We can go to the next speaker. All right, just kidding
Navi Bari. I don't see them on zoom. So we're good to go. Okay. Thank you very much any comments or questions from commissioners
Okay, seeing none. Thank you very much. And that will move us to item 7 the consent calendar, please
Alright, thank you. That is item 7 the consent calendar for all districts on the agenda today
There is one item on consent and staff was not aware of any opposition to this item at the time
The staff report was prepared and the applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendation
However, I would note the staff did receive an email an objection from Leslie Purcell for this item
And that has been included as correspondence for this on the Commission's website
that email objects to the reconstruction of
small existing 400 square foot single-family residence with a new
3,551 square foot residents with an attached
454 square foot garage and that project is located along a canal in the Venice area in Los Angeles
The email asserts that the new residents would be too large and their opinion reduced permeable
permeable yard area and might be subject to liquefaction hazards
These issues were fully addressed in detail in the findings of the staff report and in the addendum for this item
I would note that this project
As noted in the addendum in more detail complies with the open space and permeable area requirements of the certified Venice Land use plan
And would include a new planter box stormwater treatment system to increase stormwater infiltration on the site and the last
Would also note that in regard to the size of the house
We did look at the surrounding residences, they range, they include a range of different sizes,
but this
project is within that range. And so we do believe it's consistent with the community character.
The last issue relating to concerns about liquefaction hazards was addressed in both the staff report and Dendom.
And we do have the applicants geotechnical consultants who provided reports and concluded the project was designed to ensure
geologic and engineering stability,
Including from liquefaction and would not affect the stability of any off-site areas now
I would further note that this project still requires full engineering and geologic review
By the city of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety and that would further and ensure geologic
Stability on site thus for these reasons staff continues to recommend the commission vote and approve this item as part of the consent calendar
Today I am available for questions
Thank you very much. Mr. Hudson. Are there any ex partes to report on this matter?
Okay, seeing none. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item on the consent calendar?
Yes, we have four speakers signed up. We have two in person and two on zoom in person. We have Adam Dryzen and Austin Peters
And go ahead
There we go
Thank you commissioners for your consideration today
My name is Austin Peters, the project architect for item 7a and over the past two years
I've worked with great care alongside the community on this project and
Feel it will be a great addition to the neighborhood. I'm here in support of the project
And feel the staff report addresses all of the issues that have been brought up
I'd especially like to thank Bernie sigh and the rest of the coastal staff for all their help
And agree with their recommendations to approve the project. Thank you
Thank you, Adam Driesen. Okay, I'm not seeing that. Adam is choosing not to
speak. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And then on Zoom we have two speakers, Anne
Cantrell and Leslie Purcell. Anne Cantrell. Good afternoon, Anne Cantrell Sierra Club.
This house is going from a 400 square foot home to the largest house on the
block. And my biggest concern is the enormous ficus tree, which can be seen if you look at the
picture, the air picture of the house. The ficus tree takes up a great portion of this lot.
I only have information from 2016
about the value of the tree.
At that time, a professor of the University of Calcutta
did a survey and he said a tree living for 50 years
will generate $31,250 worth of oxygen,
provides $62,000 worth of pollution control, soil erosion,
increased soil fertility.
And he goes on about all the values of the trees
to animals and to humans, including free air conditioning.
And he came up with the total value of $193,260 in 2016.
It's probably much more today.
This tree is being replaced by a planter box.
I urge you to do something to save
this valuable coastal resource.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Leslie Purcell.
Hello, this is Leslie Purcell, yeah.
I'm also concerned about the ficus trees removal.
And I realize that the staff did require nesting bird surveys
now.
I appreciate that, but it cited specifically songbird
and raptor nest.
But what about other bird, i.e.
like a heron species or other coastal birds
that aren't specifically songbirds or raptors?
Is there a possibility of requiring some mitigation
or removing such a large tree with the value
that Anne Cantrell decided?
Planting something elsewhere in the nearby area
that would also increase the habitat value
in this neighborhood area.
I still believe that this is too big of a house.
It's significantly larger than most in the area,
even though it may only be 66 square feet larger
than the next largest.
It's still 672 square feet larger
than the average three-story residences in the area.
And this just increases the size of the limit then
that will be looked at in the future.
And we've seen this in beach areas
or the smaller houses, even if they're nice houses,
they're removed and these giant, more boxy houses
are put on site that then take up all pretty much the space
and decreases the views, the air, the water, the habitat
in these beach area landscapes, the same in the Venice Canal.
So I would appreciate if we could scale this back
can find a mitigation if the tree must be removed.
Thank you very much for your work on this.
Thank you.
There are no more speakers.
Thank you, Chris.
Mr. Hudson, do you have any further comments?
Thank you.
I'll just keep it very brief just to note
that the landscaping on the lot that would be removed
is landscaping and horticultural species.
I believe the tree is a type of ficus or something similar.
We do have provisions, and there are federal laws in place
that already prohibit the removal of NESS, any act of NESS.
So we do believe that that issue is covered.
So I'll close our comments and just note
that I am available for any questions.
Thank you.
Do any commissioners wish to remove this item?
Okay, seeing no such requests.
Comments or a motion to approve consent?
Move to approve consent.
Okay, that's a motion by Commissioner Kelly,
second by Commissioner Presiado and for this item I'll ask for a roll call vote
please. Commissioner Bacheco? Yes. Bacheco, yes. Commissioner Escalante? Yes.
Escalante, yes. Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye.
Jackson, yes. Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Kelly, yes. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Lopez,
yes, yes. Commissioner not off. Aye. Not off. Yes. Commissioner Presiado. Yes.
Presiado. Yes. Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders. Yes. Turnbull-Sanders. Yes.
Commissioner Wilson. For the tree I vote no. It's the last gasp. Wilson no. Chair
Harmon. Yes. Harmon yes. The vote is ten yes one no. Thank you Miss Miller. The
regular consent calendar is adopted and now we will move to those consent items
that have been removed from the regular calendar please. Thank you that does
bring us to item 8 the applications being moved from regular to consent for
all the districts on the agenda today. As mentioned during the agenda changes
this morning there are four items that we're recommending be moved to consent
and those are item 14a the city of Ventura LCP amendment for short-term
vacation rentals and that is a time extension only. Item 14B, the County of
Santa Barbara LCP amendment dealing with outdoor lighting and signs and again
that is a time extension only. Item 14D, County of Ventura LCP amendment dealing
with coastal hazards also a time extension only. And item 14E, this is the
County of Ventura LCP amendment dealing with housing bill implementation
ordinance and I would like to just very briefly comment regarding that LCP
amendment by Ventura County and note that although we're recommending this
item be moved to consent today it does deal with a number of very important
housing policy issues and our staff did work with the city of the county to
address some issues that were part of the original submittal. In those changes
the suggested modifications in the report were necessary to bring this
amendment into conformance with the resource protection policies the coastal
act will still facilitating new housing in the coastal zone. Now this amendment
adds new important provisions to the county's LCP dealing with density
bonuses to bring their LCP into compliance with state density bonus law
and it also adds new provisions expanding support and locations where
transitional and supportive housing and residential care facilities may be
be located and new more efficient ways to process those permits. And this
amendment and the solutions that we were able to work out with the local
government as an example of how your staff continues to work with local
governments to expedite new housing projects and LCP amendments in a manner
that is also protective of coastal resources. So in that I'll go ahead and
close and just note that staff is not aware of any opposition to the items
being moved to consent today and thus we're recommending the commission vote
and approve this item. Staff is available for questions. Thank You Mr.
Hudson. Are there any commissioners with an ex parte to report? Seeing none any
members of the public who wish to comment on any of these items? Yes for
item 14a move to consent we have one speaker Jim Holtz here in person. Jim
holts and that is our only speaker for items moved to consent so we just have
this one can you just press the mic button so we can hear you this is for
the record my name is Jim Holtz I made the 10-minute walk from my home on the
homo Sebi strang right over there chair and commissioners I'm here to bring
attention to the County of Hawaii economic impact study on short-term
vacation rentals during 2025 attached to this agenda packet. It is to clarify the
record with neutral government commission analysts. Recently you heard a
frequent testimony from hotel employee unions such as UNITE, HERE, Local 11, and
their affiliated Better Neighbors Los Angeles that relies on commission
research, tailored to supporting stricter limits or complete bans on STRs.
This Hawaii study is different as STRs are an important part of their tourism economy.
They commissioned this neutral study to see how STRs are working for them, should they
have more, less, or otherwise.
So this report has no incentive to have any bias, only accuracy.
But the Hawaii is not the California coastal zone.
The study scope and methods are comparable
and informative for coastal policy.
For example, if SCRs were not available,
24% of SDR visitors would not have made the trip.
That is lost lodging, TOT and offsite spending.
Not a one-to-one shift to hotels.
This is the big one.
Conversion to long-term housing is minimal.
only 4% of owners would definitely convert
to long-term rentals if the SCR was banned,
meaning eliminating SCRs did not yield
a meaningful supply of long-term units.
The majority, 61% of residents,
report no noise or traffic disruption,
and 53% saw no change in neighborhood character.
More than 75% of owners operate a single unit.
please look at the study thank you thank you and as a reminder to my fellow
commissioners what's before us on this consent calendar is the time extension
with that I will return to the Commission and ask if anyone wants to
remove any of these items no such requests I'll entertain a motion
second the motion by Commissioner Lopez a second by Commissioner not off and are
are there any objections to unanimous consent? Seeing none, this consent calendar
is so adopted. Thank you and now we will move on to item 9, the deputy directors
report. Mr. Hudson. Thank you and item 9 is the deputy directors report for the
South Coast District. This month it includes seven permit waivers, two time
extensions, and one objection to an immaterial amendment. The deputy
The director's report includes a memorandum responding to two letters of objection received
from Adam Rose and a group called People of California to the immaterial permit amendment
that was reported at our meeting last month, and that is CDP 5-20-0540-A1.
That was the LA County application dealing with the reauthorization for a five-year period
of a previously approved five-year program for temporary seasonal sand berms protecting
existing structures such as public restrooms and other County Beach
facilities. The letter, the letters from the two opponents contend the
Commission has not had a sufficient opportunity to assess public concerns
that heavy equipment can damage the parking lot impacts might
occur to intertidal species. Structures protected by temporary berms are not in
their opinion in danger and that the berms would block public access and
views and assertions that the project wasn't adequately noticed. Now the
Commission's regulations provide that the executive director must determine why
the received objections to an immaterial amendment raise an issue of
conformity with the Coastal Act or the certified LCP. In this case the
development is in an area without a certified LCP so the standard of review
is whether or not this amendment is conforming to the chapter 3 policies of
Coastal Act. In response to the opponents, the Commission was provided a sufficient
opportunity to assess public concerns regarding the underlying permit and
staff would note that the Commission did have a full public hearing for essentially
this same project authorizing construction of seasonal sand berms of
the same size and locations dating as far back as when the original CDP was
approved in 2003. Since then the project has been subsequently amended seven
times and most recently approved with a new full CDP in 2020. In regard to the
noticing issue, Commission staff would note that the project was noticed in
compliance with the Commission's regulations with both mailed notices to
all property owners within 100 feet and using on-site posting. Potential damage
to county facilities or the parking lot would be an issue for the county and
would be addressed by the applicant, the county, on an as-needed basis pursuant to
their regular maintenance of those facilities. In regard to potential impacts
to access reviews, these temporary berms are considered both low-lying and
limited in length and that allows the public to either traverse around if they
choose not to traverse over the dunes themselves. And nor is the project
expected to result in any new or significant adverse impacts to
biological resources as they're located on the dry portion of the sandy beach
and they use sand that is also collected from the dry portion of the beach. The
The staff does not believe that this amendment raises any issues relative to its conformance
with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, and we continue to recommend the Commission
concur with the executive director's determination that this amendment be deemed immaterial.
In addition, staff also received one objection from a member of the public, Melinda Cotton,
to one of the other time extensions being reported this month, and that's for the reconstruction
the Belmont Public Pool Facility by the city of Long Beach. Now the primary
contention raised in that opposition is that the city intends to reduce the
budget for the project which will necessitate revisions to the previously
approved plans for the project but staff would note that that those changes are
the subject of a related permanent amendment application which will be heard
by this Commission later today and that's item 11a but also note that this
This is the third one-year time extension for this same project and some of the same
issues were raised by opponents during those previous extension requests, including that
the potential revisions to the scope and staff's opinion do not constitate change circumstances
and that such changes would require that separate amendment, which I mentioned will be heard
later on today's agenda.
And thus the appropriate forum for members of the public to raise concerns regarding
those changes would be during item 11a today when the commission will evaluate
and determine whether or not such changes are consistent with the chapter
three policies the Coastal Act. Now pursuant to our commission regulations
in order to deny a permit extension request objections must identify change
circumstances affecting the consistency of the project with the Coastal Act. It
does not provide an opportunity to rehear the merits of the project and for
these reasons the executive director continues to believe that there are no
change circumstances affecting the previously approved developments
consistency of the Coastal Act and we recommend the immaterial time extension
for the Belmont Pool be approved. We're not aware of any opposition to the other
items being reported today and thus we're asking whether three or more
commissioners object to any of the items which action is needed today in the
deputy director's report. Staff is available for questions.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson. Are there any ex partes on the deputy director's report?
Okay, and any speakers on this? No speakers. We do have two available for
questions, one in person and one in zoom. Okay, do three or more commissioners
object to any item in Mr. Hudson's report? Seeing no objections, the commission
concurs. I think now we're gonna take a break for lunch and I'm just gonna ask
my fellow commissioners, do you think we can do it in 45 minutes? Okay, so let's be
back here at 1 15 please thank you okay thank you very much everyone I hope you
all had a good lunch so now we will return to our scheduled items that
brings us to item 10 which is a combined item with 10 a and 12 b sir Hudson okay
and thank you this is item 10 a and 12 be a combined presentation that will be
presented by Danny Ziff, a planning supervisor in our South Coast District. I
would also just note that to allow for the combined presentation, items 11A
and 12A, which also have a combined presentation, will be heard immediately
after items 10A and 12B. All right, and do we do have a PowerPoint already up
and Danny please take it away. All right, good afternoon commissioners. So this is
the presentation, as Steve said, for both items 10A and 12B, which are the
substantial issue determination for the appeal of a coastal development permit
approved by the City of LA and the related dual CDP application for
proposed renovations to an existing restaurant and theater within an
existing apartment hotel building. The applicant is Venice Waldorf LLC and the
appellants are Robin Rudisill with Citizens Preserving Venice and Judith
Roth Goldman and John P. Given with keep neighborhoods first.
The Commission's standard of review for appeals and CDPs in the dual permit jurisdiction area
is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act with the certified Venice land use plan used
as guidance.
Next slide, please.
The subject site is located in Venice within the City of Los Angeles along ocean front
walk which is a boardwalk that separates private properties from the open sandy public beach
public park amenities. The subject site is developed with a five-story plus
basement mixed-use building identified as an apartment hotel with a restaurant
and theater. Next slide. As seen on this next slide the city approved project
involves the renovation of an existing 1,276 square foot ground floor restaurant
and a 706 square foot basement level theater. As proposed the restaurant would
have a seating capacity of 43 and the theater would have 49 seats. Next slide
please. The city's approval of the restaurant theater renovation was
appealed to the Commission with the appellant's primary contention being that
the site underwent an unpermitted change from 36
residential rent stabilized dwelling units to hotel short-term rental units.
They assert that improvements at this site should not be authorized if the
the building's principal use is not legally permitted.
As such, the Appellants argue that the alleged change
in use should have been formally addressed
in the subject local CDP,
and that the alleged unpermitted use must be brought
into conformance with current regulations and policies.
While this contention is not specifically related
to the city approved renovation project,
or a basis for appeal,
the commission staff researched the issue.
The structure was constructed in the 1910s
and was approved by the city as an apartment hotel.
As shown in this slide, the 1967 Certificate of Occupancy
for the site identifies the building as an apartment hotel
with 11 apartments, 22 lighthouse keeping rooms,
and three guest rooms.
In 1969, a subsequent Certificate of Occupancy
was issued to authorize the conversion
of a portion of the existing apartment hotel
and commercial building into a theater.
The restaurant use was included in a 1960 certificate of occupancy for the site.
And so collectively, prior to the passage of Prop 20 and the Coastal Act, the use of
the site was legally developed as an apartment hotel with a restaurant and theater.
In 1985, after passage of the Coastal Act, a new certificate of occupancy describes the
structure as an apartment building.
However, commission staff were unable to locate any documentation indicating that this was
a change in use that occurred prior to passage of Proposition 20 in 1972 or that the required
coastal development permit was processed for such a change of use after enactment of the
Coastal Act.
Therefore, the apartment hotel is considered the legally established use on the site, not
residential only units.
The applicant submitted project plans indicating that the building currently consists of 11
22 light housekeeping rooms and three guest rooms consistent with the 1967
certificate of occupancy. Accordingly, as no work is proposed to the apartment
hotel portion of the building, the scope of the city approval is limited to the
renovations of the existing restaurant and theater on site. Thus, as the apartment
hotel use is the last verified legal use prior to enactment of Prop 20 and the
Coastal Act, the city's decision to keep their review of the project limited to
the restaurant and theater renovations was supported by evidence and no
substantial issue is raised by this contention. Next slide please. The
appellants raise additional concerns that are not valid grounds for appeal
as well as Coastal Act concerns that the project would negatively impact the
community's character, would reduce public access, wasn't properly conditioned
to address coastal hazards and would not protect existing housing stock.
Further the Appellants contend that the project prejudices the ability of the
city to prepare an LCP that is in conformity with Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act and note that the city failed to consider environmental justice and the
affordable housing provisions of the Coastal Act. Contentions relating to the
loss of housing do not raise substantial issue. Commissioned staff agree with the
city that the scope of the development is limited to restaurant and theater
renovations and there's no evidence demonstrating an unpermitted change of
use occurred. While section 30604H allows the
Coastal Commission to consider environmental justice issues, there's no
indication that the restaurant and theater renovation would affect RSO
units. That said, we take concerns about displacement of environmental justice
communities seriously. And although the city's rent
Site stabilization ordinance is not related to the subject project or a standard of review.
Staff are continuing to monitor and investigate current and past use of the apartment hotel.
Regarding community character concerns, as shown on this slide, the LUP designates this
site and adjacent properties as community commercial, which is primarily for visitor
serving commercial uses.
The renovation of the existing restaurant and theater is consistent with this designation
And the theater supports the artistic character of Venice and is expected to be a visitor
destination.
With respect to public access, the project as proposed does not involve expansion of
existing authorized uses or space.
Regarding coastal hazards, the city-approved project does not change the site's vulnerability
or increase the intensity of use in an area vulnerable to hazards.
As it relates to lower cost visitor serving accommodations, the city's omission of findings
was appropriate due to the limited scope of the project.
Lastly, the city approved project is limited to the renovation of the theater and restaurant,
is consistent with the relevant policies of the certified LEP, and thus will not prejudice
the ability of the city to prepare an LCP that is in conformity with chapter three of
the Coastal Act.
Next slide please.
Therefore staff recommends the commission find that the appeal does not raise a substantial
issue regarding the City Approved Development's consistency with Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act. But before moving on to public comment and the appeal motions, we are going to present
the related dual CDP application. Next slide. In City Approval, the applicant proposed replacing
windows and doors on the beach fronting portion of the first floor with bird safe glass, which
is consistent with the biological resource protection policies of Chapter 3. While the
While the project is generally consistent with Chapter 3, a couple potential concerns
relate to the full protection of public access, water quality and improvements from future
sea level rise.
Thus, Special Condition 3 prohibits the restaurant and theater from using single use plastics
to minimize potential impacts to water quality.
Additionally, as the site is vulnerable to flood hazards, Special Condition 5 requires
the applicant to assume the risk of developing in a hazardous area.
Further, Special Condition 1 requires the applicant to detail existing flood proofing
measures on site and submit a plan with additional measures to be undertaken should the existing
measures be insufficient for the life of the development.
As the renovation of the theater and restaurant may generate additional employee and visitor
trips to the site, public access could be affected if those employees or patrons use
public parking intended for beach use.
Soop condition two requires the applicant to submit a traffic demand management plan that provides complementary public access or public transit passes to restaurant and theater employees to minimize vehicle miles traveled and potential access impacts.
Staff also recommends a condition prohibiting encroachments into the public right of way at the site.
As conditioned, the proposed renovations would be consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act.
Next slide, please.
Since publication of the staff report, Commissioned staff received five letters in opposition
to the project and approximately 70 letters supporting the project.
The applicant also submitted over 200 letters from members of the public in support of the
project.
There is an addendum that responds to comments.
concern raised was about the coastal acts mandatory disclosure requirements.
These requirements are not in chapter 3 unless they're not the standard of
review. In any case the applicant included the appropriate agent
authorization disclosure form with its CDP application. There also seemed to be
confusion about whether the CDP applications cover alcohol licensing,
which they do not. Most of the opposition raised concerns relating to the alleged
on permitted use of the site, which was addressed in the staff report and presentation.
The addendum reiterates that the scope of the project is limited to the renovation of the
existing restaurant and theater on site and that there is no other new development on
site that would trigger an action relating to the remainder of the building.
In addition, the record of a 1973 building permit application for the site was received
yesterday that suggests there were proposed modifications to two apartments
within an apartment use after passage of Proposition 20. However it is unclear if
the referenced use is part of the apartment hotel or if the building was
converted to an entirely residential building and if it was converted whether
that action was formally approved or pursued. Regardless this new information
is not relevant to the restaurant and theater renovation. That said, Commission
staff are continuing to monitor and investigate the current and past use of the apartment
hotel and the commission reserves full authority to require appropriate actions for any potential
violations on the project site.
In closing staff recommends that the commission first find no substantial issue with regard
to the contentions on which the appeal has been filed and the motion and resolution to
complete that action can be found on page six of the staff report.
Then staff recommends that the Commission approve the dual CDP application with five
special conditions.
The motion and resolution to complete this action can be found on page 25 of the report.
However, if the Commission determines that the appeal does raise a substantial issue,
the de novo phase of the hearing will occur at a future Commission hearing.
And in that case, Commission staff recommends the Commission continue the dual permit hearing
to a future meeting as well.
This concludes staff's presentation, and we're available for questions.
Thank you very much, Ms. Sipps.
Are there any ex partes?
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
On Tuesday, the 7th of October, at 2.45 p.m., I had a Zoom meeting, but actually, I was
only audio for me.
For 20 minutes with the appellant's,
Robin Rudecil and Dr. Judith Goldman.
They explained why they believe this project
is inaccurately described,
and should be inspected by an independent party.
They insisted that evidence is missing
from the public record,
including the removal of kitchens,
which have been replaced by, I guess, hot plates,
some much less the kitchen and the buildings ongoing operation as a hotel
the piece-mealing of this project restaurant and theater separate from the
intensity of used violations it sets a dangerous president that rewards repeat
violators and undermines the Coastal Act's housing community character and
and EJ provisions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hey, I also had a very brief ex parte
in the course of an ex parte about a different matter.
Last night, at around 8.40 p.m. via telephone,
I spoke with Ann Blemper and Susan McCabe,
agent for the applicant,
and they indicated very briefly
that they are in support of staff recommendations.
Okay, with that.
Oh, I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
I'm sorry, Mr. Jackson.
My apologies, I had a discussion this morning at 7.36
with Robin Rudisill and Allie Beam.
And they, we discussed, they were expressing their concerns
about the loss of housing and the open enforcement actions
from the city as well as from the state.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, appreciate it.
Okay, with that we will open the public hearing,
and I'll turn it over to Chris.
All right, we have the applicants here in person.
Tima Bell and Carl Lambert.
Excuse me, should we begin with the appellant, please?
That's right, we should start with the appellant, sorry.
Okay.
We do have...
You passed.
We have the appellant here as well,
Robin Rudicile and Judy Goldman.
Robin Rudisell citizens preserving Venice.
The loss of 36 rent stabilized homes
is not just about the 36 families who were displaced.
It's about the erasure of housing
for present and future generations.
And that cannot be ignored here.
We can't make up for this level of housing loss
with density bonus projects or any other programs.
And this potential violation is still under investigation
by both the city and coastal enforcement staffs.
Staff relies on a set of plans as evidence
that the building's use matches
the 1967 Certificate of Occupancy,
but plans aren't substantial evidence for use.
You can label the units anything you want on paper,
where's the evidence?
In reality, the building is operating as a hotel.
Why hasn't staff required proof
of long-term rental advertising or rental records
to show actual housing use?
Are a hot plate, a mini fridge, and a little sink
really enough to call a unit housing?
Building code requires permanent kitchen facilities,
not portable hot plates or cook tops.
No piecemealing?
There are six separate state coastal exemptions
that covered all the work to convert to hotel use,
including the removal of the kitchens
and now a restaurant and theater.
That's classic piecemealing.
And your own staff called it that
in one of their enforcement letters.
We've provided substantial evidence
of long-term residential use,
permit documents from 1972, 73, 74, and 75
referencing the building as an apartment house,
an 1985 certificate of occupancy for apartments,
and the rent stabilization ordinance in 1986
confirming all 36 units as housing.
This evidence is far stronger than a 1967 CFO.
I truly don't know what more evidence could be provided
to show a change in intensity of use.
Please declare a substantial issue, deny the permit,
and move forward with enforcement.
At the very least, declare a substantial issue
and schedule a combined de novo and dual permit hearing
to allow full investigation.
Judy Goldman.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
I'm Dr. Judith Goldman from Keep Neighborhoods First.
This applicant seeks approval
only after converting rent-stabilized housing
and operating an unpermitted hotel.
The pattern is back.
Kitchens removed, tenants displaced, community lost,
and still advertised as a hotel without a CDP.
Today he seeks a restaurant and a theater
as if hotel use was already legal.
This is piecemeal approval prohibited under the Coastal Act.
We appreciate the staff addendum confirming this approval
does not legalize hotel use or kitchen removals
and that housing violations remain enforceable.
Yet, granting entitlements risks the opposite signal.
He deploys lobbyists, former staff, former lawyers,
even former commissioners to push approvals
for unpermitted hotels that destroyed RSO housing
and are not visitors serving affordable.
He opposes RSO protections while profiting from the housing those laws were
meant to preserve. In September 2025, the Planning Commission adopted the
short-term rental technical amendment confirming that short-term rentals have
never been legal in apartment hotel buildings. But for him, business as usual
take housing, operate without permits, then seek approval to legitimize violations.
Proving entitlements without addressing hotel use gives a repeat violator a free pass and
tells the public the profits and insiders outweigh city law, outweigh the Coastal Act,
and outweigh displaced residents. Your duty is to protect affordable housing, safeguard Genesis
to vertices and uphold environmental justice.
Affordable housing is the foundation of that diversity.
Once lost, it cannot be replaced.
He is asking you to legalize the hotel.
Not really, he is really asking you to look the other way.
Please say no, protect Venice, protect housing,
protect justice, declare a substantial issue.
Please deny the permit and pursue enforcement.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And then we have applicants next.
Is it on?
Great.
Hi, everybody.
My name is Tima Bell.
I am just for clarity.
I am the Secretary of the Venice Neighborhood Council.
However, I'm not here in that position.
My firm, Bell Design Group, is the architect
for the project. We're the architect for the hotel and we're the architect for the restaurant
and the theater. I want to thank the commissioners, staff and Emily for putting together a really
reasoned staff report. I want to clarify that we found the recommendations accurate and
appropriate and we're prepared to follow the requirements. It's a historical theater,
little background on the restaurant. I'm a lifelong Venetian. My parents used to
take me there as a kid. So I'm glad that the restaurant will be put back in the
bottom. I think it is a visitor serving use that will benefit obviously the
locals and the visitors alike. As was told earlier in the report, hundreds of
letters of support. Even now we have I think 34 people here in the audience. We
have 14 on Zoom. Want to stand up everyone that is in support of this. So
you're gonna hear a lot of people come and talk in support. I do also want to
make it clear that we're not expanding the square footage of the project. This
is encased within the building. These are existing spaces and that we're actually
were staying consistent with the size that's listed on the certificate the
existing certificate of occupancy that recognizes the theater and the and the
restaurant. Yeah so again the conditional conditions that you're proposing are
acceptable. I'm also a restaurant owner in Venice and I am very pleased that you
put on the no-plastic we make sure to do that for our restaurant as well so
personally I want to thank you for that and also on the table I really want to
talk about it I permitted this building it took a lot of work with a lot of
communication there was no pulling the wool over anyone's eyes as to what we
represented we wanted to be I want to make that clear from my position as the
architect I have there's any more time I reserve it for rebuttal or questions if
There are any.
We have two more minutes.
I just want to say thank you very much for your time.
And thank you for the staff report.
Sir, can you give us your name, please?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Carl Lambert, applicant.
And it was a labor of love to put this building, 110-year-old
building, back together.
Nothing straight, nothing level, nothing plumb.
Great architect and team to put it back together
restore something that really wasn't functioning. Anyway, I do want to say
thank you to all the people that have come out to support. This property has
been through all of the city agencies and they've all signed off and approve
my use and so thank you very much and I do appreciate a positive vote on this.
Thank you. Thank you. We'll reserve one minute for you. All right moving on to
the general public we have 33 speakers signed up, 19 in person. We'll start with
Allie Bean, David S Ewing, Margaret Malloy. Allie Bean. Good morning
commissioners. I'm Allie Bean. I'm speaking today. I'm a board member of
Citizens Preserving Venice but I'm also a three-term member of the Venice
neighborhood council and I chair the housing and homelessness committee which
is really why I'm here this year we added the word housing to our committee
to underscore the dire nature of our affordable housing crisis in Venice
right now we've historically been an incredibly diverse community racially
culturally especially economically two-thirds of our population are renters
and a lot of those renters low-income but the very economic diversity that I'm
talking about that makes Venice so unique and draws so many eclectic people
here over the years making us the number two tourist attraction to Disneyland has
decreased significantly recently and in great part due to the erosion of our
existing affordable housing stock by projects like the Venice V Hotel. I just
don't understand why at this time of a housing crisis would it be okay to take
away existing affordable housing units in the case of this developer and I mean
and I love team is work is beautiful,
but there's been a lot of these buildings,
five historic apartment hotels on the boardwalk.
All of them were proven rent stabilized tenants,
which is the fabric of our community
now converted into short term rentals and hotels.
And many of them without first obtaining
change of use permits.
I'm baffled by how this is happening.
I don't understand it.
Reflecting the spirit of commissioner Turnbull Sanders,
I'm gonna be passionate about this.
please, we want to encourage you,
please do follow up on the research
of whether this is a legal hotel or not.
Our findings are it's always been RSO
and it's the fabric of our community
and it's happening like dominoes in Venice
and we desperately need you as the Coastal Commission
to help us keep affordable housing in Venice.
Thank you so much and God bless you.
Good to be sure.
Turn call Sanders.
David S. Ewing, Margaret Malloy, and then Dafdil Tinsley.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
I'm David Ewing with Citizens Preserving Venice.
Mr. Lambert's project, at the 2015 hearing on Mr. Lambert's
two breeze project, Chair Kinsey scolded Lambert
and levied a fee of over $100,000
to quote, send a pretty strong message
that these after the fact permits don't serve anyone,
especially we as a commission, end quote.
He also elicited a confession from Lambert
that he'd already done the same thing
with another building in the dual permit zone.
And in that hearing,
Steve Hudson committed staff to an investigation
of the other Lambert properties.
And I would like to ask, was that investigation ever done?
Was there ever any report?
Peace Mealing and after the fact permits
have been Mr. Lambert's business model for decades now,
costing our coastal community
over 120 affordable residential units.
How many times does this applicant get to say,
I'm sorry, before you say, no, sorry's not enough?
How many times does it take the commission
to recognize a pattern of behavior
and respond to it?
Why does this applicant deserve a presumption
that this time he's not doing what he's always done before?
Don't be like Charlie Brown with a football.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Margaret Malloy, Daffodil Tinsley,
Ronald Paul Charbonneau.
Hello commissioners, I was at that November 4, 2015 hearing
on the after the fact approval of 100%
or also apartment building to a hotel.
And at the time I showed these pictures and these websites
and nothing has happened.
And this applicant has set precedent,
set precedent to the point where like there is currently
a short term rental technical or amendment ordinance
in front of the city council
to confirm the city's long standing rules
governing the use of dwelling units
short-term rental occupancies to protect the use of any dwelling unit, guestroom, or
suite in any dwelling and apartment house from illegal short-term rental
occupancies. The ordinance responds to the decision in people of the city of
State of California versus Venice Suites LLC, Mr. Lambert. Cumulative impact, Section
30105.5 of the Coastal Act, you must look at the cumulative impact of
of this one individual and the people he's got with him,
all chamber of commerce,
all people who want this commercial zest in spite of the law.
So I'm citing you the laws that mandate
that you deny the permit as a matter of law.
It is public resources code 30319.
The status of a hotel at this location
was discussed and arbitrated behind the scenes
by Steve Kaufman, former general counsel
to the attorney general off the records.
Government code, I mean, California Code of Regulations
132, 00 to 13208, claim of a vested rights,
mandates that the applicant apply to the Coastal Commission,
that there be findings by the executive director,
that there be a public hearing,
Didn't happen.
He didn't provide the disclosures for Kaufman or others.
Public Reform Act requires lobbying registrations.
There are no lobbying registrations
for Susan McCabe, Ann Blemker, Steve Kaufman, McCabe
and Company, or Kaufman at Nosseman from 2016 until today
when these permits were used.
We must deny the primitives a matter of law.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Daffodil Timsley, Ronald Paul Charbonneau,
and then Pamela London.
Good afternoon.
My name is Daffodil Timinski.
I am a neighbor of the project.
I live on a small walk street a few blocks away,
and I wholeheartedly support the project, as do my neighbors.
Even more importantly, though, for our purposes today,
I was the attorney that represented Mr. Lambert
before his city hearings about the very issues that
are raised in this appeal.
These appellants have done a great job
of raising this issue again and again and again.
And every agency, every city actor that passed on this case
denied their arguments and denied their appeal
because they're simply incorrect.
They're incorrect as a matter of fact.
They're incorrect as a matter of law and as a matter of process.
In terms of process, there was some talk about the interim short-term rental ordinance that
was claimed to have been passed.
There was no ordinance passed.
There was a proposed ordinance that was discussed, and the Planning Commission moved it to City
Council for review.
It has not been reviewed by the City Attorney and it has not been reviewed by higher-ups
in planning.
So I just want to make that clear.
There is nothing out there that should stop this project.
It has had tremendous support, tremendous review, and I suggest that you deny this appeal
grant the community the benefit of this project. One last point, very often this
Commission looks at the Venice land use plan to talk to look at what the
community character is in Venice. The original Waldorf Hotel from 1915 is
actually one of the properties that both Venice and Coastal believe contributes
to Venice's community character. There's a reference to this on the staff report
on page 17. But this entire project is completely consistent with both the
vision of Venice of the community and of the Coastal Commission. Thank you.
Thank you. Ronald Paul Charbonneau, Pamela London, George Francisco. Good
afternoon commissioners and staff. My name is Ronald Charbonneau. I've been a
tenant at the Venice Waldorf since 1976. I like to express my unwavering support
of the Venice Waldorf LLC application to renovate the existing ground floor
restaurant and basement performance venue with approval of the conditional
use permit for the sale and provision of alcoholic beverages.
I'm thrilled by the quality of the renovations to the current Venice V Hotel.
Carl Lambert restored this building to its former beauty and elegance, investing and
preserving a vintage appearance while updating its infrastructure.
I believe that the revitalization process is necessary to maintain economic vitality
for the local community.
Much like a growing hermit crab abandons its old shell for Nuon, the Venice Ocean Front
Walk is an international tourist destination that would welcome an oceanside restaurant
and intimate basement performance space
with a provision of alcoholic beverages.
This venue will be embraced by both local residents
and tourists alike who would be afforded an opportunity
to relax and enjoy the ambiance of the Venice Beach,
bringing more people into proximity
with the beautiful California coast.
I fully support the commissioner's staff's
recommendation for approval of this application. Thank you for your time and
kind consideration. Thank You Pamela London, George Francisco and Yolanda
Gonzalez. Good afternoon. As a permanent resident of the Venice V Hotel, after
living in the Waldorf for 40 years, I'm very happy to give my full support for
for the approval of the conditional use permit for the sale and service of alcoholic beverages.
The return of restaurant to the Venice V is very exciting. For many years in the 70s and
80s we frequented the Lafayette Cafe on the ground floor of the Waldorf, where we enjoyed
the community vibe and had a social gathering place. I'm very excited for the opportunity
to have a place to dine and share a drink with friends right downstairs.
The basement theatre performance space is especially exciting to me.
It will be a wonderful place for creative expression
where Venetians and tourists alike can come together
to enjoy varied artistic modalities,
a vibrant creative enhancement for our Venice community
and for the many visitors who come from all over the world
to experience how wonderful Venice is.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation
for the respect, grace, and ease.
Carl Lambert has shown us through the stunning renovation
of the Venice V. It was pretty horrible before.
I won't go into detail because I don't have time here.
But yeah, we had a lot of horrible issues
that we lived with for many, many years.
So we're very appreciative.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation
for Carl Lambert and the stunning renovation
of the Venice V.
And I am confident that Carl and his team
will be respectful operators of the proposed venues
just as they are with the hotel property.
It will be a phenomenal positive change
for our whole community.
Please pass the conditional use permit.
It will make Venice an even more wonderful place
locals and tourists together. Thank you. Thank you. George Francisco, Iolanda
Gonzalez, and then Vigla Halladay. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is
George Francisco. I am here today on behalf of the WC-3, the Westside
Council of Chambers of Commerce representing the entire economy of the
west side of Los Angeles, and also the LA County Business Federation. I'm the
board chair of the WC-3, every single business organization representing
hundreds of businesses, thousands of employees in contributing billions of
dollars to the economy of the west side take seriously our tourism industry. One
of every five jobs on the west side of LA is tourism-based. We welcome and
support another visitor-serving amenity and we complement you and your staff on
the proper determination and dismissal of the specious appeal. There are no
considerations. There are no errors. There are no substantial issues. More
personally, I'm a direct neighbor of this property in several blocks. It is not an
understatement to say that Venice and the hospitality industry has suffered
since COVID. This will be an incredibly positive step to bringing people back to
Venice to fulfilling the mission of the Coastal Commission, which is to provide
visitor serving amenities. More than that, people come to Venice because of the
culture, not because of affordable housing. The person who said we need
affordable housing actually lives in three RSO buildings on her property.
Again, I compliment you, I thank you, I hope you dismiss yet another species of
appeal from citizens perverting Venice and support the application. Thank you.
Thank you Yolanda Gonzalez, Vikla Halliday, Barry Casalee. Good afternoon
commissioners my name is Yolanda Gonzalez and I am for the record on the
neighborhood council but I'm here on representation of myself and I just want
to say that Miss Robin Rudisell did not displace this place that she is on the
neighborhood council and she sits on Lupeck as a matter of fact. I am a
property owner I've been a property owner for over 35 years. My husband and I
have owned affordable and HUD projects. We understand how they have to be
financed, how they have to be taken care of, and most important it's us, the
obligation to put tenants through to progress. It's not about getting a free
ride on affordable housing and just a free ride on subsidized housing. Most
important our community right now is really suffering not only because of the
fires but we have a lot of business people that lost their homes and they
need to survive on the income that they have of the RSO projects that we have.
It's very important for you to understand that money and understanding
of what it is to own property and the rates that we are put on and the
Council of Insurance Policy is putting us against the wall. I want to support
Carl Lambert, because not only does he come from a family of renovating important historical
projects in historical places throughout the United States.
We are losing the best of the best that we have and we need to keep them.
You need to keep us.
You need to keep us because we employ.
We have the financial ability to be able to reconstruct in our community.
I've been a community survivor of 50 years in Venice.
I am a naturalized citizen and that's why I came to this country.
I please beg you to support us and what we need in our community right now for our business
growth, for our businesses, and for the people that have at least the ability to keep investing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Vikla Halliday, Barry Cassilly, Nadine Rosales.
Hi, I'm Vicki Halliday, I live by the beach. I'm on at least a walk down ocean
front walk at least once a day if not two or three times. A lot of businesses
are shuttered, there are for lease signs, for sale signs. I beg you deny this
appeal and let a business open that will help us. We need the energy back
And this project will help bring it. Thank you. Thank you.
Barry Casley Nadine Rosales, Jeff Harris. Hi, my name is Barry Casley. I live half
a block from this proposed restaurant. I want just want to assure you that in the
neighborhood there is nothing but support for this restaurant reopening.
The last speaker's right, the Boardwalk is in trouble.
We desperately need more activation,
positive activity on the Boardwalk.
And as neighbors, we want a place in our neighborhood
that we can go to.
The overwhelming majority of people who live
in the immediate neighborhood
are living in rent control apartments.
I deeply resent people who do not live in the neighborhood,
who live in multimillion-dollar single-family homes,
which characterizes every one of the appellants,
except for one who doesn't live in Venice at all.
I deeply resent them coming in
and talking about affordable housing in my neighborhood.
I deeply resent them coming in here
and characterizing my neighborhood.
We want this restaurant.
Thank you.
Thank you, Nadine Rosales, Jeff Harris, Ingrid Moeller.
Good afternoon, my name is Nadine Rosales.
I serve as a treasurer for the Venice Chamber of Commerce,
the Venice Historical Society,
the Pacific Area Boosters Association
for the Pacific Division Police Department,
and I am currently working at the LGBT Center in Long Beach.
I am here today to express my support for Mr. Lambert
and his appeal regarding the renovation
of the Venice Waldorf Hotel,
which includes the establishment of the restaurant
and a 43 seat theater.
By approving this project, Mr. Lambert will create
at least 12 new jobs, which is crucial to our community,
especially in light of the numerous businesses
that have been forced to close,
including my own control printing
due to the pandemic and other natural disasters.
This renovation has the potential to attract tourists
and generate significant revenue for our area,
particular with the upcoming 2028 Olympics in the horizon.
Furthermore, I want to highlight that Mr. Lambert is a vital
pillar of our community.
His dedication and contributions have made a lasting impact,
and I believe that supporting this project will further
enhance our local economy and the community spirit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
Jeff Harris, Ingrid Moeller, Mark Ryovek.
Good afternoon commissioners and thank you for your contributions to this hearing and
thank your families for donating your time.
I am currently serving as a board member for the Venice Business Improvement District.
I joined the district because here as obviously as a resident, but I joined the district because
I realized that without the help of private industry the boardwalk would belong to the
homeless and the drug craze and drunken people that come to the for walk from
all over the world the locals like Carl Lambert and other civic-minded
individuals have to compete with that kind of energy that's out there so the
Venice Chamber of Commerce they created the business the the art crawl in order
to have a nighttime relevance down at the boardwalk.
So without businesses like Carl Lambert's and other businesses
that have a nighttime presence, the boardwalk
would belong to the homeless and the undesirables that
find themselves there just festering.
So again, I urge you to reject this redundant appeal
and approve this project.
We desperately need that kind of energy down there.
At the Boer Walk, we need civic-minded individuals
that actually care about the community
and don't just exploit it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ingrid Moeller.
Mark Ryvek, Kathy H.
Hello.
Hello again.
I'm still not prepared, but I would
like you to please take note of something
that occurred two years ago on Venice Boulevard
at the Beyond Baroque building.
It was an exhibit entitled, Where
Has All the Affordable Housing Gone?
And a former Venice tenant who was
elised out of her apartment is a filmmaker.
And she created an exhibit at Beyond Baroque.
So if you go to beyondbaroque.org, please,
you will find a link to the exhibit,
the stories, the poetry, the art
that was connected with where has all
the affordable housing gone.
And that's the name of the link that you can press on.
And it has extremely important information
about why the Venice community,
especially those that have been there most of their lives.
I'm only there for 38 years,
so I call myself a babe in the woods at age 82.
And you will see what the concern,
what the anger and some of the negative feelings are
that what we call serial gentry fires
is still at work.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mark Ryovek, Kathy Eich, Alex Dowell.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Harmon
and members of the Commission.
My name is Mark Ryovek.
I'm a 35-year resident of Venice.
I live about four blocks from the hotel.
I'm speaking to you today from two backgrounds.
One is as a coastal activist for many, many years,
including working with this commission many years ago.
And also, as an historic preservationist,
I have over the last 35 years restored a 2300 square foot
home built by Abbott Kinney, senior architect,
corner of Rialto and Andalusia, was built in 1905.
So that makes it 125 years now, or 100.
And so I also was speaking, first off,
as president of the Venice Stakeholders Association,
a nonprofit that was established 15 years ago to work
on public safety, historic preservation, landscaping,
and beautification projects and parking on behalf of residents.
We're a 501C3.
I also have a background as the former pro bono lobbyist for No Oil, Inc. in its successful
effort to ban oil drilling on LA's coast on PCH.
The folks who were here earlier from the Palisades will remember my work.
I was one of the instigators of Prop O that won voter approval and banned oil drilling
on LA's coastline.
I was also co-founder of the American Oceans campaign with Ted Danson and we were the ones
that provided the leadership in Washington to ban oil drilling on the entire California
coastline. AOC is now Oceana. So I have a strong background both in protecting the coast
and in historic preservation. And I've worked with your organization both to get the whale's
tail finally approved. I organized the press conference that put Baywatch actors
with one of your rails tail. So that's all to say. I think I have a little
credibility on this issue and I just want to remind you there is nothing
about the residential use of this building that is legally before you
today. You only have an historic restoration project of a restaurant
and a small theater. Thank you for your time. Kathy H., Alex Dowell, Ed is in
Stowell. Hello my name is Kathy Hart and I, hi my name is Kathy Hart and I am a
long lifetime resident of Venice. We moved to California when I was nine
years old. I went to Westminster Elementary School, graduated from Venice
high school. I met my husband at the Venice Cannonball courts. We got married
in a restaurant on Venice boardwalk. We had our children, raised our
children, brought them to the beach and they grew up there just as we did when
we were children. I just want to say I support this project. I bring my
grandchildren now who live out of the area to Venice Beach to the boardwalk
and I think this project will bring nothing more than just another great
option for both the locals and tourists and then additionally create jobs for
the Venice community. Thank you. Thank you. Alex Dowell, Edison's Dowell, and
Christopher Sharp. Hello my name is Alex Stowell. I live on the boardwalk kind of
right by Muscle Beach. I've been in the same building for 23 years. I met my
wife at puzzle beach in 2000 and we started a company selling photo key
chains on the boardwalk I now the chair of the Venice tourism committee for the
Chamber of Commerce and I am the founder and organizer of the Venice Beach games
I would like to express my support for this project for all the right reasons
it will bring much-needed vibrancy, provide jobs, it's going to be good for
tourists and the locals, points that you've heard, but should be reordered. I
do find it rich that the people appealing this live in million dollar
homes and the canals and walk streets and complain about affordable housing.
Thank you. Thank you. Edison Stoll, Christopher Scharf and then Mitch
Silverstein. Those are our last three in-person speakers and we'll move to
Zoom. Hi everyone. I just want to first say thank you very much for this
platform. This is my first time speaking. I'm a little nervous. I'm gonna take a
little breath here. So I just want to say my name is again Edison Stoll. I am the
wife of that fine gentleman and his awesome assistant. We've been together
for 25 years. We are renters for 25 years. I would love to own a home. I'm working
my butt off and we are working our butt off as a team to try to make that happen.
Who knows? Anyways, Venice Art Crawl. I have one of the co-founders of the
Venice Art Crawl.
It's celebrated 16 years.
We run two local websites, one VenicePaparotti.com.
Discover Venice Beach, VenicePaparotti.com is a big
photo album for the West Side.
We've covered over about 1,600 events since 2003.
He mentioned we started on the boardwalk with a 2.0
Kodak camera.
Now we are doing a lot of photo booths around town on
the West Side.
Anyways, let's start with a little history of, let me take
breath. How much time do I have? One minute, okay. Let's start with a little history of
the hotel and Venice. Founded in 1905 by our Venice founder, Abbott Kinney. That building,
Venice v. Hotel, is a 1915 Venice landmark. Venice is 120 years old. Its birthday is July
4th, again 1905. Founded, it's a 110-year-old building, which is Venice. My birthday, FYA
In fact, it's November 16th.
That is Abbot Kinney's birthday.
I will be hosting a party.
No, I'm just joking.
So I did ask chat GPT.
My friend calls him Chad.
I just started using Chad two months ago,
and I actually freaking love it.
It's incredible.
So I asked the question, what was Venice, California's
founder's vision for our lovely seaside getaway?
This is what it said.
A cultural resort by the sea, Kinney
wanted Venice to be more than a beach town.
How much time do I have?
OK.
How much?
Two seconds.
Oh my god.
He envisioned a place of art, education, and recreation,
a kind of intellectual playground
for Southern California.
It was designed as a destination where people could enjoy
both entertainment and cultural.
Anyways, that being said, let's keep art alive.
And that's what this theater and this art and restaurant
is going to do.
Thank you so much for this time.
Thank you.
Christopher Scharf.
Honorable commissioners.
My name is Christopher Sharpe.
I'm a long time Venice property owner
and have been involved in Venice for my life.
I urge you to reject the appeal before you,
move forward with the conditional use permit
for the sale of alcohol at the Venice V Hotel.
The investment in the hotel and the theater
is vital to the community.
I have a 58 unit apartment building, a few doors down.
This will help us recover from the pandemic and the fire.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And then Mitch Silverstein was signed up
for a different item.
So we will be moving on to Zoom.
Our first three Zoom participants will be Natalie Moreno,
Maura O'Neill, and then Noel Gold.
A reminder to Zoom participants that as we promote you in
as panelists to speak, please keep your videos
mics off until we ask you to speak. Thank you. So Natalie Moreno, Maura O'Neill, and then Noel
Gold. And Natalie, we seem to be having trouble promoting you as a panelist. You're in as a
an attendee and can unmute now. Natalie? Okay, I'm not seeing any movement from Natalie.
Next will be Maura O'Neill and then Noel Gold followed by Max Bean. Maura O'Neill.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Maura O'Neill. I'm a policy analyst for Better
Neighbors LA, a coalition of host tenants, housing activists, and community members. In the Coastal
Zone, we try to advocate for regulating short-term rentals to balance coastal access and long-term
housing. On this issue, we urge the Coastal Commission to deny the Coastal Development
Permit application for the Venice Waldorf. This project represents a violation of both municipal
law in the Coastal Act and approving it would set a dangerous precedent.
The Waldorf property has been converted from a residential apartment complex historically
composed of 36 rent-stabilized units into an unlicensed hotel comprised of short-term
rentals that directly violate the City's home-sharing ordinance.
The Coastal Commission has not authorized this use and the applicant is now seeking
approval for the project that has already displaced affordable housing and undermined
coastal protections. This is especially concerning considering that these rent
stabilized units have been replaced with short-term rentals, some of which
charge more than $600 a night. These are not affordable accommodations for coastal
visitors nor do they serve the public interest. By approving this permit the
Commission will reward breaking Coastal Act regulations and encourage future
illegal conversion of scarce residential housing. We urge the commission to follow the recommendations
of Keep Neighborhoods First, to deny the coastal development permit and pursue enforcement action
to reclaim the 36 units of affordable housing that have been lost to the illegal operation
of the Waldorf as an unlicensed short-term rental hotel. Thank you for your time today.
Thank you. Next, Noel Gold, Max Bean, and then Taylor Sheridan. Noel Gold. And then you're still
muted. There you go. Can you how, uh, is the video on a play? I can't see the time. I would like the
video to start and then the timer perhaps. Okay, we have your video ready to go. Let us know when
you want to play. And then, yeah, could you start the video? I have a few things to say. One, um,
I wanted to actually follow up on Commissioner Schallenberg's point that that was of great concern to me as well
And I wondered if mr. Lambeau would come forward so I could ask you the question
Sure. Are you currently advertising any short-term rentals that are not permitted?
Yes, I'm in the process on
The original building that I bought in the 90s and it was in
Deploy you touch something actually. Thank you. I just really needed to know the answer to that question
So, with that, I'm going to make an amending motion, if there's a second, that we increase
the permit fee to $102,924 from the $37,264 that was identified on the basis that we do
have the opportunity to charge five times the standard application fee for after the
the fact permits and if there's a second I'll speak to that.
So Commissioner Uranga mentioned it, it puts us in a difficult place, the applicant himself
has acknowledged that this isn't the first and the only time and so I think that this
is really one of the few ways we have of saying that it's important not to go out and do what
you think you want to do and then come back and say give me the permission to do it.
aware of the amending motion to go to the full amount under the available
under the Coastal Act the five times for the after the fact permit yeah sure
Kenzie asks are you currently advertising any short-term rentals that
are not permitted and mr. Lambert says yes later Kenzie says the applicant
himself has acknowledged that this isn't the first and only time by his own
admission mr. Lambert acknowledges a pattern of practice of fighting
violating the law and should be more closely scrutinized. So please find
substantial issue with this. It's not that the restaurant is bad but it can't
be separated from the housing that has been lost. That's piecemealing, not allowed. Thank you.
Thank you. Max Bean, Taylor Sheridan, and then Gary Sutter. Max Bean.
Hello. I'm resident of Venice. Can you hear me? And then we also have your video.
Let us know when you want it to be played
Yeah, I'm just gonna say I'm Max Bean. I'm a
Over 40 year resident of Venice
I'm opposed to this and let's start the video and if I have any little time after I'll get
long-time resident of Venice. I've been living in this apartment the Waldorf apartments in Venice Beach for about
15 years, I believe about three years ago a
new owner bought the building a developer Lambert investments and
The every tenant that has left or been kicked out has been replaced with basically a keypad
of the doors.
When I moved here about 15 years ago, this building was an incredible place to live.
It's an old building in the Venice Boardwalk, small apartments, but a really wonderful community
with an incredible situation.
Having short-term renters in our building, we just don't know who is coming here to
stay or is maybe someone that just broke in.
Many times the short-term renters are here to party and so there's a lot of
more noise, drunk people in our common areas, again people coming in and out.
I've had people trying to get into the apartment in the middle of the night
and trying to put a key in or whatever and then realize it's just really a
drunk confused tourist that is trying to get
into what he thinks is his hotel room. Before we used to know
all our neighbors you could just go knock on someone's door and say hey no matter what the
time was and now it's basically either empty or a bunch of strangers. The apartment building has
32 units of those only about 10 units remain with long-term residents. Thank you yeah so just just to
say I'm just yeah I'm opposed to the project we do the loss of all the rent stabilized housing
units that would result as a result of this. Thank you. That's it.
Thank you. Before we go on, could I ask that we please put the signs down? It's a bit distracting.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Taylor Sheridan, followed
by Gary Sutter and then Elizabeth Peterson Gower. Taylor Sheridan.
is Taylor Sheridan. Hi. Hello.
Um so my name is Taylor
Sheridan and I have worked on
the Venice Beach boardwalk
altogether close to 20 years.
Um and the boardwalk is in
desperate need of revitalization.
Um so this project needs to be
approved. Um. It will bring
visitors and locals alike. So please deny this appeal and approve this project. Thank you.
Thank you and before we go ahead I'll just note that we have five more speakers that we're able
to find. Gary Sutter, Elizabeth Peterson-Gower and Frank Murphy are next. Gary Sutter.
Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yes, my name is Dr. Gary Sutter. I've been a
resident and property owner in Venice for over 40 years and I had a long list of supporting points
for this project but most of my predecessors have covered all that and I agree with all of them
so I will be very brief and say I think this is a great asset to Venice and I support the project
strongly. Thank you. Thank you. Next Elizabeth Peterson Gower, Frank Murphy, Justin Brezhnev.
Elizabeth Peterson Gower. Yes. Good afternoon. Can you hear me please? Yes, we can hear you.
Oh, great. Thank you. Elizabeth Peterson Gower. I was born and raised in Santa Monica and Venice.
I want to let you know that I did the entitlements for this project and I'm very proud of them.
The V Hotel opened in May of 1915 as the Venice Waldorf. It was exclusive and luxurious. It was
the home to Charlie Chaplin, Freddie Arbuckle and Clara Bowe. Part of Venice's early development and
rise as a recreational and destination between 1910 and 1930. Today Venice is on the boulevard
is still one of the largest tourist attractions in the world actually and I wanted to let you
know that the extensive renovations were aimed at saving and protecting this building which
included structural upgrades adding an electrical vault and really plumbing the entire building.
Thus the savings and protection the building allowed this beloved building to continue its
legacy in the past, present, and future. The property has gone through the
extensive renovations aimed at saving and protecting the building which
includes the structural upgrades and everything that I just mentioned. It's
very, very important that this building survive and thrive as part of the legacy
and history of Venice in the boardwalk. The approval that was requested for the
CEP for alcohol sales and service will enhance the ground floor of the historic
property by making it a way for a vibrant restaurant and a theater, bring back the property's
historic ambiance and character, reestablish the historic basement theater, use developing
new talent in many mediums, and allowing the use for the community and special events.
The preservation of this building was over $10 million.
The new square footage is not being added to the subject property.
The CHP requires fully compliant with the Venice Coastal Zone's specific plan, the Venice
Coastal Land Use Plan and the Los Angeles Municipal Code. We have no zone changes, no
general plan amendments, no variances or exceptions were requested. The Los Angeles
Police Department acknowledge that a vibrant ground floor restaurant will assist safety
issues on the street. The boardwalk would be much more vibrant with the building here. Thank you.
Thank you. Next Frank Murphy, Justin Brezhnev, and then Dom Ferrellini. Frank Murphy.
Thank you Frank Murphy. I'm a resident and participant in Venice for the past 50 years.
The intent of this appeal is meant to frustrate opportunities in Venice, denying employment and
neighborhood businesses. Meaningful appeals are instrumental to public input, not these types of
issue shopping appeals meant to frustrate solutions. This abuse of the appeal process gives a bad name
to meaningful constructive uses. The staff should be supported and this appeal ignored. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Justin Brezhnev. I see that you're on a phone. You should be able to unmute now.
Greetings, folks. Thank you so much to the California Coastal Commission for your diligence
and for allowing me to speak. My name is Justin Brezhnev. I was formerly on the Venice Neighborhood
Council. I'm currently on the board of the Venice Chamber. I'm the founder of Venice LDA,
legal document assistance. I'm also the founder, secretary, and treasurer of the
Law Office Study Foundation, and also the founder and executive director of
Hackers Fund. We serve 60,000 students each year, all across the coast, California.
All of these organizations, Venice LDA, Law Office Study Foundation, and Hackers
Fund, were born in Venice. We serve the Venice community, and specifically I
oftentimes am the voice for the youth, and it looks like based on this
committee hearing, I might be that voice again. And so when I was neighbor to
Council as the youngest member.
And my goal was to tirelessly bring innovation
and youth-powered civic engagement to the boardwalk.
Carl has always been a representative of the youth
in getting the boardwalk to be a safe place.
Since COVID youth have been avoiding the boardwalk
due to the safety issues that arise when the sun goes down,
the restaurants and the theater
will bring safety back to the boardwalk.
And hopefully our organization will be there
to ensure that our youth continue
inspire and educate those that come to Venice, as tourists, what art really is.
We're undeniably supporting this development, specifically for the restaurants and theater
for our community. Thank you so much. Thank you. Dom Peroni? Yeah, hi. I've lived in Venice for many,
many years, and after COVID, we just witnessed the downfall with the homeless and what's gone on
with the boardwalk and I fully support the approval of this development for the restaurant
theater. I think it's going to bring a lot of jobs back to the area. And as mentioned before,
Venice is a very tourist population and with the amount of homeless people
that have been on the boardwalk, this will bring the energy back, which Venice desperately needs.
All right, thank you. We did have one speaker pop in that we weren't able to find,
Keith Lambert. Keith Lambert, go ahead. Keith, you're in as a panelist you should be able to
unmute. Thank you. I'd like to speak in favor of this project. The land use does not conflict with
the area or the community. I have clients and friends who are musicians who've been nearby
and have performed in that theater below and getting this back online to where it can be a part
of this musical and vibrant community is really a very big part of why Venice Beach is such a
beautiful spot for artists of all types. So I'd really like to see this part that you're
considering today approved. So thank you very much. Thank you. And then our last three speakers
that we weren't able to find, Antonio Taylor, Tim Bonefeld, Christina Kraus. If I've called your
name please raise your hand Antonio Taylor Tim Bonefeld and Christina
Krauss all right I'm seeing no hands raised madam chair thank you very much
and I will return to the applicant who has one minute reserved you'd like to
take it now okay thank you very much with that we will close the public
hearing and I'll return to miss Zipp thank you all right so first we just
want to thank all of the speakers for sharing their passion about Venice you
know it's a designated a special coastal community for a reason and I would also
like to note that Commission staff have been actively researching the history of
this area including changes in affordable housing availability and
related displacement within the coastal zone. In this case we do not have enough
information to suggest that there has been loss of 36 affordable or RSO units
at this site and while it's not the subject of the local action and dual
CDP application before the commission, we will continue looking into it as social diversity
is an important component of the community character that makes Venice a visitor-serving
destination.
There was a question raised about whether there's been an investigation into this issue
in the past.
And I just want to note our enforcement staff looked into this in 2017, but based on the
information available, it was determined at the time that the building has consistently
been a mix of apartment and hotel uses.
Again, we will continue to evaluate alleged violations as new information becomes available.
In any case, our determination was based on the last known legal use of the site, which
is apartment hotel.
There is no request before the city or the commission for a new or after the fact change
to the underlying use of the building, and no such request is anticipated.
The subject development affects less than 10% of the building and is limited to the
renovation of the existing restaurant and theater.
with that I'll pass it off to Steve. And with that I and he actually said it all
so I am just going to just wrap it up and also thank the speakers all the
speakers today for their participation and although our staff is recommending
no substantial issue with the appeal and approval of the dual CDP it's not
because we don't agree with the concerns and the frustrations that we heard today
day of course we do the loss of affordable housing in all our
communities is of utmost importance and as Danny had said we'll continue to
enforce violations investigate matters but we don't believe that this project
is the correct forum to address that problem today for the reasons that Danny
just mentioned so with that I'm going to close the the staff comment and turn it
back over, turn the mic back over to the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Hudson and I
will just reiterate I guess for the third time that the apart hotel is
really not before us today so I would encourage commissioners to keep that in
mind with our comments and questions. First, Commissioner Bocco. I just very
briefly I have just a small question and I do understand that we're just looking
a theater and a hotel but since the staff report was fairly detailed I felt
that it was important for you to decide whether or not the permitted use of that
hotel could affect our decision about the renovation of the theater and the
restaurant if that correct sure just to respond we did evaluate that question
we're not able we legally we're not able to reach toward resolution of even
potential violations unless there's an integral connection between the violation
and the development before us. In this case we don't feel that there is that
connection, that the restaurant and the basement theater are discrete and
separate uses and thus there's no after the fact component to this application
before us today. Well that's interesting, I didn't gather that from the report so
thank you I really appreciate that. So then my question is irrelevant but I'd
like to know is this an affordable hotel I mean the rates we do not have any
rates rate information available but it doesn't matter right okay thank you
mr. Kelly and thank you I and I appreciate the question Commissioner
Bocco because I was also on the same curiosity I I want to just I don't I'm
struggling with how to articulate this. I want to thank the members of the
public who are here today with us regarding this this issue as well as
those who participated on Zoom today and it was it's very clear it's very
palpable in the room that there are a lot of people who deeply care about the
Venice community and I'm grateful that you all are taking the time to care
about your community.
And I think especially at a time when it's difficult
to stand up and show up and speak up,
that I want you all to applaud yourselves for caring
and caring as deeply as you do.
Now that said, and I apologize that I'm not speaking directly
to the issue in front of us, but as we proceed
through this item and as you all move forward
as a community, I found the comments today
to be very personal in nature and towards other members
of the Venice community.
And I just want to say that you all, we work for you all,
but that you all are a community.
And finding common ground and the ability
to move forward together is critically important
because we need you all as residents and supporters
in our community and as people who love the coast collectively.
And I know that this is maybe falling on deaf ears,
but I just want you to know that we deeply appreciate
your passion, and moving forward and moving
through this project, this will not be the last time
that you all will have to work together in community
to solve the great challenges that are in front of us
that we are facing as a state.
And so I just want to thank you for caring deeply,
but also know that it seems that there needs to be
some collective healing, hopefully that can come forward
out of this.
And I hope that as these projects,
and as your community continues,
Los Angeles is in the time of crisis.
There has been a lot of things that have transpired
and will continue to transpire.
And Venice is a key component of that.
And we're seeing a lot of the challenges around housing,
and homelessness, and crime, and poverty,
exacerbated on the streets in our communities.
And these things were raised today.
And we don't agree on common solutions
for how do you solve these really
inextractably linked problems that we are all facing
at a variety of scales in our community.
But we see it.
It's a very real and visible challenge in Venice.
And I don't want the community to think
that we are minimizing how difficult those challenges are
to solve and that one project is going to be the make it
or break it point in that.
But I want you to know that we see the frustration
and the anger and the community concern
and figuring out a way that we can help support you all
and solving that is critically important.
I do, I just wanna thank staff for helping us
kind of navigate through this relatively tricky project.
It's given the complexities of the different components
of it and the history of it,
and then specifically like what is it before us today
regarding the substantial issue question.
So, I appreciate how thorough the report was
and I think I'll just leave my comments there,
but thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Kelly and I will just,
oh, sorry, Commissioner Wilson.
Sorry, I know you're supposed to go last, so.
Just a couple things, I had just a technical question
which was in the hotel description,
there is a room called Lighthouse Keeping Unit.
What does that mean?
Yes, so I think at the time that this ordinance was passed,
a lighthouse keeping room is any guest room which
is designated and used as a bedroom for the cooking
and preparing of food in conformance
with the provisions of a lot of local code section numbers.
For the purposes of applying the lot area and automobile parking
space requirements from the various zones,
each lighthouse keeping room shall
be considered as a separate guest room.
for the purposes of cooking and cleaning.
Okay.
Yes.
I just never seen that term before
and I don't, and I was really confused
by whether it was for staff.
It was like staff housing, is that?
So this is all uncertified local codes
and so we don't really have background
into understanding the exact intent.
And just to add, I would note that we have asked
city these for these clarifications and the city has not been able to provide
greater clarification than what the language of the statute is old-timey
language exactly okay from a time before my second comment is I want to
associate myself with the comment from Commissioner Kelly personal comments are
or I just have to say, us as decision makers
in our roles both at local level and at this level,
I just have, it never helps your case
to make personal comments about folks
on the other side of an opinion, whatever that may be,
from the perspective, I feel like it just doesn't help.
Doesn't matter what it is, it's just my advice to,
for people in the future in terms of that.
The last thing I want to say is both of the things being
advocated for here today are things we want to see.
One is that what is being advocated for,
and this is in no particular order,
is for affordable housing and limits
on the replacement of housing by short-term rentals in general,
that that's a that we grapple with that and and and we understand that issue
viscerally and even some of us in our own neighborhoods have seen it we feel
it we understand we know what that is and have experienced it not just in our
neighborhoods but in the shortage of housing our kids are running into in
various locations our own staff on the commission we're I want to say that
that's real and so I don't and I think you can advocate for that and at the
same time advocate for the understanding that we need in in so many communities
right now economic development really really important and and the the
vitalness of having these businesses in these in these areas in these commercial
areas. My small town is suffering. Small towns and main streets in all over
America are suffering right now. Don't let... and what I'm saying is that we know
that that's happening. There may be some folks saying that's not happening, but
that is really happening. And so I think that's a real thing. And so
those two things can exist in the same place and in the same building and
and so I think from my perspective well while I feel very strongly for the the
content and the and the expression around housing and its issue in Venice
very explicitly and and I encourage our staff to really look at this hard and I
And I know that they will, because again, they also feel it and understand it.
I think that the case that they make in terms of how those two things are separate in this
is valid.
As much as I would want to really put the feet to the fire of the building owner in
terms of the housing element of this and and move that in in that direction. I
don't I don't the Nexus isn't quite strong enough for me and I think that
you guys have made that made the case. So separating that out I think we from my
perspective I really want to encourage us to move forward with the revitalization
of this community from an economic perspective
and a cultural perspective moving forward.
I did mention, Chris, I had another,
and this burning memory from,
that I mentioned before with Effie,
and if you weren't here earlier,
you didn't think you had to hear it.
But actually, when I was eight years old,
around eight years old,
I stayed with a family friend
who was an author living in that same apartment building.
And because I'm a Northern California kid,
I went to the beach for a day.
And I came back with the worst sunburn of my entire life.
And so I spent two days in that apartment building
just suffering with probably the worst sunburn
anyone's ever seen.
But on the side, just I know, I hope the attorneys don't
think that's bad for me to say.
But anyways, from that perspective,
I'm ready to move forward with this project.
I think it's something that's needed,
but at the same time, I really want
to encourage staff to keep on this issue
that was being brought up by some of the other neighbors.
And this is what I'm saying,
it's like you can advocate for both of those things
and still be wanting what's best
for Venice in this community.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Chair.
And I feel like I also had a lot of questions for the city.
So because obviously we're here because the city made
some decisions, and there's information
lacking on some of those things.
My question would be, this looks to me, from my perspective,
like piecemeal.
So, how does, how does that not be the main thing for you?
Thanks for getting to the heart of the issue as usual.
Michael.
So, we do believe the project before us
is limited in scope to the restaurant and the theater.
We have looked at this, these assertions of,
has there been a change in use for the hotel portion?
And there is not clarity of,
has there been a change in use?
be the first question, has there been any change in use? It was approved by the city in the 1910s
as an apartment hotel, and to use the the planning term, old-timey language, is the
that's the code language that we're dealing with. What is, what are these housekeeping units,
and what was meant by apartment hotel, and the city has not provided greater clarity
as to the interpretation. There's also the question of has there been any change and when we look
at the city the available city record the record that's been provided by the applicant the
appellants and by the city the record seems to show that there wasn't any change that it was
continuing to be used as an apartment hotel up and at least up until Prop 20 the effective date of
Proposition 20 and the Coastal Act, so March 1973 for Prop 20. At some point
after that there's more in the record that there were apartments and
sunburns and other issues. That occurred after the Coastal Act and if that was a
change that itself would have required a coastal permit and we have no record of
that conversion and so this record is unclear and we we will continue of our
enforcement division we'll continue looking at this and if there is new
information that is brought to light we'll look for that if it has brought
light we will re-evaluate but based on the information that is available we
don't see clear evidence that that we can say there has been a violation and
And thus, we don't believe that there's piecemeal
occurring, we believe there's a discrete project
that we can act on today.
Thank you Mr. Hudson.
And I guess I'll just make a comment as to
where I'm at with this.
I am uncomfortable, very uncomfortable for voting for this
because there is an enormous gap of information
and I appreciate the appellant's efforts to, you know,
I will dig in, keep as you want.
I looked through kind of your documents, your common letters,
and I thought they were pretty thorough.
And that video from the resident was also
very compelling, sort of showing the kind of short-term rental
locks on the doors.
So I mean, I might be on the minority,
but I actually find substantially showing up.
I would like to have the city.
I would like to have some questions for the city.
And to have this project reach its vision, of course,
wanted to be beautiful and welcoming and you know right to invite people to come
to Venice. But we obviously want to make sure that it's done right and most
definitely doesn't encourage any any more of this loss of units affordable
units so I'm gonna be annulled. Thank you Commissioner Nada. I want to associate
myself with the strong concern about the piecemeal of this. It's hard to imagine.
Great to see the revitalization of the bottom of the building, but what
about the top of the building? That's the same building. And I would assume that
it's not just change of use, of course, it's the standard is change of intensity
of use. So if there is a change of intensity of use, I would hope that we
would see that that project would come before us, is that if we determine that
there's a change of intensity of use. So at this in this instance it looks like
the applicant has successfully navigated the technicalities of the permit
process to bifurgate the project so that we're not seeing the whole impact of
of what this means for the housing and for the hotel part of the building, which is the
biggest part of the building.
That said, the revitalization is very desirable, and I appreciate all of that.
I just wonder if there's more information that we would be able to get if we had a hearing.
Thank you.
Dr. Hucklebridge.
Commissioner not I just wanted to follow up on what what mr. Hudson said on the
piece mailing issue the piece mailing is about looking at the cumulative impacts
of an entire project and slicing one whole project up into small pieces so
that you missed the big picture environmental impacts but there's also a
second piece of it which is when the reviewed project legally compels or
or practically presumes completion of the other project.
And I just don't think we have that prong here.
What we have is one discreet project on a restaurant.
And there's a lot of noise about what's happening
at the hotel or apartment, but that is really distinct.
And so I understand your concerns,
but from a sort of legal quote unquote piecemealing,
I just don't think that's here today.
Okay that's very helpful. I think that's building on the response that was
provided to Commissioner Boxco early on but that is thank you for that
clarification. Okay great thank you I'll make my comments briefly then turn it to
Vice Chair Hart for her comments and Commissioner Jackson please. I thought
you were finalizing things is my apologies. I know, I know, my apologies. I just wanted
to add to the concerns of my colleagues, certainly understand the bifurcation, certainly understand
to your point, two things can be true at the same time, two things can be good or not good.
We mentioned a conversion, Deputy Director, you talked about a conversion, it is going
from apartment hotel to apartment short-term rentals, a conversion of sorts.
I would say we we haven't seen the the term short-term rental in any of the
documents that we've reviewed and we've, you know, gone beyond the city
documents and done our own independent analysis but but it is you know somewhat
unclear what uses our all under apartment and what uses fall under and
the reason that came to light is from the video of the previous meeting where
the building owner admitted to converting some of these apartments
slash hotel rooms into short-term rentals and that was obviously his
frustration with the the increase of the permitting fees. Just want to clarify
that that was a different building and a different project. I wasn't I'm not sure
if that was clear it was another project that the same applicant pursued but it
was a completely separate building. Okay was that also just from my own
notification without was that also an apartment apartment hotel I believe so
trying to remember because that was a few years ago but it was a similar type
of building with it also had a history but in that one there actually we had a
permit application before us for the conversion of use from whatever it was
before to its final use and I believe it it it may have had that storied history
as well, but that was a CDP application for a conversion of use that was
understood and evaluated. I appreciate that clarification. Thank you. And just
shifting focus for a minute. I know that one of the conditions is about single
use plastics and I am just sort of a big fan of spelling that out specifically to
include polystyrene, plastic carryout bags, coffee stirrers, drink lids, plastic
cups, bowls and all that because oftentimes we use these broad
descriptions and then it's not as inclusive as I think it should be. Thank
you. Just note that that was the intent was to include all those things and for
clarity staff modifies its recommendation to include all the
different types of plastics that Commissioner Jackson just mentioned.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, anyone else? Okay, I'm gonna make some
very brief comments and then I'll turn it over to Vice Chair Hart for for her
comments and potentially a motion. I think the discussion that we're having
up here is very reflective of our shared commitment to affordable housing in
Coastal California. It's reflective of our shared commitment to retaining
community character, what makes the coast so special. But I am thoroughly
convinced by our staff's presentation of the facts and the record that this is
really a discreet project that's before us and our job as challenging as it
sometimes is, especially when we hear such compelling and passionate
testimony is to really look in a confined way at what is before us and to
look at what is before us through the lens of the Coastal Act. I think in this
case that our staff has it correct and I agree that there is no substantial
issue to be found here and that the permit should be approved as conditioned.
I really do appreciate the comments from my colleagues particularly around
engaging with one another and how to move forward as a community. From our
perspective as a Coastal Commission I again just believe that our staff got it
correct and respectfully assuming that those are the motions will be voting to
support our staff recommendations as just revised to include all plastics.
Thank you. Vice Chair Hart. Thanks chair and I want to associate myself with your
comments and I want to thank everyone that's spoken here today and I just
appreciate all of the comments by my fellow commissioners as the chair said
expressing our strong desire to support affordable housing in Venice and I think
it's a strong statement to you all in this case that whatever goes forward
with it's kind of like upstairs downstairs we're only dealing with
downstairs but when you get around or start considering upstairs I think you
see where what our position is well and I think it's probably shared by other
policymakers to try to make sure that there is strong affordable component
whatever you end up determining happens here. Alright so I'm going to start up
by making the motion on substantial issue and then I'll ask staff after we
get done with that we'll determine do we go then right into the permit but for
now I'll make the motion that the Commission determine that appeal number
A-5-VEN-24-0038 raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal
has been filed under section 30602 of the Coastal Act and I'm asking for a yes vote.
The motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner Pachko, they're asking for a
yes vote and I'll ask for a roll call vote please.
Escalante? Respectfully no. Escalante no. Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart yes.
Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson yes. Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Kelly yes.
Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Lopez yes. Commissioner Notoff? Notoff yes.
Commissioner Presiado? Yes. Presiado yes. Commissioner Turnbull Sanders? No.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No.
No.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson.
Yes.
Commissioner Bocchico.
Yes.
Bocchico.
Yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon.
Yes.
The vote is nine yes to now.
Thank you.
No substantial issue has been found.
Now we'll go right into the permit.
Thank you.
Is staff presenting on the permit?
Yes.
Okay.
So that's fine.
on the permit. What page is 25? Okay. One second. I'm zipping along here. Okay. I
move that the Commission approve coastal development permit number 5-24-0883
pursuant to the staff recommendation. I ask him for a yes vote. I do have a brief
comment after this. Second. I just want to say that putting aside a lot of the
issues that were raised, I'm really excited about what you guys are doing
doing here, and I'm grateful, and I think a lot of the community is grateful, and I
think it will be a real asset. So thank you for your investing in Venice, because
I think it's really needed now. Thanks. Thank you. That's a motion by Vice
Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner Boczko. They're asking for a yes vote, and
I ask for a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner
Jackson Jackson. Yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez. Yes. Commissioner not off. I not off. Yes. Commissioner Presiado. Yes.
Presiado. Yes. Commissioner Turnbull Sanders. No. Turnbull Sanders. No. Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Commissioner butchko butchko yes. Commissioner Escalante.
No.
Ms. Galante, no.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Yes, the vote is nine yes to no.
Thank you very much.
The permit is approved.
Thank you everyone.
Okay.
Madam Chair, can I ask while we're still sort of in this and I don't know if this is allowed
or not, but can we give additional direction given today's conversation asking staff to
go back and further engage with the city to get clarification long term about how they
to find these projects for us to receive a report
at some point in the next order.
Why don't we take that conversation offline?
Very much appreciated.
Let's take a quick break and come back at 3.15.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you everyone of our staff.
Okay, and now we will move to item 11A,
which has a combined hearing with 12A, I believe.
Mr. Palm or Mr. Hudson
And thank you that does bring us to item 11a and 12a there will be a combined
Presentation that will be presented by Jeff palm a coastal program analyst in our South Coast district and Jeff take it away, please
Good afternoon commissioners
Steve mentioned we have a combined hearing for items 11a and 12a
Item 11a is the hearing of the amendment request to a cdp approved by the commission for the construction of the belmont beach and aquatic center
And item 12a is the condition compliance hearing for the applicant's final public access program
The applicant is the city of long beach next slide, please
The commission approved a cdp for the belmont beach and aquatic center on february 11th 2021
The city is applying for the subject cdp amendment request to reduce the size of the previously approved facility in response to various challenges
Impacting the projects long-term fiscal viability including anticipated reductions in Tylen's oil revenues increased construction costs and rising costs for ongoing operations and maintenance
The underlying CDP includes special conditions 3 which requires the city to prepare a final public access program for the review and approval by the commission
At a notice public hearing which is identified as item 12a on today's agenda
Special condition 3 would continue to apply to the revised project if approved and therefore will be discussed in the second part of this presentation
The project site is located within the Belmont Pier area of the City of Long Beach at Belmont
Shore Beach Park, which is the site of the pre-existing Belmont Plaza Olympic Pool facility
that was demolished in 2014.
The site is generally located between Belmont Pier and an associated parking lot to the
northwest and another public beach parking lot to the southeast.
There is Sandy Beach and San Pedro Bay to the south and commercial development and Ocean
Boulevard to the north.
The precise amended project site boundary is 4.1 acres, which represent a 1.7 acre reduction
from the project site boundary approved in 2021.
Next slide, please.
In 2021, the commission approved the closure of Olympic Plaza to automobile traffic, removal
of park landscaping, demolition of two outdoor pools, conversion of the temporary Mirtha
Pool and associated facilities to permanent structures, and construction of an outdoor
pool complex, including a competitive pool, recreation pool, teaching pool, spa, diving
well, spray garden, permanent seats, a pool of facilities building with locker rooms,
offices, food concessions, changing rooms, storage rooms, hardscape open space, passive
park area, and public restrooms. Next slide please.
The current CDPMM request is to amend the previously approved permits to eliminate the
dive pool, dive tower, spa, separate instructional pool, splash pad, separate recreational pool,
and renovation to the East 50-meter Mirtha pool. Modify the outdoor pools to include
one outdoor 50-meter competition pool and an outdoor combined instructional recreational
pool, reduce the size of the entry building, and reduce the size of the separate support
building for mechanical, electrical, chemical, and storage space.
The proposed amendment would relocate the development approximately 80 feet further
landward than its previously approved seaward extent, as represented by the dashed line
on this slide.
Next slide, please.
The proposed modifications represent a significant reduction from the originally approved project.
Specifically, the applicant is proposing to reduce the total number of new pools from
6 to 2, including a combined 1,700 square foot reduction of the approved competition
pool and outdoor combined and structural recreational pool.
Reduce the primary support building by approximately 15,000 square feet.
Reduce the plinth height, which is the foundation of the structure, by four feet.
Eliminate the building canopy.
Reduce the pool equipment and chemical storage building by approximately 1,200 square feet.
Relocate the two public restrooms from the Belmont Pier parking lot to within the entry
and support building, relocate the electrical service transformers from the Belmont Pier
parking lot to be adjacent to the support building, reduce the number of trees to be
removed by 16 trees, thereby reducing required tree replacements by 32, reduce permanent
spectator bleacher seats by 956, reduce the height of the bleacher canopy by approximately
30 feet, and increase open space by approximately 35,400 square feet due to the reduced footprint
of the project.
Next slide, please.
The approved project was analyzed under the 2018 Ocean Protection Council Sea Level Rise
Scenarios with 6.7 feet of sea level rise by the year 2100.
The updated projections provided in the 2024 State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance
Update indicate a lower level of expected sea level rise than previously anticipated
at the subject site during the project's design life, representing an approximately 2.2 foot
reduction in anticipated sea level rise.
Additionally, the proposed project, as modified, removed structural elements of the facility
located on the seaward side of the site, thereby relocating the proposed development
approximately 80 feet further landward than its previously approved location, which reduces
potential hazards from wave uprush and flooding from the ocean side of the site. As can be
seen on this slide, under 5.75 feet of anticipated sea level rise, the remaining beach width
between the sea and the development outlined in orange on this slide for the approved project
would be approximately 90 feet, while the remaining beach width for the proposed project
would be approximately 170 feet.
Therefore, the proposed project relocates the development further landward and anticipated
sea level rise at the site has been reduced since the Commission's approval of the project
in 2021.
The Commission previously required mitigation for the removal of trees along Olympic Plaza,
circled in white on this slide.
However, the revised project no longer includes removal of any trees from Olympic Plaza and
no longer proposes the closure of Olympic Plaza.
The proposed project retains 16 more trees than the previous design and would require
removal of 17 trees which would still be mitigated at the previously required 2 to 1 ratio.
All previously required bird roosting, breeding, and nesting protections required pursuant
to the underlying CDP continue to apply.
Next slide please.
The proposed project reduces potential view impacts in comparison to the project approved
in 2021.
Specifically, the proposal reduces the plinth height, which is the foundation of this facility,
by four feet, eliminates the approved 41 foot building
canopy outlined in purple on this slide,
and reduces the bleacher canopy by approximately 30 feet.
Therefore, the reduced scale of the revised proposal
would further reduce potential adverse impacts
to visual resources associated with the development.
In addition, the trash enclosure, public restrooms,
and transformers that were previously
proposed to be located at the southeast corner of the Belmont
Pier parking lot within the Tormino Avenue viewshed
have been relocated within the confines of or adjacent
to the proposed entry building and support building,
which avoid additional coastal view impacts.
Next slide, please.
As amended, an additional 0.81 acres of open space
would be provided, including the park area
south of Olympic Plaza, shown on this slide,
as the project footprint is proposed to be reduced
from 5.8 acres to 4.1 acres.
The proposed project maintains swim lesson programming
and encourages more and safer beach access and recreation,
and is therefore consistent with the public access
and recreation policies of the Coast Select
and the certified LCP.
Next slide, please.
In its approval of the underlying CDP,
the commission was concerned with how the project
complies with the environmental justice provisions
of the Coastal Act.
Although the project provides public access
and recreation opportunities,
the facility would be located
in a more affluent part of Long Beach,
which has a low CalEnviro screen score,
meaning that it is not a particularly vulnerable
or polluted community compared to the rest of the state
and is less environmentally burdened
than the rest of the city, as shown in this slide.
In order to address environmental justice concerns
insufficiencies in the community outreach associated with the approved
project the Commission imposed special condition three which required the city
to conduct citywide community outreach to inform a revised public access
program special condition three continues to apply to the revised
project with one minor modification currently the condition requires a
minimum of four bodies of water be made available to the general public for
recreational purposes during normal operation hours the revised project
includes two pools in comparison to the previously approved six so this
This sub-section has been modified to require both pools to be made available to the general
public for recreational purposes during normal operation hours for 95% of the year.
Next slide, please.
Special condition three requires the city to conduct citywide community outreach to
inform a revised public access program that captures input from beyond the project area.
Specifically, the condition requires the city to develop a final public access program informed
by a community outreach program in consultation with commission staff that includes tailored
multi-language, culturally appropriate outreach methods to actively engage and survey Long Beach
residents and users of Long Beach community pools to collect input on what type of recreational
programming at the Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center, if any, is most desired and how it could
be best accessed. The community outreach program was developed by using diverse techniques for
surveying including online citywide surveys and community meetings focused in underserved areas
made available in multiple languages and was designed to collect information from respondents
including demographic data, pool usage, transportation usage, barriers to access
to the facility, and preferred programming. The community outreach program was approved
by the executive director on November 2, 2021. The survey and public engagement results informed
the final public access program, which was submitted to the executive director for review
on March 26, 2025. It is now before the commission for your consideration today as part of this
action as required by Special Condition 3.
Surveying included 132 intercept surveys completed at 9 locations, focused in underserved
areas, as well as 823 online surveys distributed to key interest groups and communities citywide
through various channels for a total of 955 completed responses.
Additionally, 5 community meetings were held with members of 5 different community groups
in underserved communities.
Between all community meetings, there were a total of 42 meeting participants.
The City analyzed data from the completed surveys and community meetings and identified
four barriers to access to the facility, including feeling unwelcome or unsafe, time, cost, and
safety of transportation, not knowing how to swim, and feeling alienated from city decision-making.
In contrast, the report found factors that attract people to pools include cleanliness,
sanitation, and amenities, extended opening hours, transportation and parking availability,
reasonable cost of entry, cultural sensitivity, multilingual services, and staff-friendliness,
swimming lessons and programming.
Based on the findings from the survey results and community meetings, the final public access
program includes the following recommendations for equitable programming and public access
at the facility.
After school learn-to-swin programs, weekend programs, a summer day camp program, an LA-84
subsidy program, dive in movies at the pool, partnerships with schools, churches, and or
other civics organizations in underserved areas, access for senior citizens, and targeted
marketing outreach in underserved areas. These recommendations include mechanisms to improve
access to the facility, including but not limited to low-cost swim lessons for youth,
free transportation vouchers to assist those with limited transportation or mobility options
to access the facility, targeted outreach and marketing efforts to expand awareness
of the facility for underserved communities, and reduced or subsidized admissions and classes
fees. The city proposes to make transportation vouchers available for pickup at the facility,
Parks, Recreation and Marine Administration office and community centers within underserved
areas.
Additional transportation improvements proposed by the City include additional bus transit
routes, the City's implemented micro-mobility program and the City's on-demand free-circuit
shuttle program.
The final public access program also specifies that the City will limit permitting of competitive
events to no more than 5% of the year in order to prioritize open and non-competitive recreational
programming.
The remainder of the components of the Public Access Program are analyzed in the staff report for this item.
Special Condition 3 also requires the city to identify concrete objectives and benchmarks for measuring success of the Public Access Program and outreach components of the final Public Access Program.
The city identified four key objectives, including increasing programs that allow youth to access the beach, ocean, and water-related activities,
increasing the number of youth who know how to swim through free or low-cost swim lessons,
increasing scholarships for low-income households and removing barriers to participation,
and ensuring a wide variety of programs in space are made available to adults and seniors at
accessible locations. In order to ensure these objectives are achieved, the city identified key
benchmarks to measure success at years 1, 5, and 10 after opening the facility. Each benchmark
includes expected data trends, such as percentage increases in participation, to determine if
benchmarks have been met. The city will collect data through their proposed annual evaluation and
monitoring program which includes submittal of annual reports to the
executive director in order to ensure objectives and benchmarks are being
achieved. If the executive director finds that the evaluation program
identifies substantial inequities and access to the pool facilities the city
is required to revise the public access program accordingly. Funding for the
program is proposed to be provided through Proposition A funding, nonprofit
partnerships, grant funding, and the city's Tidelands Fund and General Fund.
Staff would like to note a dender were posted to the Commission's website to
to address comments received following publication
of the staff reports.
The addenda included the addition
of a new special condition,
which would temporarily authorize the operation
and maintenance of the existing Mirtha pool
and associated structures through three years
following opening of the new facility.
This would allow members of the public
to continue to have access to a pool facility
in the project area during construction activities.
A coastal development permit will be required
for the continuation or removal of the facility
prior to the end of the authorization period.
Additionally, the addenda replaced
the final public access program referenced
is exhibit one in the condition compliance staff report
with a revised burden that includes additional benchmarks
to support the objectives identified
in the city's proposal and provides clear metrics
to determine if the targeted outreach and marketing proposed
by the city is effective.
Next slide, please.
In closing, staff leads the proposed amendment request
as conditioned is consistent with both of the policies
of the city certified LCP
and the chapter three policies of the Coastal Act
and that the final public access program
that was prepared by the city satisfies the requirements
of special condition three of the underlying CDP as amended.
Thus staff recommends the commission approve
the proposed amendment request as conditioned
and approve the final public access program as submitted.
To accomplish the staff recommendation,
there are two separate motions.
The first motion to approve the amendment as conditioned
can be found on page five of the amendment request
staff report item 11.
And the second motion to approve
the city's final public access program
and satisfaction of special condition three
can be found on page two of the condition
compliance staff report, which is item 11 or item 12a.
This concludes the staff presentation,
and staff is available for questions.
Thank you.
Great, thank you very much, Mr. Palm.
Okay, are there any ex partes on this item?
Seeing none, we will open the public hearing,
and I'll turn it over to Chris.
All right, we have the applicant in person,
Charlene Angsuko.
Hi, good afternoon.
Is there a presentation?
Yes, we're bringing it up right now.
Thank you.
Excuse me, ma'am, how much time do you need?
We're running a little bit long. Can you do it in five? I will try. Thank you
very much. Okay. So next slide please. So good afternoon. My name is Charlene
Inksuko. I'm one of the project managers with the Public Works Department. I'm
joined today by Stephen Figueira, Dino Diamillion, Joe Stokely, project
managers with Ardura Group. Unfortunately we lost our colleagues in the
recreation and parks department who were instrumental in the development of the
public access program. Next slide please. So wanted to just share quickly our
goals with the pool project. The project before the Commission is smaller
virtually in all aspects. It is very much a community pool. It is owned and operated
by our award-winning community recreation services team and together our
departments aim to build an inspiring aquatics complex that provides access to
most aquatic opportunities as you see listed here. The department does a phenomenal job
of creating opportunities for residents of all ages, genders, incomes and abilities through
their recreational programs and classes which promote wellness, health and foster social
connections. For reference, the city and the parks department has 2,600 programs across
the city to build community and learn valuable life skills. We want to make these polls and
facilities accessible, fun, and memorable for everyone.
And we want to align the commission's goals
with our own strategic plans that we've adopted.
Next slide, please.
Won't spend too much time on this slide.
Next slide.
So zooming in, this community facility
is proposed to have a 50-meter pole, which
features a movable bulkhead with four springboards.
This element of the project offers an opportunity
for flexible programming, including swim lessons,
lap swimming, water exercises.
So that's a deep swim, open swim,
and on occasion competitive events
which are capped at no more than 5% per year.
The city also proposes to include shade structures
and seating, bleachers, for guests, parents and caretakers.
Next slide please.
The adjacent instructional pool offers opportunities
for swim lessons, water exercise, shallow depth, therapy
and other learning opportunities.
For novice and new swimmers, the instructional pool
and recreational pool offer opportunities
for continued learning, skills development
and serves as a foundation for more progressively
advanced swim opportunities and lessons.
The city's park and rec department offers swim lessons
where a child can start as early as nine months
with their parent and progress through six
distinct levels of swim instruction,
level one through six, and learn how to swim.
These programs are offered to build basic life skills,
build confidence in and around pools,
and ultimately build confidence to partake
in other variety of water activities,
perhaps swim in our oceans,
enjoy our inflatable water playgrounds,
and so forth.
Next slide.
The Parks and Recreation Services team
offers several programs that cater to seniors,
such as water exercise, shallow water, deep water, swim,
for instance, senior swim, and discounted admissions.
Water exercises for seniors, which in Long Beach
is considered 50 years and older, are actually free.
This is just some of the low cost and affordable programming
provided citywide at the temporary facility
at this future facility at MLK pool
and Silverado pool as well.
Next slide.
We're really, really excited
for the proposed recreational pool,
which provides children of all ages
access to a variety of play types and equipment,
including sensory play, exploratory play, interactive play.
This family-friendly amenity
offers affordable low-cost activities at Belmont,
introduces youth water recreation and water play.
The city offers free rec swim to youth currently.
Those ages 17 under.
And that's existing and will be future practices.
Next slide, please.
The recreation pool will feature a zero-depth entry
with a central activity tower featuring fun spray ground,
splash zones, and interactive water play elements.
Next slide.
This alternative view shows a circular vortex play area
in the rec pool as well.
Next slide.
And this is the view, or what will be the view,
from Olympic Plaza of the main building,
which features a lot of the support amenities,
including multitude and women's and men's locker rooms
of various sizes, and family changing rooms,
gender neutral restrooms, gender neutral changing rooms.
Sorry, I'm losing my breath.
Next slide.
Let's just go to the condition compliance slide.
Thank you.
So the project before the commission
community poll aims to build an inspiring aquatics complex that provides
access to most aquatic opportunities. The city proposed eight recommendations
including low-cost and affordable recreation, after-school learn-to-swim
lessons, day camps, and weekend programs. The recommendations also include
marketing materials, educational programs, subsidies, and partnerships to provide
opportunities and resources to those with the greatest needs or greatest
barriers to access. The four objectives outlined in the public access program
are consistent and are included in the department's strategic plan for 2022,
2032, demonstrating the city's alignment with the Commission's special conditions
which champion equity, inclusion, and access. I won't read them but we believe
that this project is contributing to the parks landscape. Parks make Long Beach
better. Parks are great equalizers in our city and across the nation and we just
I just wanna thank Commission staff for their hard work
and effort and diligence and timely review
on all the materials and just their graciousness
and just professionalism.
So thank you, Jeff.
Thank you, Danny.
I'm out of breath,
but I'll take questions when I can catch it.
Thank you.
Excellently done.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
We do have Christina Dugan,
Long Beach Council member on Zoom.
And Christina, you can go ahead.
Welcome back. Wonderful. Thank
you so much. Good afternoon,
commissioners, and great job,
Charlene on your presentation.
My name is Kristina Duggan.
I'm the council member
representing District 3 in Long
Beach, which includes the area
around the Belmont Pool. Long
Beach is a proud, diverse and
active coastal city. And every
weekend, thousands of people
visit our beaches for marathons,
is at the heart of so many of these activities, providing a safe and welcoming place for residents
and visitors to swim and enjoy the coast. The Belmont Pool is a regional asset. It serves so
many people from across Long Beach and throughout Southern California, where families come to learn
to swim, seniors stay active, and where competitive athletes train and compete. Long Beach has always
community. I'm sure you've
always been a leader in
expanding coastal access and
creating inclusive spaces.
Rebuilding the Beaumont pool
continues that legacy by
providing a world-class year
round destination that serves
our entire community and the
broader region. Thank you
commissioners for your
consideration and we look
forward to getting this
project done. Thank you so
their agency representatives. Could you turn the mic on sir? That's the button at
the bottom. Good afternoon, Dino D'Amelia. I'm the
project, the city's consultant project manager for the project. Just generally
in support of the item and for approval and I'd like to cede any additional time
to this back to the city if needed. Thanks. Thank you.
Joe Stokely. Hello. I'm Joe Stokely. I've worked on this project in a consultant
project manager capacity along with Dino D'Amelio there. I had started working on
this project in 2014 actually in very conceptual design and demolition of the
old facility and actually getting temporary restroom trailers set up for
the the Murtha pool that's on site now. I did not work on this project for about
10 years in between and then in about October last year I got involved again
again supporting Dino and Charlene and while I was doing that for about four
months and being involved in this project again. It was very stressful. I was catching
up on 10 years worth of information that had happened. And we had a community meeting in
January of this year, a community outreach meeting. I was actually telling some of my
colleagues here recently that in that meeting we had both elder people who had worked at
or had swam at the old facility before it was demolished. And that coupled with some
of the younger swimmers, you know 10 years old swim clubs and the excitement
from young and old for this new facility that we presented to them at that
community meeting really brought back in a sharp focus what we were doing here
and what we were trying to accomplish and in that sense in that moment I
realized that you know that I wasn't doing this for the folks that signed my
check I was doing it for those folks that will use this pool when it's
eventually built. So all that being said, in that little personal history, I just
wanted to share that and in full support of this project, 100%. That's all for me.
Thanks. Thank you. Moving on to general public speakers, we have eight people
signed up. We'll start with a group presentation, Ann Kentrell, Corliss Lee,
and Anna Christiansen. Ann Kentrell and Corliss Lee are on Zoom, and Anna
Christiansen is here in person. They're all sharing a presentation. So we have
your presentation ready and control you can begin when you're ready before I
start Cora is saying that she is it has not been alerted that she should join
the panel do you have her oh yes we're moving Cora listen okay go ahead good
afternoon and can trail Sierra Club California and the Long Beach area of
Peace Work Network. Next slide, please. In 2021, this commission approved a condition
CDP for replacement of the Belmont Olympic Pool torn down in 2014 because of seismic
issues. The approved pool was to be built on the sand in the same liquefaction zone
as a former pool.
It was to be located on what is currently
a public park and public street.
The pool was to have a plastic bubble roof,
movable floor, diving tower, seating for 1500 spectators
and other amenities.
It exceeded coastal development height limits
and would create a seawall barrier.
This plan was estimated to cost well over $100 million.
Next slide. In 2023, the Long Beach City Council approved a cheaper pool design. The roof was
removed along with the diving tower and all the public seating. This plan contained six pools
and was more kid friendly with a splash zone, zipline climbing rocks. Because the diving tower
was now outside, spas were added for the competing divers and swimmers. This plan required the
destruction of the public park and closing of a public street containing 40 parking spaces.
Open air pools limit year-round and nighttime use, especially for youth, elders, and disabled.
No roof or wall means higher heating costs and pools full of blowing sand, bird poop, and trash.
Next slide, please. And Coralis Lee will continue.
Uh, Coralis, uh, you keep declining, being moved to a panelist, uh, you should be able to unmute
as an attendee now, and that should work. Uh, Coralis, go ahead and unmute.
Mute. There you go. We can hear you. Okay, I'm Cora Lee from Long Beach Sierra Club. Today you
are being asked to approve a third further reduced plan. This current plan retains most of Olympic
Plastic Park and all of Olympic Plastic Drive, has only two outside pools and bleacher seating
for 900 spectators. Gone are the kid-friendly areas and one of the large pools. The remaining
instructional recreational pool is quite a bit smaller than the competitive pool.
It will be very difficult to hold beginning swim classes, adult exercise
classes, and recreational swim in the smaller pool, half of which is for
waiting only. The Olympic competitive pool can be used by the public at certain
times, but at the depths of 6 foot 10 inches to 12 feet is suitable only for
strong swimmers and competition. The lockers for the competitive pool have 16 showers while the
recreational lockers have four showers. In 2014 the Coastal Commission told the city that any
replacement pool must serve the public, not just those who want it for competitive swimming,
diving, water polo, and other sports. The proposed pools are not being built for toddlers, youth,
non swimmers, elderly or disabled. Only strong swimmers and competitors will be able to use the
competitive pool while everyone else will be crammed into the small kiddie pool or be waiting
in line in the locker room for a shower. Next slide. And that turns it back over.
All right, Anna Christensen. Can you turn on the microphone for us? Thank you. It's at the base.
Okay. Change circumstances since CDP approval violate Coastal Commission environmental justice
policies, less accessible by marginalized residents and visitors. Elimination of indoor pools
and community room reduces year-round and nighttime use. Greatest impact will be on
disadvantaged residents, workers, and visitors who live at a distance and use public transportation.
50 meter recreational pool reduced by two-thirds and mostly converted to a waiting pool severely
limiting exercise opportunities for standing exercise anyway, swimming classes and recreational
swimming for beginners, 50 meter competitive pool for strong swimmer's team, sports and
competition only, more changing facilities and showers as you have heard for competition
pool users. Equity plan serves few marginalized residents. I mean this city is the seventh
largest and has only three public pools including this one. The other two public
pools I will add are only 25 meters long. Primarily offers free and discounted
lessons admission and bus passes for specific groups by individual request.
Equity plan was rejected by historically marginalized communities due to distance,
location and perception that they are not welcome in this wealthy white area.
facility may be open to recreational units but use is not equitable. The
recreational pool is far too small the community competition pool limits access
not to team practicing by the way by hours. Not coastal dependent not
sustainable to ensure equitable and safe coastal access the city must maintain
and the coastal missions required to maintain existing coastal facilities and
services prepare for coastal flooding flooding and management retreat and
decommissioned offshore oil wells. Current and projected Thailand's monies
cannot do so. In fact the city complains that it to the state now that its
existing Thailand's monies will not hold up even now. So please do not fund this project. Thank you.
Thank you. We have four more speakers. We have Gordana Kager followed by Kevin Shabata,
Adam Trama and then Taj Hansen. Gordana Kager. Good afternoon commissioners. My
name is Gordana Kager. I do not support this project. I haven't supported this
project for close to a decade and a half. We've been here a long time in front of
Coastal Commission but it started at the City Planning Commission as well as our
City Council and I was there at every meeting. There is a municipal pool on
this site. And everything you've heard about pools, access to pools, swimming,
access to swimming, and open space all go to the current use of this property.
It is a municipal pool. It's used by residents and the city has not supported
or maintained this pool for a decade in in advance of this new BBAC. So just to
let you know there is a pool it is used it is supported by the community my
comments today relate to the special condition C and the applicant's
responsibility to conduct baseline measurements at least 14 months prior to
the planned opening of the new pool to inform effectiveness of future public
outreach in addition the city must collect data and benchmark these
programs on an annual basis with reports provided to the commissioners
commissions ED. Today I'd like to respectfully request that there be an
additional condition request and requirement that the reports that are
going to be provided to your ED could as easily be provided to the public and to
the members and residents of Long Beach who would like to have a better
understanding of how this pool is being used and how well the city is making its
benchmarks. The city does manage a website for this project. It's
absolutely accessible to the public to better understand what is going on with
the project as it's been moving through the approval process. So I would
respectfully request that the applicant be requested to provide the same
information that will be going to your ED for members of the public. Thank you.
Thank you. Kevin Shabata, Adam Chama, and then Taj Hansen. Hi, my name is Kevin Shabata, I'm
with HED, the executive architects in the project, and I just wanted to let the
community know that even though the project is getting smaller, it's going to be an
exceptional project. We know it replaces the beloved Owen Plaza pool that was
demolished. The project was designed to homage to that project in its form, its
rectilinear form, the precast falls, the exposed framework, and in the sale roof
was a response to the comments by the community. There hasn't been more marine
like for the user so I think it will be an exceptional project. I hope to put it forward.
Thank you. Adam Chamal. My name is Adam Chamal. I'm with ESCO. I'm a foundation
and geotechnical engineer, who have been working on this project since 2014.
I know how hard the city has been working on this job.
It's been a lot of effort, a lot of work, and I'm so happy to see it getting close
to be finished.
I think it's going to be a very important project for the city and for the people of
Long Beach and the surrounding area.
Thank you so much.
you and I see that Todd Todd Hansen is available for questions and they've
declined to be promoted in so there are no more speakers madam chair okay thank
you very much Chris now I'll return to staff see if they have any response or
closing thoughts thank you chair I just have a few brief comments and then I'll
turn to my colleagues to see if there's any additional comments first I just
wanted to note in regards to the public access program you had heard some
comments noting that the revised facility essentially could not support
the programming proposed to the public access program I just want to emphasize
that public access program was created based on the revised proposal and so the
city has you know determined the programming that they're proposing
through the final public access program would be able to occur at the revised
facility with the two pools that are before you today through the amended
proposal. Additionally you heard some comments regarding there being an
an existing pool at this location.
I believe that was in reference
to the temporary Mirtha pool.
I wanna emphasize that that is in fact a temporary pool
and not a permanent structure or facility.
The previous and underlying approval
would currently without the amended proposal,
renovate that a temporary facility
into a permanent structure.
That is being removed to the amendment request.
However, they are proposing to retain that structure,
that temporary pool for a period of three years
beyond the opening of the Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center.
So essentially what I'm trying to get at
is this facility would replace that existing temporary pool.
It is not a permanent structure and is only
currently anticipated design life up
until approximately October of 2032.
And then finally, I just wanted to note,
there was a comment regarding making the annual reports
public that are submitted to the executive director.
Those are, in fact, public documents.
And so should any members of the public
have interest in reviewing those reports annually we are more than happy to make
this available to them upon request with that turn over to mr. Hudson for any
additional comments okay thank you Jeff with that I don't have additional
comments so I'm gonna go ahead and close out the staff comment and just note that
our team is available for questions great okay thank you very much so I'll
return to the Commission and start with Commissioner Turnbull Sanders thank you
chair. This project has been going on for a long time. And I think I've mentioned before,
I was one of the elders, as I think one of the folks mentioned, who swam in the original
Belmont pool. I swam in the Pac-10 Championships back when I was an athlete once upon a time
that pool and so it brings back a lot of fond memories and I think one of the
challenges that we are facing is one of kind of balancing both this idea of
public access for the seniors, young people, looking at the rates in
particular of communities that may not be located near the pool. Some of those
communities have extremely high drowning rates and lack of swimming
proficiency which is a public access issue. If you're not able to swim and be
safe on the beach or your parents aren't able to be safe on the beach then it
prevents folks or deters them from enjoying our beautiful coastline. And so
So I think as we're thinking about the replacement of public space with a swimming facility,
we have to balance those issues around public access and amenities that everyone can use
versus the other issues around access that a competitive swimming pool could bring to
an area.
think I heard in the public comment that and not sure if this is this is
accurate but that the other public swimming pools in the area were 25 yard
pools and so in order to have a competitive opportunity particularly
for Olympic level swimming you really do need a 50 meter pool that is of the
appropriate depth to allow for diving, starting blocks and also to have
Olympic level competition in the in the swimming pools. For me personally
swimming was an access point. It enabled me to enjoy a scholarship and come
across the country to swim and I think that that also provides potential
opportunities for young people in competitive sports.
And with the Olympics currently approaching,
I think that's also something that we have to consider.
So I'm a little bit torn between this issue of public access
for communities where we need to have greater swimming
proficiency, greater recreational opportunities,
particularly to replace the viewshed, the access,
and the public amenities that were displaced
by the pool.
And so I do think that I wanted to take
a little bit of a deeper dive on the programs that
were being provided by the city.
And there was made mention of programs,
including those learn to swim programs, swimming proficiency,
water safety, those kinds of things.
But in the city of Los Angeles, for example,
There are a number of learn to swim programs
at some of the local public pools.
And those swimming programs are so oversubscribed.
I went one time to try and get my kids signed up.
They didn't follow in their mom's footsteps
and took up other sports.
But I tried to get my kids signed up.
And the ladies from the neighborhood
beat me to the punch, and they're literally
waiting outside at 5 AM.
And thanks for choke up.
So needless to say, I didn't sign up for the swimming
lessons, but they literally had their blankets out
on the sidewalk.
They had milk, and cereal bowls, and little children.
And they're camped out.
And they're really hustling to try and make sure
that their kids get things that they need.
And so, I guess what I didn't see from the presentation
was a more detailed look at what were the actual programs
and whether we saw the survey results,
which unfortunately was a pretty small sampling,
just a few hundred respondents.
So that part was a little bit disappointing.
But really getting under the hood of
what kinds of programs are being offered
and how many slots are available
because seeing what I saw in the city of Los Angeles
just broke my heart.
And I think in order to have a meaningful public access,
you have to have programming
that will actually serve a substantial portion
of the population in a meaningful way.
And so I think I would like to learn more
about what that looks like because you can have,
you can say you check the box, hey, we've got these programs.
And you could have one lesson available for 20 kids.
And that's not going to meet the needs.
The second piece that I had mentioned years ago
was the pathway for Olympic level competition swimming.
And so for the reasons I had mentioned,
there are opportunities for young people
to develop, to be able to be at a high level of competition.
But it requires a deeper level of training.
And so you have, on the one end of the spectrum,
learn to swim, and then you have competitive swimming.
What I did not see was any programming
that was specifically targeted towards
not only getting young people the skill that they need
to learn how to be proficient,
but to really thrive and raise to the level of competition
where they may be eligible for a scholarship in college,
or they may be able to take the lessons they learned
from a high level of competitive swimming, which
requires anybody who's done competitive swimming
on a high level knows you have before school,
after school practice.
You've got to have transportation there.
You've got to have the right kind of nutrition.
There's a lot that goes into that.
So I don't mean to go on for too long,
but those are my concerns.
It's kind of like the devil's in the details.
And then with respect to special condition number three,
I do agree that if the city does have a website,
I don't think it's a big deal
for them to be able to just publish
whatever they send over to the commission
and putting that onus on the city
rather than kind of our coastal commission staff
that is already kind of heavily burdened
with their current workloads.
That's all I got.
Thank you, commissioner.
Chair we have a collective response here so we're gonna kind of bounce around one
another. I just wanted to first address some of the early comments you made
regarding individuals you know waiting outside and there being kind of an
oversaturated targeting an outreach for some of these programs. I just want to
want to mention one thing that the city has proposed to their final public access
program is first a collection of baseline data. We struggled to identify
exact numbers for the program given this is a new program in a new facility so we
don't really have a sense of what is that baseline participation interest for
some of these programs. So 14 months prior to the opening of the facility the
city will collect that baseline data through surveying annually or for the
14-month period and that'll provide the city with some of those baseline numbers
that they can then compare against that years 1, 5, and 10 and for the life of
the development. And one thing I wanted to mention is in terms of you know the
amount of interest in these programs, one thing the city will be tracking is
participation but as well as the number of individuals waitlisted for those
programs and so that would provide us some sort of a metric to determine if
there is a need for additional programming or if we need to revise the
targeting the targeted marketing and outreach based on what we're seeing in
terms of participation and waitlist and then I also would just mention that I
think we're happy to include in our recommendation that the city include
publication of the annual reports on their website with that I'm going to
turn over to our staff to provide some additional comments on your questions
regarding what type of programming is provided. Yes regarding the your your
comments way back then when I was a younger planner you know I think we
heard you in the city heard you some of the programming that they are planning
to include is through LA 84 which is a nonprofit that really focuses on the
Olympic level training for many sports but for you know this project is
particular for swimming so
We did think that was covered. We included you know, the transit subsidies. I remember that being important as well
And so we do think that's covered but you know if the city has anything to add
Maybe we can hear from the city if the staff is concluded through the chair what their
remarks because I think there's an issue of
particularly if this area is not in close proximity
to neighborhoods in need,
then the transportation issue is a huge one.
And like, it really doesn't take a genius to know
that people will want to have swimming lessons.
Like, I don't think you really even need
a survey necessarily, you know?
And if you only got a hundred respondents,
it means that the, you know,
Maybe the way in which the survey was conducted
did not do what I had recommended years ago,
which was to go through trusted third party validators
who would be kind of directly working with the community,
community who have touch points with them.
And so I just, I don't think there'll ever be a case
where, you know, you have whatever the city can offer
in terms of swimming lessons,
as long as they're sufficient, I think,
transportation and other supports.
I don't think you're gonna have a problem
filling those classes.
The problem will be just on the outreach,
and the outreach has to be robust,
and it has to be done with kind of
the community organizer framework,
and I'm sure that the city of Long Beach
has a number of staff that have that kind of expertise,
knowing some of the folks who are on City Council,
including our former commissioner
who's no longer on City Council, to be able to do that.
So maybe if through the chair,
if we could bring back up the city
if they're still here, the city representative
for the city of Long Beach.
Please.
Good afternoon.
So in terms of just general aquatics programming within the city, because this project is focused
on Belmont pool, we've been talking about Belmont pool, but we're fortunate enough to
have two other aquatic, two other pools, both which are in disadvantaged communities.
So there is often a preference to go to their home pools for these services and the programs
are the same at all facilities.
So they all have after school learn to swim programs.
They all have general where you sign up through the catalog.
Unfortunately, our manager for recreation programs
had to leave for another commitment,
but she indicated there are no challenges right now
with wait lists.
They add programs if they do end up having wait lists.
You ask for some quantities.
and just or it's on page 20 might be on a different page in America's I think
this is an older report but the after-school learn-to-swim programs
actually are catered and are operated out of parks in our priority population
zones so these are kids that essentially take classes after school at their pools
of choice to receive essentially eight weeks of swim classes after school. So we serve
over 800 families throughout the city of Long Beach. We actually have 140 after school group
swim classes. So those are some of the numbers for the after school learn to swim program,
again it's targeted and hadn't held and affiliated with the parks in our North
Central and West Long Beach communities. You had another question but the other
question was regarding the Olympic level training and our staff had indicated
there was some sort of collaboration with the LA 84 Foundation which I'm very
familiar with, there wasn't really a lot of detail about that so I think while
there while there may be other programs around the city for elite competition
swimming it's necessary to be in you know a higher level of facility so just
curious about what what are the pathways for competition level swimming for for
So, as Danny mentioned, LA-84 is one of the programs that historically has been within
the city, but, you know, it comes and goes depending on funding.
We hope with the approach of the Olympics and the energy that that event and multiple
events brings that that will actually help generate interest and swim.
understand the opportunities and I think you mentioned for yourself
scholarships ability to you know access certain facilities schools universities
so it is very important for the city to have essentially a public free version
of that it is in the program I'm not the most proficient with it since I'm kind
of new here to the recreation time actually in public works and my
colleagues left, but we could provide more information to the Commission, but
that is our commitment. We do want to focus on on swim, training, essentially
learning life, basic skills, and really promote the recreational portion of the
facilities to be able to elevate folks to those programs and opportunities, and we
do want to be a part of that as well. Thank you, thank you, thank you, I guess
through the chair just I mean it seems like there is not sufficient I mean the
detail is not satisfactory for me in terms of what's actually being offered
either on the kind of basics learn to swim survival skills or on the
competition side and so I don't want to vote against this project necessarily
and so I don't know if there's a way in which there could be a condition that
staff could think creatively about where we could have a little bit more meat on
the bones with more substantial certainty about the programs that are
going to be offered particularly in light of all of the public lands that
being used, the blockage of access, the replacement of former facilities. I think
it's a very serious and substantial concern. I'm just not sure what vehicle
to do that in without holding up the project. So through the Chair, what we
what you have in front of you today are two separate items. One is the permit
amendment that deals with the change in the size of pools in the project and the
other is a condition compliance which in which the Commission will consider
that are accepting the public edge the public access program so though they're
actually two separate actions today and so we could I'd love to see kind of if
other commissioners are interested and we can figure out what how to handle
that condition compliance element based on the comments you provided commissioner
Lopez so I did not swim at the collegiate level I was more of a floater
than a swimmer but I did have a friend growing up in rural southern Monterey
county who we would go swimming in the summer and as soon as he got in it was
clearly he had a skill right and without the pool for him to fall in and fall in
love with the sport he would not have gone D1 and swam right at the on the at
the Pac-12 level as well and so I to have the concerns you have about what
that access looks like and I just also want to share from sort of a local
government perspective right now things are tough. They're really tough for
local governments to commit to say we will do XYZ given the financial shifts
at the federal level and right all those pieces are impacting us we're trying to
make the puzzle work while the puzzle shifts almost hourly it feels like. And
so I agree as we I want to work with you to structure some conditions there that
allow us to put the meat on the bones to better understand what sort of impact
we're helping to bring to the table and like you I want to make sure the
project doesn't get lost in that shuffle because even if it's just the
opportunity for a child to get their feet wet and jump in and fall in love with the
sport and realize I'm actually good at this and give them that self-confidence
to take on the world, I want to make sure that happens. Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado. I wanted to share and I appreciate all of the
Commissioner comments but I want to raise two issues so one issue as staff
explained is associated with a new physical facility that is before us and
I think I think I'm in support of of that aspect but I do want to join my
colleagues in thinking about creating conditions or or requirements on that
stipulate that more access or good access or important access be presented.
The director of Public Works from the City of Long Beach, I don't know if you're the
director or not, but I just promoted you hopefully you'll get that salary.
And given that it is the City of Long Beach and that it also has aquatic activities that
that are on the beach, on the ocean, on the bay.
I'm just wondering if we can just condition a report back
in six months or right before they open,
as they indicated in the project,
that they report back on access to and availability
of facilities throughout the city
that include access to private and others.
I know I'm just scanning the website
while I was listening to the other commissioners.
There seems to be middle school,
a Martin Luther King Jr. middle school
or even a high school that has access to pools.
And so rather than holding this project up,
I'm interested in seeing it move forward.
And secondly, I am interested in joining my colleagues
requesting that a creative condition be placed on access to and availability of
aquatic resources for the community, particularly for communities that have
been impacted with lack of resources in general. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner
Wilson. I just had a question about the lighting. So I know it seems so
germane, so lame, but I just wanted to, I saw in here that the condition is that
it's dark sky compliant, but I did see a comment from, that was written in about
the height of the of the of the light fixtures and so I was just wondering if
you could just address that. Yeah, I'll have a point after that as well. Yeah,
absolutely. So there was some comments regarding the height of the light
proposed light poles, starting that they exceeded height restrictions in that
particular area. I just wanted to note that there was an LCP amendment that was
actually approved. I don't have the date in front of me right now. It was
certified by the Commission that extended the height pull allowance in
this particular area, which is for specifically the project site, up to a
height of 60 feet and the proposed height pulls are 58 feet. So the pulls
do, you know, satisfy that local height restriction as was certified by the
commission through that LCP amendment well then I would just ask that there
may be a conflict between that height and being dark sky compliant and so if
there is and the lighting plan is required is part of this so I would just
ask that you guys make sure that whatever height that is that it's still
dark sky compliant because there can be a conflict between those two provisions
does that make sense yes through the chair absolutely that is part of special
condition to require a final lighting plan.
So the lighting plan that is before you
is not the final approved lighting plan.
OK.
And then just a comment, which is like,
I live in a town of 17,000 and I'm in a community pool.
It's, I don't know, a few blocks from my house.
It's just these conversations that
make me very appreciative of the access
that my community has.
As a person who pays my annual fee to go to this thing,
I'm even more excited about paying that money
and accessing that.
Because we have one of these 25 yard pools for 17,000 people.
You can imagine, for the size of the city of Long Beach,
only having two currently, and then maybe not
likely to have another one.
That's really a big deal.
And I will say drownings are going up right now.
So the rate of deaths of drownings
post-pandemic is on the rise.
And so it's really something that we should,
and it's one of the leading causes of death for kids.
And so from my perspective, and as you
know, demographics play into that in terms
of who is more at risk of that, and populations that
don't intend to swim or get lessons and those sorts of things.
And so for me, it's really important.
I think that's something that needs to be addressed.
And in many of these preventative things,
all the people who don't drown, we don't see that.
They're all alive and walking around.
So what I'm getting at is it's like the true benefits of this
are sometimes things we don't even see or notice,
because there isn't a fundamental change.
And as having kids who have gone through lessons
at my local community pool, I've seen and experienced
this issue of not being able to sign up
because it fills up real fast.
And these are hugely important in our communities.
I mean, I just have to say, it's not just an opportunity
to swim competitively, which I think
is really, really important.
But it really is a fundamental public safety issue.
And then just having people be more comfortable being
in and around water, as Commissioner Turmostan has
said about even having parents feeling more comfortable
having kids being around these resources
is just really important.
So I am fully in support of the Commissioner's arc in this and whatever we can work out would
be great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to everybody who spoke today.
I come from a part of L.A. county that is pool poor, beach rich, and I'm certainly
a little jealous of the fact that you guys are building a pool and we don't have the
the pool access that you guys will enjoy.
So I'm in favor of the project.
I think it's fantastic.
The more pools, the merrier.
Staff question through the chair.
I understand the competition pool
and then the outdoor instructional recreational pool.
Can you, and I probably just missed this
in the staff report.
Can you describe the,
I understand what a competition pool is.
The instructional recreational pool,
understand how the zero entry access which is great for comfort of kids
getting used to it. What's the instructional portion of the pool and
how big is that? Yeah if you'd like as well I believe the city may have
additional context to provide you with. The instructional element of the pool
provides essentially in SAPS understanding a smaller version of the
competitive pool it's not as deep and in competitive swim events for example that
areas used for warm up and cool down. That's about as much information as I
have if you'd like to ask the city to come up and provide additional
information. They're certainly familiar with the dimensions and the exact usage
of the pools. Through the chair if that's okay. If the city rep doesn't mind
coming up. I think we have unfortunately distracted the city rep. I'm sorry. Sorry
if you wouldn't mind I think there were some questions about the sizes of the
Olympic pool versus versus the recreational pool, instructional pool.
And to provide context for my question slash concern, understand the
competition pool, understanding tons of swim teams, tons of water polo teams.
Everybody is always fighting for pool space and from my perspective there's
There's always the concern that the pool space, the lion's share of that pool space and time
is going to be used by those competitive teams.
Swim practice, swim meets, water polo practice, water polo meets.
And then there's little opportunity for recreational, instructional swimming.
So if that competitive pool is being used, the lion's share, which I'm guessing would
be by those swim teams, water polo teams and whatnot, what's left for everybody else?
So we actually have a tremendous amount of programming for the 50-meter pole, so I believe
it's like the majority of the poles are open 15 hours a day.
My understanding is 12 hours is dedicated to recreation swim, and so that's senior programs
and we talked about in my, you know, I rushed through the presentation.
talked about water exercise right and water exercise happens in deeper water
so like the seven feet pool but also in our shallow pool so the combined
instructional and recreational pool they're connected so it's one body of
water but different uses the rectangular instructional pool is your shallow pool
so you can touch the floor you could do whatever water gym water aerobics but
that's a form of water exercise, but there's also just general lap swim for
those seeking to get exercise. There's swim lessons for more intermediate, where
they need a little bit deeper waters, but in general it's about 13 hours out of
15 that are dedicated to recreation swim. And I think competitive pool is a
misnomer because it is a pool. It's 50 meters so it has the flexibility to be a
competitive pool, but as you heard from the commission's presentation, it's restricted
to basically five percent for competitive uses.
So I think there's a need for greater water space, water play, and opportunities to both
get introduced to water activities, but also to gradually advance in your comfort and your
ability to take on deeper waters, especially as a child gets older, gets
taller, right? And so those are sort of challenges that they sort of self-conquer
and get pride in, you know, once they learn how to jump into a seven-foot, you
know, I think everyone who's taken swim lessons remembers when they jumped in,
right and so and then just to commissioner Turnbull Sanders so we do
have programs the city does partner with swim clubs so they start with the city
lessons the parks recreation programming lessons and matriculate into competitive
program should they do that so it's not written in the plan but it's something
that we could add to and describe in more detail great I appreciate that and
it sounds to me like you've got a handle on ensuring that the competitive activities, i.e. swim
teams, practices, meets, water polo teams, practices and meets, don't crowd out those recreational
swimmers and those instructional swimmers. And that's that was really my concern. And I'm a huge
fan of LA County's junior lifeguard program. I'm sure you got you have a similar program in Long
Beach and to the extent that you're a part of your program includes that
introduction because the junior lifeguard program is unbelievable two
three years of that and you can trust your ten-year-old to go to the beach by
him or herself it's that good of a program and one of the focuses in LA
County is to get those folks who don't live on the coast to learn to swim to
get comfortable and then compete and try out for the junior guards program so I
I hope that in your, you know, the many competitive, you know, competing interests for the pool
that you can try to incorporate that junior guard program because from our perspective
in LA County, it's something that we need to get more people.
We do now.
From the inner cities and who don't live on the coast to the beaches and get comfortable.
So thank you for that.
You do.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you.
I'll send it back to our staff. Dr. Hucklebridge or Mr. Hudson. Thanks, I'd
like to turn it over to Javier Piderez to respond a little bit to some of the
questions that have been raised. Thank you, Kate, and thank you for those
thoughtful questions and comments. So just three things we'd like to clarify,
you know, that we want to just make sure that it's clear. So first, that only five
of the time will the pool be used for competitive swimming. 95% of the time it will be used
for the other activities and recreation. The other point is that transit vouchers will
be available in community centers in the zip codes for communities that were highlighted
in the original conditions. And the third thing is that we've included in the benchmark,
metrics and in general just the review in the annual report that would be coming into
the director included zip codes to ensure that the marketing plans and the right amount
of folks and we also included increases per year to ensure that things are actually working
and it's reaching the right audiences because we absolutely have the same concerns regarding
public safety and you know we understand that the original condition and in those
zip codes that were highlighted was a priority. So yeah I just want to clarify
those three things. And I guess real real quickly to just go back to the the
issue that was raised by Commissioner Turnbull Sanders about competitive swim
programs and the importance of those. I mean I think this is this is an issue
that's challenging there's not a lot of funding. My understanding is from the
City to support that program at this point that said if this seems like a an
evolving issue that it that is as this pool is built they're going to be
programs that are going to be interested in using it for competitive swim and in
in one sense as you heard now the balance right now is 5% 95% in in favor
of recreational there may be a shift in that over time and so we have a
condition here in here that requires regular reporting so that we can assess
how that's going the whole time and I think I would recommend that we adjust
our one of our conditions and I'll actually turn it over to Steve to give
the specifics but to specifically call out this issue about you know
feasibility of competitive swim programs and and making sure that that component
is included. Thank you Kate and so if the Commission decides to proceed with the
approval of the condition compliance today, we would like to modify our staff
recommendation to make a slight revision to Special Condition 3 to require
continued evaluation of improvements, ways to improve instructional programs
to foster both basic and competitive level swimming. And the
idea is, as Kate said, we will continue to receive these annual monitoring reports,
those were subject to review and approval by the executive director and
those reports come to us for the life of the development so this monitoring
program won't will never be finished this is going to be an ongoing project
that we will continue working on. Okay another comment I'll turn it back to
Commissioner Turnbull Sanders please. Thank You chair I would like to move
that Commission approve the final public access program attached to the staff
recommendation as exhibit one of the staff report as compliant with special
condition number am I on the right motion yeah special condition number three
of coastal development permit numbers a-5-LOB-17-0032
and A-5-LOB-20-007 and 5-18-0788 as amended, and I recommend a yes vote.
And thank you for that. I must break in and we do need to do the amendment which
is the first item first because this one is you just thought through that whole
thing Commissioner Turnbull Sanders it it modifies the permit that you their
special condition that is included I apologize okay guide me what we need to
do so it's the the item the 5 I go 11 a first item 11 a and it's on I believe
page 5 okay maybe I'm on the wrong page all right I'm gonna chairs gonna help
me out here all right this one is on page 5 okay I move that the Commission
approved coastal development permit amendment numbers a-5-lob-17-0032-a1
and a-5-lob-20-007-a1 and 5-18-07-88-a1
pursuant to the staff recommendation as amended and I am requesting a yes vote.
second that okay we have a motion by Commissioner Turnbull Sanders and a
second by Commissioner Jackson do any commissioners object to unanimous yes
vote seeing no objections the motion passes and we'll now go to the second
motion second motion was one question before we go the motion all right so just
in terms of the conditions I just want to be clear one thing that I was
interested in seeing is the zip code data that was mentioned from staff. I see
that those zip codes have been outlined with the priority ones aligning with my
research and my question is in the data that we're getting back will we know
which zip codes program participants came from and will that be sent back to us.
It's a little unclear in how that was my clarifying question. Yes, we have included
zip code data for program participation in order to track attendance
geographically as well. And that'll be something that'll be included in the
annual reporting. Perfect. Only because it kind of read like it was just the
outreach. So again more than outreach I want the participation side. So thank you.
With that clarification I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Turnbull
Sanders. Thank you. I move that commission approve the final public access program
attached to the staff rec attached to the staff recommendation as exhibit one
of the staff report and as compliant with special condition number three of
Coastal Development permit numbers a-5-lob-17-0032 and
a dash five dash lob dash two zero dash zero zero zero seven and five dash one
eight dash zero seven eight eight as amended by the the staff recommendation
second and requesting the yes vote thank you that's a motion by Commissioner
Turnbull Sanders the second by Commissioner Lopez are there any
objections to a unanimous yes vote. Seeing none the motion passes. Thank you very much.
Okay I'm going to suggest we take a brief break. If we could all be back here at 4.55
please. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Okay. We
We are now on to item 12c.
Thank you everyone for your patience.
Item 12c is for permit application number 5241045.
The applicants are PCH Beach Associates LLC, Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and
Harbors and the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
The applicants propose to demolish an existing one-story 12,091 square foot restaurant known
is Gladstones and the adjacent public deck and restrooms and constructing new three-story
17,712 square foot restaurant on a case on grade beam foundation, reaching a height of
approximately 47 feet above Pacific Coast Highway, as well as a new 2,094 square foot
public deck, two new public restrooms, a snack shack with a walk-up window, and a retail
shop they also propose to make improvements to the adjacent 212 space
public parking lot including repaving and restriping the establishment the
establishment of a new bus stop and turnaround loop for Metro and the big
blue bus lines eight new bicycle parking spaces and water quality improvements
the parking lot improvements will reduce the number of parking spaces in
the lot to 148 but with valet stacking there will be a total capacity of
of 171 cars.
In addition, the proposal includes improvements
to the existing California coastal trail
on the seaward side of the parking lot
and construction of a new segment of the trail
on the seaward side of the new restaurant,
as well as removal of an approximately 300 foot long
rock revetment seaward of the existing restaurant
and 9,000 square feet of landscaping throughout the site.
Proposed grading includes 510 cubic yards of cut
and 1260 cubic yards of fill
for a total of 750 cubic yards of imported fill.
Next slide, please.
The project is located on two adjacent beach fronting lots
within the Pacific Palisades area
of the city of Los Angeles.
The up-coast parcel,
a portion of which is seen on this slide,
is 4.39 acres and currently developed
with the existing restaurant and public deck
proposed to be replaced
and a large county-operated public beach parking lot
that is not part of the subject project.
The down coast parcel, seen on this slide at its entirety,
is 2.59 acres and currently developed
with the county operated public beach parking lot
that is proposed to be improved.
Both parcels are designated open space
in the city's uncertified zoning code,
which allows for parks and recreation uses.
The beach seaward of the up coast parcel
is approximately 100 feet wide.
There is a 900 foot long rock revetment seaward
of the parking lot and a groin that extends
from between the two parcels into the ocean.
The parcels are on public land owned by state parks
leased by the city of Los Angeles
and managed by the LA County Department of Beaches
and Harbors.
The project site sits within the middle
of Will Rogers State Beach,
which stretches four miles from Topanga Canyon
to Santa Monica Mountain, or to Santa Monica.
The commission standard of review for the entire project
is the chapter three policies of the Coastal Act.
Next slide.
The parking lot on the down coast parcel is operated by a vendor valet service.
The parking lot serves both the restaurant and beach users.
As described in detail in the staff report, the site, including public access to the public
deck and public parking lot, have been subject to a series of enforcement actions for decades.
Very briefly, the violations involved the restaurant operator not allowing members of
the public to access the public deck without making a purchase from the restaurant.
The restaurant and valet operators not allowing members of the public to self park in the parking lot charging more that
for parking them permitted and charging beach goers more for parking than going to the restaurant and
the installation of misleading parking lot signs suggesting the parking lot was exclusively for patrons of Gladstones only
The Commission has received public comments from residents that there has been insufficient public engagement by the applicant's staff would note that although the project site
is located within the dual-permit jurisdiction area of the City of Los Angeles.
The state law AB 178 in 2024 modified the permit requirements for development on site
so that only a CDP from the Coastal Commission, not the city, is required.
Thus, there were no local hearings for the proposed project.
Although the applicants voluntarily expanded the hearing noticing radius from 100 feet
to 300 feet from the project site parcels to capture all those who would have been noticed
if a local hearing for the proposed project was held.
This provides an opportunity
for greater public participation in the commission's process.
Also as detailed in the addendum for this item,
the LA County Board of Supervisors held three public meetings
about the project between 2016 and 2022.
And the Beach Commission held 13 public meetings
about the project between 2016 and 2023.
Next slide.
The Coastal Act prioritizes public access
and recreational opportunities on oceanfront land
and requires new development to avoid impacts to public access
and to provide lower cost visitor serving amenities.
The proposed development includes commercial visitor
serving uses on public beachfront lands.
Given the previous challenges associated
with mismanagement of the existing public deck
and public parking lot and to avoid confusion
by members of the public or staff of the restaurant,
the proposed public deck will be entirely separate
from the restaurant dining areas and designed
to ensure that the deck does not appear
to be part of the adjacent restaurant.
It provides seating for a minimum of 100 people
that will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Reservations of any portion of the deck is prohibited.
The public deck and restrooms will be open
and available to the public at a minimum
during all hours the restaurant is open
with no purchase necessary.
Special Condition 9 memorializes the proposed operation
of the public deck.
Next slide, please.
To encourage non-automobile access,
the proposed parking lot configuration
includes a new bus stop, bus loop,
and eight new bicycle parking spaces.
The proposed bus loop bisects the parking lot,
creating a separation between the self-park-only lot
and the shared valet and self-park lot.
To ensure drivers are aware that they are not required
to valet park their vehicles.
Special conditions eight and nine require a signed plan
to ensure the public is aware of their right
to self-park in either lot, how to get to those lots,
and that they are not required to valet park their car
unless all self-parking spaces are full,
at which point they will not have to pay additional fees
for valet parking.
It is not typical for a public beach parking lot
on public property to be operated by a private company.
However, in this case, the county who manages
the parking lot agreed to the terms
of the private operation through a concession agreement
that was approved by state parks
and the County Board of Supervisors.
The proposed reconfiguration of the parking lot
will result in the reduction of 41 public parking spaces.
The loss of those spaces is necessary
to accommodate the bus loop and stop.
However, the addition of the new bus loop,
along with the new coastal trail segment,
ride share loop, and bicycle parking spaces
will provide additional opportunities for all people
to reach this part of the coast.
Because the parking lot will be available
to any member of the public
on a first come first serve basis.
Employees of the development who drive to work
will be able to park there.
So to minimize the loss of public parking spaces
that may be taken up by employees,
special condition eight requires the permittees
to submit a transportation demand management plan
that provides or covers the full cost
of a monthly transit passed to and from work.
This condition also requires the permittees
to submit annual monitoring reports
for the first five years
from receipt of certificate of occupancy
the restaurant, during that time they will be required to monitor the parking management
program and provide annual reports to the executive director related to the actual operation
of the program and any unforeseen impacts to public access.
Within the five year period, if any adverse impacts related to the program are identified,
the permittees are required to provide a revised parking management plan incorporating potential
solutions to address those impacts for the review and approval of the
executive director unless the executive director determines substantial changes
to the plan would require an amendment to this permit. Special condition 8 also
limits the maximum daily rates that may be charged per vehicle to self park in
the lot, requires an hourly fee scheduled to be implemented, and requires that
beachgoers who park in the lot not be charged a higher rate to park than
restaurant patrons. Next slide please. Construction for the proposed
development is expected to take almost two years. As seen on this slide, a
portion of the existing downcoast parking lot will be available for public
parking during construction activities, except for about three months during the
very end of construction when the entire parking lot will be closed for final
improvements to that lot. The existing public parking lot on the up-close lot
is not a part of this project and will remain available to the public
throughout all construction activities. Construction of the proposed restaurant
will require the use of a large crane for approximately 300 days. Thus special
condition 7 requires the applicants to submit a public access management plan
that provides how public access around the site will be allowed when feasible
and limited as necessary for public safety. During those times when access is
not available across the site signage shall be required informing the public
of alternative nearby beach access locations and parking, as well as to provide details
related to how members of the public will be able to pass and repass seaward during
all construction activities.
Next slide.
In regard to visual resources, the proposed development will replace the existing one-story
restaurant with a larger three-story restaurant.
As seen on this slide, while there will be an increase, and actually, sorry, I need to
correct that. So it's a two-story restaurant with a elevator access at the top. So as seen on this
slide, while there will be an increase in the bulk and height, the proposed development will
not result in any significant or adverse changes to visual quality of the area or public view impacts
to and along the coast as viewed from PCH, the beach, or other public viewing areas. In regard
With regard to coastal hazards, the Commission's updated guidance estimates approximately 2.9-4.6 feet of predicted sea level rise by the year 2100 for the project site.
The main flooding hazard at the project site would come from waves which can break and run up the beach, reaching much higher elevations.
As such, the project site is located in a hazardous area and the development or portions thereof may need to be removed in the future.
Thus, Special Condition 18 requires the permittees to remove all or portions of the development
approved by the CDP if ordered to do so by a government agency.
Additional conditions to address hazards are required, including Special Condition 17,
which puts the applicants on notice that the proposed development is not entitled to future
shoreline protective devices and prohibits future seaward encroachment of development
authorized herein. Special condition 14 informs applicants of the potentially ambulatory
nature of their seaward property boundary and that this property may move with sea level
rise. Special condition 16 additionally requires applicants to assume the risks associated
with development in hazardous areas and waives the commission of any liability associated
with the development. In addition the site is mapped within the limits of a tsunami hazard
area. The applicants proposed to address this hazard through an evacuation plan consistent
with how tsunami risk is managed statewide. Special Condition 9 requires the applicants
to submit a final signage plan to ensure evacuation signs are placed throughout the project site.
In addition to ensure geologic and engineering stability, Special Condition 1 requires submittal
of final plans to approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and
Safety. Although there is no sensitive habitat on site, existing palm trees
proposed to be removed constitute potential nesting habitat for shorebirds
given their close proximity to the water. Special condition 10 requires nesting
bird surveys to be conducted to ensure impacts to nesting and roosting birds are
avoided, prohibits the removal of active nests, requires any nesting trees
removed to be replaced at a one-to-one ratio, requires the applicants to follow
a prescribed avian and grunion monitoring and avoidance plan, and
requires all windows, reflective surfaces, and glass to consist of bird
safe materials and for those to be maintained for the life of the
development. Special condition 7 requires that construction work take place only
during daylight hours and limits any necessary nighttime lighting in a
matter that protects coastal resources. Special condition 6 requires the
applicants to submit a lighting plan that complies with dark sky requirements
and avoids or minimizes light spillover onto the beach and adjacent bluff
habitat. In addition, to reduce the rate of marine debris, special condition 11
limits the use of single plastic foodware and requires the applicants to
submit a plan for recycling trash and waste reduction. Next slide please.
Lastly, next slide, whenever you're ready. There is an addendum for this item that
addresses letters of opposition and concerns raised by members of
the public on October 3rd. Actually it's going to be the slide after this.
Generally the concerns raised have to do with the loss of public parking, coastal
hazards, visual impacts, lack of Caltrans approved traffic study and the addition
of a bus stop in this location, as well as lack of public participation. These
have all been thoroughly discussed in the staff report, the addendum, and again in
the presentation. Very briefly, the loss of public parking will be mitigated
through the addition of the bus stop, parking passes for employees, and ride
share drop-off. Coastal hazards including flooding and wave up rush are
addressed through the design features such as a raised foundation system and
special conditions which prohibit shoreline protection in the future and
require removal of the development if ordered to do so. No work within the
Caltrans right-of-way is being proposed thus a Caltrans approved traffic study
was not required. Concerns raised with the addition of a bus stop in this
location are generally related to unhoused people accessing the area and
triggering SB 79. The applicants insist that SB 79 would not be triggered by
the addition of the bus stop and that the potential for unhoused people to
access the coast in this location does not raise any coastal act concerns. The
addendum also makes updates to the staff report including updates to special
condition 1 to correct the date of the project plans and that the beach crane
would be operational on Saturdays but not Sundays. Modifications to special 8
clarify valet operation and monitoring plan expectations. Modifications to
special condition 9 require a public parking sign at the entrance of the
parking lot, allow for the installation of one additional restaurant sign and
clarifies hours of operation for the public deck are 6 a.m. until either the
parking lot or restaurant closes whichever is later. And a modification to
special condition 19 which requires as-built plans to be submitted to the
Commission within 90 days of completion instead of 30 days. Findings and the
staff report are also updated to reflect the changes to the special conditions
and to clarify that the beach crane will be in use for 300 days not 200 days. In
closing, staff believes that the proposed project is conditioned conforms
with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Thus, staff is recommending
that the Commission approve the project subject to the special conditions
beginning on page 6 of the staff report. The motion and resolution to accomplish
this can be found on page 5 of the staff report.
All right and thank you. Before we conclude, staff does have one correction
to the staff report that wasn't in the addendum, just to clarify that the number
of resulting parking spaces is 141 and not 148 has stayed in the staff report.
So 141 is the correct number of parking spaces. So with that, that concludes our
staff presentation and we'll just note that we're available for questions.
Thank you very much I will turn to the Commission and ask if there are any
expertise to report mr. Lopez yeah thank you madam chair I'll share that I did
have a meeting with two of my staff members president book Priscilla
Ramos and Monica Hale and also on that many work and Blumkert Gary Jones in the
caves Tom Phillips and Susan McCabe on this project it was ahead of additional
negotiations with staff that we talked about concerns around the parking
condition specifically signed pollution and talk about structural fixes to some
of the concerns at that time but again everything that was discussed today
clarifies all those issues. Thank you. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you Madam Chair. I had a Zoom
conversation yesterday with Amy Caves, Tom Tellison, Susan McCabe and Ann Blomker
with the same concerns or issues that my colleague just raised the parking and
everything else that was enumerated and we also talked about bicycle parking
with the increase in EVs that are more more people are using using electric
vehicles and a potential need for increased parking to accommodate those
Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. I also had an ex parte last night at 8 30 p.m.
very briefly with Susan McCabe and Ann Blemker on behalf of the applicant. They
indicated that they are in agreement with staff recommendation and the bulk
of our conversation revolved around the positive interactions with staff and
that it was a very productive experience with specific kudos to you Mr. Hudson
your really thorough work on this project. Okay with that we will open the
public hearing and I will turn to Chris. Thank you and we do have the applicants
here Amy caves with the LA County beaches and harbors supervisor Lindsay
Horvath Wolfgang Puck Frank Gary and Thomas Telefson. Good afternoon my name
is Amy caves and I'm the chief deputy director of the LA County Department of
beaches and harbors. A co-applicant of California State Parks and the Puck
team on this project. And first of all, thank you the commissioners for this
opportunity to speak with you today. Ma'am can I ask how much time you need? Oh
I'm so sorry. We need 15 minutes we want to reserve of those five for rebuttals.
So kind of initially. Ten minutes on the clock. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. No, no
worries. So I was just saying thank you for the time today and also thank you
especially to Coastal staff you know for all of their patience and hard work
over the years we've been at this since 2017 and we along with our co-applicants
are extremely happy to be here today to help progress this exciting public-private
partnership that we are confident will enhance public beach access including
expanded free amenities that are open to the public as well as a safer means of
accessing the beach and the restaurant site via public transit. The county team
is here and available to answer any questions and now without further ado we
do have a video message of support from LA County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath.
And we're bringing it up. Pause the time. Hello I'm Lindsey Horvath supervisor
for Los Angeles County's third district. Thank you for the
opportunity to share my thoughts on the proposed redevelopment of Gladstones at
Will Rogers State Beach. This project has been in development for many years,
long before I took office, and while there have been moments of community
engagement, I understand that after everything this community has been
through, people are feeling overwhelmed and uncertain. That's completely
understandable. Unfortunately, misinformation has added to those fears,
so let me be clear. The rumors circulating right now, including any claims about SB 79,
are simply not true. The Gladstone's project is not creating a major transit stop,
and SB 79 would not apply to this location even if it becomes law. The proposed bus turnaround
and stop do not meet the bill's criteria. In fact, no big blue bus stops qualify as bus rapid transit
under SB79 either. I support this project because it's an opportunity to invest in a place that
means a lot to our community and to our coastline. With leadership from Frank Gehry and Wolfgang Puck,
the project will provide public benefits like new restrooms, a widened coastal path, a public deck
with ocean views, improved transit access, and a cafe with affordable food options, all while
keeping the beach experience front and center. The proposed redevelopment will honor that legacy
while building a more inclusive, accessible, and climate-resilient space for everyone.
These are our goals. This is about reinvesting in a public space, not taking it away,
and it's about achieving a revitalized, strengthened landmark as our community recovers
long-term. I respectfully ask for your support of the coastal development permit so we can move
this important work forward for future generations. Thank you. Thank you. Next on our list we had
Wolfgang Puck. Good afternoon commissioners and staff and everybody here. I think this
is probably the most exciting thing happening in Los Angeles, at least in our business.
I would have never imagined to partner with Frank Gehry to build a building and open a restaurant on ECH.
To me it's the premier location and it deserves really a first-class restaurant.
But we won't let the public on the side.
We're going to have a 100-seat deck where we're going to have less expensive food,
where people can bring their own food, hang out if they want to, they have the public
parking if they want to, they have the valet parking if they like to.
You know, we had enough bad things happen in Los Angeles.
And I think Ms. Kelly said before, Los Angeles is in a crisis.
We know all about our business, how we suffered this year from the fire, the Ethan fire, the
Pacific Palisade fire, Fire Malibu.
Again, I think we had all these things going on downtown, which really gave the whole city
a bad reputation.
I was in Europe this summer, and people asked me, what the heck is going on in Los Angeles?
You know, you had the fire, you had the military downtown.
They thought we are totally in a chaos.
So now, for us, teaming up with Frank Gehry to build a world-class facility.
and we know what Frank Gehry does to a city, to a place. I mean, Bill Bau was not a city.
It was a city, but Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum changed the whole city. And we will
do the same thing with the restaurant. It will change the perception of Los Angeles.
We're going to get press all over the world, because how many restaurants did Frank Gehry
The man is 95 years old, he's not going to design a lot more.
So for me, it's probably the most exciting thing to work with Frank Gehry and build this amazing restaurant on the beach.
And you know, restaurants are really the center of the community.
And I always said, if we want the community to be interested in us, we have to be interested in the community.
be interested in a community.
Years ago in 1982, I started a program for Meals on Wheels.
We raised millions for people who don't have food.
We started a program for the Cancer Society
for the same amount of time.
We did a big project in Las Vegas for Alzheimer's.
My mother had Alzheimer's, so with Larry Rubel,
we started this big program and raised hundreds of millions
to build a thing.
And by the way, Frank Gehry built the building downtown Las Vegas.
Even next Sunday, we are having a big fundraiser for No Kids Hungry.
So we are really interested to serve the community, be a big part of the community.
And my wife, Galila, who is my partner, and Tom Tellefson, I mean, we talked about that
for the longest time.
My wife is really interested in the cultural aspects.
So she's going to have out shows from emerging artists,
music, whatever it takes to get the community involved
into our project.
So for me, to be here with Tom, my wife, Kalila,
and everybody who helped us to go through.
And you know what?
I didn't have gray hair 80 years ago when we started.
But I think by the time we opened,
I probably won't have any hair left.
So hopefully, we can get this thing going.
I think we really need something positive for the community.
When you hear what's happening in Pacific Palisades,
and I have some people who live there, they move the way,
and trying to figure out about their life,
I think this will be the first step.
When they see the cranes out there,
when they're going to see that we are actually rebuilding
and not talk about if we're gonna build high rises
or whatever, we're gonna really change
the way people think about where we are.
So for me, hopefully we can get this approved.
I think this is really for me and for my wife, Galila,
one of our main projects and probably for us,
our reputation is the most important thing.
We might lose a little money somewhere,
but we don't wanna lose our reputation.
So I put my heart and soul into it.
And I think this is going to be my final project.
We didn't have to use Frank Gehry as an architect.
We could have found fully a cheaper one.
But I said, you know, I want the best.
I want the best for the city.
And I think for me, I'm a proud Angelino, even
with an accent.
The way I have it, people might not believe me.
But we are a community with so many different accents
from so many different countries.
And we even have the governor with an accent like me.
So I hope that we can get this done.
I hope that we can build a restaurant sooner than later.
We've waited for a long time.
And not to say we're going to create over 200 jobs.
We're going to pay taxes.
A lot of people need jobs these days.
A lot of restaurants are failing.
A lot of people are out of a job.
So hopefully with the city together,
with the county together, with the Coastal Commission,
we can achieve a goal which will make every Angelina proud.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Next we had Frank Gehry.
I'm sorry.
Frank Gehry has health issues today
and it cannot be, I cannot tell you this, I apologize.
Okay, and then we had Thomas Tellefson.
Yes, thank you.
Madam Chair, members of the commission,
executive director and staff,
my name is Tom Tellefson.
I am partners with Wolf King Puck and Goleta Puck
in the entity, PCH Beach Associates,
which is basically a co-applicant with the county
and the state with this project.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity
to present our exciting project
and address concerns expressed
by some members of the community.
I'm actually gonna shorten what I was going
say a lot because Wolfgang took a lot more time, but in doing so I think he
did a great job of expressing ourselves. So I'm going to just go through the
rest of my comments here in under a minute. First of all, as Wolfgang said,
we've been at this project for over eight years working closely with the
staff of the county and the staff of the Coastal Commission. Our project is
supported by the supervisor, governor, LA City mayor, assemblyperson, and senator
for the district. The project description and program are substantially consistent with
that presented in our response to the RFP eight years ago and that was approved by the
Board of Supervisors. So we want you to understand we have not made any significant changes.
We are consistent with what we said before. The inclusion of Frank Gehry, who as you know
can appear today in Wolfgang Prech, in the project will result in the replacement of
a tired and yes eyeshore property with a magnificently designed and operated new project with something
for everyone. It maximizes and delivers the public benefits and amenities, is a
tendency to be enjoyed by the local community visitors in Los Angeles and
every demographic of the greater Los Angeles area. To clarify the comments
that have been circulating on the building size and comparisons and to
note something that wasn't yet noted by the by the staff, the current Gladstone's
restaurant is 19,991 square feet. The square footage does include not only the
12,091 square feet building area that was mentioned to you in the staff
report, but it also includes a 7900 square foot existing deck that is serving both the
public and the restaurant. So the total restaurant area in operation is 19,991 square feet.
By comparison, our restaurant building area and patio devoted only to the restaurant is
17,712 square feet. That's 2200 square feet less than the existing building. Separately
apart from that the current restaurant seats 707 people our seats 472 people
therefore a reduction of 235 seats. I had a presentation I was going to show
you but I'm not going to take that time right now I just want to tell you thank
you very much for giving us the opportunity here I want to thank the
staff for working with us and we're looking forward to this project becoming
a reality after all this time thank you.
We are reserving your time left for rebuttal.
Moving on to local government, we
have Santa Monica Big Blue Bus representative Alfredo
Torrales.
And please give us a second as you're being moved in.
And Alfredo Torrales, when you're
able to, please unmute and begin.
Hi, thank you.
Good evening.
On behalf of the Big Blue Bus, I'm
here to declare our support for this project.
This project balances honoring a beloved beachfront
restaurant's legacy with critical infrastructure
investments for future generations.
It will create a world-class coastal destination
that delivers real public benefits to our communities.
Beyond the restaurant and the public deck,
this project includes a new bus stop and turnaround
that will be served by our Route 9.
This transit improvement provides employees,
diners, and the general public with affordable,
sustainable beach and job access.
Big Blue Bus has long needed infrastructure
at Sunset and PCH.
Without it, we haven't been able to serve this area
with our Route 9, leaving a critical gap in service.
Transit riders, especially from disadvantaged
and low income households, have suffered the most
from this lack of affordable, equitable mobility option
in this area.
This project enables Route 9's extension to PCH
and facilitating transfers with Metro line 134.
Big Blue Bus fully supports this project
for enhancing coastal access and creating employment
and recreational opportunities
through improved transit connectivity and investments.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And the remaining speakers are all members
of the general public.
We have 14 people signed up
and we'll start with people in the room.
Jessica Rogers, Mariam Zarr,
Aneena Maddock, Diane Dayton.
She had to leave.
OK.
Can I start?
Hi, my name is Jessica Rogers, and I'm
the president of the Pacific Palisades Residence Association.
Two points, one comment.
The addendum to the staff report filed just yesterday
modifies at least 10% of the initial staff report.
The public must be given more than one day
to review and comment on that amount of substantive changes and a delay in the Commission's action
on this project by one or two months cannot reasonably be argued as prejudicing the applicants.
The other comment and note is that I have several emails on my phone here from the Chief
of the Office of Permitting of Caltrans verifying and confirming that you absolutely do need
to permit for this project in order for it to be approved, unlike what we've been told.
In addition to that, the comment is, in case you haven't noticed, our community burned
to the ground. I am a survivor of the wildfire and I have lost absolutely everything. I am
here to speak on behalf of my community for you to say that there were 16 public hearings
and by the way, you're not obligated to tell our community about it, but this community
here who cares so much about our community. Guess what? We were not aware of all these
hearings you have, and you promised us back in the day in 2021 that you would involve
the community, that you would speak to us, that you would give us an opportunity. Our
children were on the streets at Sunset and PCH, right at Gladstone's, crossing flames,
trying to survive. We are traumatized, and yet today you made me sit in this room all
day long, hearing about this, that, and the other, and had zero compassion for us, knowing
very well that you plan to approve this project today without hearing us.
The worst historical wildfire of our time in the United States of America, and yes,
look at me, outrage, live what I've been living through, and you'll know what anger feels
like.
Thank you so much.
appreciate you taking the time to hear my voice because my community didn't get
to have a voice. Thank you. Thank you. So with Nina Matic and now Beth Holden who
are both here in person we see that you're on Zoom. We'll come back to you
when we move to our Zoom participants. Next will be Maryam Zarr, Diane Dayton,
and then Steve Proto. Thank you. I just want to locate this box. And I just want to say for all the
talk of the community that you'd like to serve and be kind to and bring
services to shockingly the community has not been consulted. I will speak into the
mic. We can't hear you ma'am and if you could direct your comments to the
Commission. I certainly will. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Mary
Amzar and I'm speaking on behalf of the Palisades community through the
inclusive voice of the Pacific Palisades Community Council representing
residents navigating recovery and rebuilding following the January 2025
wildfire. We respectfully but firmly request that this item be postponed. The
current proposal for specific new development on the County Beach parking
lot constitutes a major coastal project that has not been publicly presented and
for which required notice and opportunity for comment were neither
properly posted nor provided. These failures violate the notice requirements
for posting 10 days prior to the hearing and leading up to that date and warrant
dismissal and reapplication of the process. At the very least a continuation
under the Coastal Act's fundamental guarantees of due process, transparency, and public participation
is warranted today. The applicant assured the community in 2021 that plans would be shared
and questions addressed. That has not occurred. Proceeding without adequate public notice and
outreach would undermine both the integrity of the review process and the community's right to
meaningful input under California's land use and coastal protection laws. We therefore urge the
Commission to require the applicant to re-notice the project, engage in proper community consultation,
return only after full disclosure and outreach have occurred. The Palisades
community stands ready to participate in good faith but we cannot support a
process that bypasses public involvement particularly at this moment when we
rebuild from a devastating fire that has leveled our entire community and diverted
the attention of most of our residents as they grapple with recovery and
rebuilding. Thank you for your time and commitment to fairness and proper
procedure. Thank you. Diane Dayton, Steve Proto, Meer Kashani. If anyone's heard
name you can approach. Diane Dayton, Steve Proto, Mira Koshani, Sanaz Koshani, Steve
Proto, please go ahead. Give us a moment we're bringing up your video. Please
gonna go ahead and put the video on.
Super scoopers all over
We're doing okay, we're doing okay
So that was January 7th
On Palisades Drive my wife was coming down to try to pick up my daughter
At sunset and PCH. It was all blocked up that whole artery
she had her park her car off the side of the road and
She had to get on foot. I was lucky enough to get to Marquette school with my car coming up
From Santa Monica picked up my daughter where all the kids were crying. We don't want to die
We got on sunset and we headed down towards PCH. It was all gridlocked
We had to throw our car off the side of the road and walk five miles into Santa Monica. I
Guess my question is would you please reconsider?
this item if
There is any way shape or form a bus
Stop or loop is interpreted as a TOD a transit destination point
Which would then enact S beena sp 79 which would create a lot more density to the area
Where we have this artery of sunset and pch which we couldn't go down
We had to get on foot so you could only imagine in another evacuation. What would happen?
If we had more density in the area, I'm not saying don't approve it right now
I'm just saying maybe postpone it give us give us at least you know some more information about this
So this doesn't create more of a problem than what we had
Thank you
Diane Dayton another call for you
Mirka Shani, Sanaz Kashani, James K, Mitch Silverstein
Any of you that heard your name you can approach?
Hello, I'm mere Koshani had a presentation if that could come up. Okay, let us
Hello, I'm say Koshani and my family used to live in the Palisades until our house burned down
Actually within about a half mile of the Gladstone's location
I believe that the application as presented does not comply with the coastal act because it has a
significant reduction of public space
As you can see, this is right from the application.
They are taking, currently, the public deck is 7,500 feet,
and they propose to reduce that to 2,000 feet.
That's a 70% reduction in public space.
They propose to take that 5,000 feet
and add it to the restaurant,
a substantial increase in the private space.
This is right from the staff report,
And Mr. Tillotson was saying the restaurant is going
from 19,000 feet to 17,000 feet.
I'm sorry, that's misleading.
Because when he says 19,000 feet,
he's counting the current restaurant,
which is only 12,000 feet,
plus the public deck, which is 7,000 feet,
and he's comparing that to the new restaurant only,
which is 17,000 feet.
Next slide, please.
As you can see, they are taking 5,000 feet
public space and adding it to the private restaurant. This is not
acceptable under the Coastal Act and they need to revise that. Now the staff
said we will impose conditions, everything will be okay. This restaurant
has a long history of not complying with any of those conditions. In addition to
the violations cited from the staff, another thing they did continually was
close the public deck for so-called private events so it was not available
to the public.
And if you look at their drawings,
they don't really even indicate where the public deck is
in relation to the existing deck.
So there's no way to evaluate what they have
under this proposal.
I request that this proposal should be denied
and they should be required to resubmit
while preserving the public space unchanged at a minimum.
By the way, my wife was next.
She had to leave to pick up our children.
Could I take her time?
Okay, that's fine.
Thank you.
Thank you.
James Kay, Mitch Silverstein.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein, California policy senior coordinator
for Surfrider Foundation.
Surfrider questions the wisdom of dedicating public space
to such a large, mostly private development
in front of a narrow beach during a time of accelerating
sea level rise.
That said, we appreciate the commission's strong special
conditions for coastal hazards and sea level rise, which
disallows future shoreline armoring
and instead requires removal of any parts of development
that may become unsafe due to coastal hazards.
even if armoring were to eventually slip through
via an emergency CDP,
these conditions severely constrain the applicant's ability
to keep such beasts destroying armoring their long term
as long as the commission sticks to its guns.
That said, the biggest concern from our LA chapter members
is the loss of 64 public parking stalls,
while the addition of bus service and a bus turnaround
may mitigate car dependency and GHG emissions.
Further analysis is needed on whether the proposed bus service
can be added without such a significant decrease
parking. As the staff report states, bus service isn't a viable option for many
beachgoers, including those coming from further inland where adequate
connectivity may not exist, and also as well as surfers and other ocean users
whose equipment is unsuitable for bus travel. This parking lot also serves
Sunset Point, which is a very popular surf spot in LA, and reduction in parking
spaces will result in less access for members of the public who want to surf
there. We do support the proposed five-year parking management program to
to analyze these impacts and respond to them after the fact.
But we'd also like to see more research
and discussion upfront to prevent reduced access.
One omission I'm glad to see
that the big blue blast representative is here
and the applicants is that the staff report
didn't really provide you or the public
a lot of quantify any quantifiable details as to
even though the bus turnaround is gonna be installed,
is there gonna be an increase in service and by how much
and how can we compare that to the loss in parking?
So I really encourage you to ask those questions here today
to the applicants and the big blue's us.
I know LA Metro already has a line 134 that stops right there.
So I do, you know, I heard that he's gonna,
that big blue wants to extend route nine,
but we just wanna know how much, how often
and what those increases are gonna be
and can they even be more increased in the future?
Thank you.
Thank you.
James K.
So I oppose this permit as it stands.
I'm a Malibu surfer, don't live in Malibu,
I've been up and down the coast over a thousand times. I know the coast
intimately. I know it well. There's already bus service there. Those buses,
you can look at whatever numbers you want. My own eyes tell you that they're
empty. Nobody is on them. That that's not something that's even used. This has
really good intentions and I actually was excited about it until I thought
about it a little bit more. So one of the biggest issues is that it might not be
today and it might not be through SB 79 but at some point in the future they
will use this transit station as an excuse to increase density. Malibu, the
Pacific Palisades already has way too many people. The Pacific Coast Highway
already gets extremely jammed with cars. It's a dangerous place to live. I don't
even know why people live there, you know, but of course I know why. So one of the
things that I would say though is that removing 64 spaces is completely
unacceptable given the fact that nobody uses the buses to get to Malibu for very
good reasons. Also one thing that is extremely important to keep in mind is
that in Santa Monica we saw an end-of-the-line situation where people
who are maybe lost who are perhaps looking for shelter now they don't know
where they're going but they're being siphoned in from Hollywood and downtown
or wherever and then they're through no fault of their own finding themselves in
a very dangerous situation. Those people often go 60 miles an hour on the PCH
sometimes 70 or 80 and you're now taking people that don't know where what's
going on or what's what's happening and you're putting them at an end of the
line situation right now the 134 it keeps going it keeps it moving but this
is gonna be like in Santa Monica where it's like okay time to get off now
you're in a very very dangerous situation I don't want to hit one of
these people I don't want that to happen this is a terrible idea you cannot
approve this as it stands this little turnaround thing it's a really bad idea
it's gonna be underutilized and you shouldn't do it thank you thank you and
And one more call for our in-person signups,
Diane Dayton and Sanazka Shani.
If they have moved on Zoom,
could you please raise your hand
and then we can call you there.
Otherwise, we'll continue with our Zoom speakers,
some of which have already moved over from in-person,
Nina Matic, Beth Holden Garland, Ashley Olson.
Nina, you should be able to unmute now.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, can you see me?
Oh, no, we can't.
OK.
Is there a way to make that happen or no?
I can promote you as a panelist.
We tried a couple of times.
OK, I see you're moving in now.
So it'll take a second to reload.
And when you're able to, you'll be able to turn your camera on.
OK.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
OK.
My name is Nina Maddock, and I've
lived in Pacific Palaces for 25 years.
I also intimately know Wolfgang Puck
as my sister, Gina DeQ Moy, was his closing chef
at Spago Hollywood.
Hi, Wolfgang.
My 10-year-old son attends Calvary Christian School
just a mile from this proposed development
at Palisades Drive in Sunset Boulevard.
At 11.02 on January 7th, while driving south on the 405,
I received a message that the school was evacuating
due to the fire.
For the next hour and a half,
I tried to reach my son inching west along Sunset,
but traffic was impassable.
I never made it.
In the end, I had to, a neighbor closer to the school
had to evacuate him for me.
That helplessness, knowing your child is in danger
and you can't reach him is something I'll never forget.
It's from that lived reality that I asked you
to please reconsider permitting a transportation station
at this development.
Despite, gosh, two major things have changed
as this project began.
The January 7th fire, which proved how limited
our evacuation routes are, and the passage of SB 79,
which according to the Los Angeles Times,
allows nine-story buildings next to a transit stop,
seven stories within a quarter mile
and six within a half mile, overriding local zoning.
The September 24th notice refers to,
Coast Commission notice refers to a, quote,
"'Public transportation station,'
and the plans submitted by the developers
show multiple bus stops,
dedicated bus ingress and egress,
and a large offloading area.
The characterization is echoed repeatedly.
An assembly member, Jackie Irwin's October 3rd letter,
calling it a, quote, expansive public transit station.
In a letter from Metro COO describing a, quote,
new public transportation passenger facility.
And then an exhibit to the 10-3 ex parte
communication between Commissioner Lopez,
the developer, project expediters, and LA Parks and Rec.
The documentation before you also
shows intent to connect three bus routes, all of which
are or soon will be considered, quote, dedicated.
By defining it as a transportation station
and connecting dedicated bus routes,
this project for trigger SB 79.
Instantly upzoning not only this site,
but every bus stop along sunset in the Palisades quarter
across Metro lines 602, 134, and Big Blue bus line nine.
That's 19 stops where density can increase dramatically
with no additional roads, no new evacuation routes,
and no realistic way to move thousands
of residents in an emergency.
The staff in Dunham dismisses these concerns
as a significant, but for those...
Thank you.
Next is Beth Holden Garland and Ashley Olsen, Wade Major.
Beth, go ahead.
Hi.
Hello.
I was there at 8.45 this morning.
I waited till 4 PM, so I'm on my cell now.
But thank you for taking my comment.
My name is Beth Holden Garland.
I serve on the executive committee of the Pacific
Palisades Community Council.
We are a very engaged and close-knit community.
Our community was absolutely devastated on January 7th.
We are still reeling.
My son was in the Sunset Palisades Drive mess,
and he still has severe PTSD.
We are still reeling with insurance issues
and whether we can build back,
and we're all in a tailspin.
My neighbor's son worked at Gladstones,
and we'd say him when we picked up food.
And my neighbor was there till 10.30 p.m. at night
with a garden hose until it ran out,
and then he left and all of our homes went down.
So Mr. Tellison came to our PPCC meeting on June 24, 2021.
I remember because I'm a Gladstone's fan
and I'm also a Wolfgang Puck fan,
but I thought it was really interesting
that we're gonna put a very high-end restaurant
at this kind of casual spot.
Anyway, he said he was gonna come back
and inform us of updates.
He never came back.
I've been at every PPCC meeting.
can look at our website and look at our minutes, he never came back and he never gave us any
information of all these new developments. He also said he was going to be speaking with Caltrans
and from what I've heard that it's still not happened. There was no public participation and
there was no posting. There was no like tagging us like so we knew that these discussions were
being had. Now it's made us aware and we are very, very hyper aware, well-read community.
The palisades has been hit hard. We're devastated. If you go up there and look, it looks like a
nuclear bomb went off. So to have a construction project at the bottom of the hill and we have to
maybe buy and compete for construction workers so we can put this restaurant up, it's not there.
we need more public engagement which we were shortchanged on. So please, please reconsider and
make the public engagement happen. Thank you. Uh, next is Ashley Olson, Wade Major, and then I'll
start calling names again that we haven't been able to find on Zoom. Ashley Olson. Hi, good, good
evening commissioners. My name is Ashley Olson, and today I'm here to firmly oppose the approval
of this application in its current form. While we understand this project has probably been in
development for years things have drastically changed and this is not the time to have another
construction project when the entire coastline in this area is going to be under construction.
I was there on January 7th and I stood on the PCH in this very location watching people scramble
as the fire closed in. Now imagine that scene with a valet operation, keys being located, cars
and people trying to get to safety.
This is not a hypothetical situation for our community.
It's our lived reality.
The project record does not include comprehensive evacuation
or hazardous analysis for wildfire landslide tsunami.
Community groups and the neighborhood organizations
have repeatedly asked for a full evacuation hazard study.
We respect the Coastal Commission's goal
of access to the coast,
but not at the expense of safety and emergency.
Please postpone today's action
and require that at a minimum a robust evaluation
and evacuation hazard study has been done
and the Caltrans and the Department of Public Transportation
is involved in reviewed traffic and circulation analysis.
This is about whether people
can safely escape the next disaster.
Our lives depend on getting this right.
And I'm confident that if you had been on the PCH that day
in this very location during the Palisades Fire,
the experiencing the gravity of terror
our community experienced
would dramatically alter your perspective
and ultimately your vote for this application.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Wade Major.
Are you able to hear me?
Oh, yes, we can hear you.
All right.
My name is Wade Major.
I'm a Malibu Public Works Commissioner
and a member of our Palisades Fire Rebuild Task Force.
My wife and I lost our home on January 7th
in the fire that destroyed a third of my hometown of Malibu
and half of my wife's hometown of Pacific Palisades,
specifically the Castlemar neighborhood
overlooks the site in question. As a teenager she worked at Gladstones as a valet parker. This is
her neighborhood and we know it well. Her family home survived the fire but is uninhabitable for
the foreseeable future, displacing her 88-year-old mother. It will take many years for her
neighborhood and hometown to rebuild. In fact, she and her siblings are there right now wearing
respirators, preparing their family home for a very long recovery process. It is shocking to us
that in your staff report there is not a single mention of the Palisades fire, not one, as if
if it never happened, as if the area your staff deemed suitable for a bus depot will
not be consumed with construction for many, many years. This is an inexcusable oversight.
It is an act of profound disrespect to the people of Pacific Palisades to even consider
a project like this without acknowledging the Herculean task ahead of them. Also not
mentioned, a planned multi-year Caltrans PCH improvement project expected to go through
2030 and other traffic impacts, including the added traffic spill onto PCH because of
loss of 41 parking spaces in an area which already has too few spaces. This is also a
favorite spot for surfers. How will the loss of parking spaces and increased parking on PCH
impact them? The people of Pacific Palisades broadly see this for precisely what it is.
An attempt to backdoor a transportation hub into a critically damaged community is a pretext for
densification and development. What guarantee is there that the backers of SB 79 won't be back
with another bill at some stage to forever change this community before it has had a chance to
rebuild. Alisadians are owed the right to rebuild their community, and when that task has been
completed then and only then should a project this transformative be submitted for their feedback
and approval. Thank you. No clapping please. Okay, so we are gonna call names that we have signed up
for Zoom, but we haven't been able to find them in our Zoom list. Razan Abu-Hantash and Lynn Bird.
Again, Rosanne Abou-Hantash or Lynn Bird,
if you are in the Zoom meeting, please raise your hand.
Seeing no hands raised, there are no more speakers,
Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chris, and thank you very much to the public
for waiting and for sharing your testimony.
So I'll return to the applicant.
I believe they've reserved four minutes and 20 seconds
for their rebuttal.
Son, thank you commissioners.
So there were a number of items said,
and let me just start by saying
I live in the Palisades as well.
And I'm also displaced by the fire.
And I'm also very sorry for all of the loss
of everybody that's spoken.
The bottom line on it is that the fire
happened on January 7th.
We started this project eight years ago.
During that eight year period, we went through, yes,
meetings with the Pacific Palisades Community Council,
meetings with the public.
We went through a number of public hearings
at the county level, which is where the project
stood for its approvals, et cetera.
We had multiple media coverage over that time,
multiple media coverage.
And the individual that spoke
from the Pacific Palisades Community Council,
when I said that I would return,
I said, just let me know when you need me,
and I've never heard from them.
Nobody's ever called me, never has ever contacted me.
I live in the community,
and as far as the community is concerned,
everybody I've heard from is basically
in full support of the project
and is actually excited about the project
because Wolfgang Puck, Frank Gehry,
and what's going on there.
A couple of other quick things so I can clarify things.
I wanna clarify the situation said
about the size of the restaurant.
I said it earlier and I wanna say it again.
The existing restaurant has a 12,000 square feet
of building and a 7,900 square foot deck.
That deck is a shared public restaurant deck.
It serves restaurant service for anybody that wants to come.
So the restaurant itself is 707 seats
and 19,991 square feet.
Our restaurant is 472 seats.
We are 235 seats less than the existing restaurant.
Those seats, therefore, don't need parking.
So the reduction of parking spaces is such
where as far as the restaurant's operation is concerned,
the public deck operation is concerned,
and as far as the beachgoers are concerned,
they will have the same amount of parking,
relatively speaking, that they have right now.
Separately apart from that you now have a big blue bus Metro stop as far as that goes now
As far as the big blue bus in Metro is concerned
I don't know if Alfred is Alfredo is still on on line over but all they're doing is expanding an existing line
So they're an existing line right now forces drivers and people sometimes to stay on the bus
Because they have to come down to Mesko Canyon and go along
Which time two minutes they come down to Mesko Canyon and have to go along PCH and go back up sunset because they can't turn
around. So all that this is basically solving for them is they get to turn
around on an existing bus line. So if anything ever happens with SP 79, the
existing bus stops and the existing bus lines will trigger it alone, not us.
We're basically all we are adding is an additional stop for the buses and they
turn around for them to go back up sunset without having to keep people on
there. Let me see. So it is not a transit station. It's nowhere near a
transportation and as far as SB 79 future references are concerned the
existing bus line alone without doing this will trigger what anything related
to that. Let me see as far as so I've talked about the loss of stolen as far
as Caltrans is concerned. We met with Caltrans five years ago. They said to us
in the meeting very much so talking about the project, they said well if
If you touch the right of way or anything in PCH and anything related to Caltrans, you
will need to come to us for a permit.
So I asked the question, I said what happens if we design our project entirely on site
that doesn't touch the right of way or come anywhere near it and doesn't ask for anything
from Caltrans?
The response to us was that if you don't need us, we don't need you.
And so if you don't need us, we don't need you.
So from the standpoint of Caltrans's concern, our project is designed entirely 100 percent
on the site, for everything to occur on site, nothing touches Caltrans, doesn't
touch the right-of-way, doesn't ask for any additional curb cuts, doesn't go
into PCH or have anything to do with Caltrans. So we do not need a Caltrans
permit. And I'm sorry as far as the individual that may have said that from
Caltrans, I don't think she or he had the information of what our project was or
or what the limits were as far as.
And I think I may address everything.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to clarify.
Thank you very much, sir.
Okay, now we will close the public hearing
and I'll return to staff for your response, thank you.
Thank you and first, we just wanted to say
that our hearts go out to all affected
by the Palisades Fire.
That being said, regarding public participation
stated previously there was a state law AB 178 that was passed in 2024 which
modified the permit requirements for development on site so that only a CDP
from the Coastal Commission not the city is required. Notices were posted on site
well before this hearing we believe in December and August and consistent with
Coastal Act noticing requirements. In addition the Coastal Act required
noticing radius was expanded to all owners and occupants of properties
within 300 feet of the subject part souls which were sent out on on September
24th regarding reductions in public space and parking while the restaurant
building is slightly larger the public deck area is reduced by about 2,000
square feet and parking spaces are reduced by 41 the applicants are
mitigating these impacts with additional public access improvements including
extending the coastal trail adding the public transit stop within the property
site and adding a rideshare drop-off area public restrooms a snack shop and
retail options for the public. Regarding private events special condition 9
prohibits private use or reservations of the public deck or parking areas
including for special events and Ross restaurant service at the public deck is
also prohibited. Regarding parking loss and you know the sufficiency of
mitigation, the recommendation includes a condition for a final parking
management program that requires monitoring of the public transportation
options to understand bus use, ride share use, and parking uses. If there are
issues with that parking program, then the applicants must come back to the
executive director with a revised program to fix such issues. As it relates
to SB 79 as previously stated and clarified by Supervisor Horvath. SB 79
which is not law yet will not be triggered by the bus stop at the site
and I will pass it on to Steve. Thank You Danny and I'm not going to add too many
comments but I did want to just add an overarching observation about this
process. And the applicant had mentioned, of course, that they've been working on
this for about eight years and I remember when they first began those
informal discussions. Of course, we've only had the application, I believe, since
December and so we're processing this as efficiently as possible. But some of
those discussions centered around many of these conversations about public
access, recreation, and although some of these amenities like the deck might get
smaller from what's there today, there's some really important distinctions that
were made during the presentation, I just wanted to emphasize.
There have been all those problems that Danny mentioned in the past, enforcement-wise, about
how the parking lot and the public deck weren't operated correctly.
And we have redesigned and worked with the applicant to what we believe resolve these
issues and we have brand new monitoring provisions that are going to ensure that this going forward
is successful.
One of those important changes is that new deck that'll be a little smaller, but it is
dedicated 100% for public use.
The previous deck was a shared deck, and it was shared between the restaurant users.
You had table service and waiters and waitresses, and the public trying to use the same space.
And frankly, for as long as I have been doing this job for many decades, that has led to
many enforcement problems with us,
with public being turned away from the deck,
we would fix that problem, years later it would come back.
We think this new system that will have
these new public amenities, the snack bar,
low cost recreational benefits is something new,
and we're gonna try, what was important for me
is that we not just keep trying to do the same thing
year after year, and that we try new solutions
to these problems.
So I just wanted to thank the applicant
for working with our staff to try to come up
with some new solutions.
And we think this package does that.
So with that, I'm gonna close the staff comment
and just note that we are available for any questions.
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Hudson and all our staff.
Okay, I'll return to the commission
and I'd like to begin, please, with Commissioner Bacheco.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want people to know
that I actually asked to go first on this project
because I am a person who lived in Pacific Palisades
for 25 years, recently moved to Brentwood,
but my family lost homes, my friends lost homes.
I am incredibly sympathetic and empathetic
to that situation.
That being said, I'm not really sure
I see the connection here other than the bus issue
which I wanna ask a lot of questions about.
if the fire hadn't happened I don't know if you would still not want this
project. I think you must understand that the state legislature or or the
state government I should say took away the permitting requirement of the county
so there was a section of it that perhaps you would have had a few more
hearings I really don't know but that's the law and and we have to abide with it
to you know I mean we can't ask for hearings if the state already required
them to skip that so that being said I want to go over this SP 79 a little more
I I'm not a fan of that law I never have been I don't think it really works in
Los Angeles I think we're such a crowded city we don't have enough roads and the
cars are a nightmare and so the idea of you know us building and building and
building without building more and more transportation of some kind to get
around is a nightmare for us. So I understand some of the concern, although
the concern about a bus, I have heard now repeatedly from the supervisor, from
staff, from what my fellow Commissioner Hart here said, you know, showed me the
statute of 79. I don't, I don't see why this would be called a transit station
any more than any other bus stop. Am I missing something that the
Palisades residents are seeing? Yes, thank you. I'm happy to respond. And no,
you're not missing anything. That is our, that's our observation as well. And I
I would just note that although that law does contain
those reductions in parking standards,
which from a COSLAC perspective can be problematic,
certainly the intent of that law was not to prevent
new public transportation improvements.
So I just wanted to make that point.
But our understanding of what type of transportation
improvement this is tracks with the description
that you just gave.
Our understanding is that it does not constitute
major transit hub which is the language used in that statute. It's not our
determination to make that call it falls to the local government and we've
coordinated with the county and the county has told us that they don't
believe that it constitutes a major transit hub and Supervisor Horvath was
quite emphatic and that she does not believe it constitutes a major transit
hub as well. It is not a station by any means it is it's a bus stop with a
turnaround. But I would also like to note that from a traffic standpoint this
does not change traffic. We looked at traffic, the existing restaurant is there
and this will just continue that use. The blue bus is currently in operation
and it is already making a turnaround but it's using public streets to do its
route. All this project does is now allow a dedicated turnaround to get them off
the street when they do their turnaround so when we look at that we see that as a public
safety improvement, public transportation improvement and the idea that it may bring
more people to this area is a benefit and frankly that's the important offset for us
for that reduction in the number of parking spaces and the reduction in parking is not
due to the restaurant it's only due to the inclusion of this big blue bus turnaround
which we see as an important benefit to public access.
Thank you very much, and I'd like to point out,
just pursuant to what Mr. Hudson just said,
this commission has for years and years
been dealing with parking issues on the coast
because we use it as one measure of public access,
which is our mandate.
All of us have begun to reevaluate
The benefits of cars, which would be why you need parking spaces, versus public transit,
bicycles, I mean, we're looking at many, many other ways to get people to the beach.
It's really important, and I know the gentleman said, I see this bus and it's empty.
He's not wrong.
You know, people in Los Angeles don't use the bus unless they have to, and that's because
we're a car community.
So we as a responsible agency have to look to the future.
And one of the future or part of the future that I'm looking at in Los Angeles is it cannot
continue to be only a car city.
And so the bus aspect of this, I see as an enormous benefit to everybody, you know, anyone
who wants to get to the beach. Otherwise they end at Santa Monica and, you know, or
I guess they do run the bus up there once in a while, but this, I think that's a
really positive part of this. And again, I can't say enough about how awful it is
that we have to sit here and talk about these fires and what they've done to all
of us in LA because in so many ways has nothing to do with this project in my
mind. I keep trying to make that connection and I understand that people
are so upset. It's like it's going to be hard for them to rebuild. You know
there's articles every day now in the LA Times about how slowly things you know
are rebuilt and there's loads of reason of it. By the way in this case not us. We
we were taken out of the process so don't worry about us. But I can't make a
connection here that makes sense to me that because of the horrible fires and
the loss of property and lives this restaurant shouldn't be built. So that
always brings us back to the only issues I've seen which is parking which I've
covered and more hearings which are not required by law because the state
changed the law. So I must support this project on what I've heard today and I
truly hope that it ends up being what I believe it will be which is a very
positive asset for our community and I think it's wonderful we have two great
artists that are involved, but that's not the reason I'm approving this. It's
because looking at the facts and looking at the law I think it is it's a good
project and I think staff did a very good job. Thank you. Thank you
Commissioner Bacheco. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you
to everybody who spoke today. Appreciate your comments and for being here and
braving it out because we never know how long these meetings are going to run. So
We certainly wish they moved along quicker but this is what we sign up for
so we appreciate everybody's patience. There's been some discussion about the
big blue bus and I know we've talked about bicycle parking when we had our
ex parte, we talked about bicycle parking and I hope that that is a
consideration as you move forward with your parking management. But with regard
to the big blue bus. My concern is Ray Jackson with his beach chairs and cooler and his who's
naughty nose kids and a wife who's bugging him about not moving fast enough wants to
go to the beach. So I don't want to drive because I love public transportation. Where
is that blue bus going to pick me up and how am I going to schlep all my stuff? Because
When we approved the Laguna Beach Parking Management Program, they had a designated
shuttle that ran folks from point A's, B's, C, and D to parking that was somewhat of
a distance.
So that was a great way to ameliorate the loss of those spots.
But here, I don't see, and maybe I just missed it, but I don't see where am I going to pick
this bus up from. So I'm not schlepping my stuff a half a mile to a big blue
bus stop. Yeah through the chair the bus pickup and drop-off location is actually
the closest point to the beach access point on site. So it's immediately
adjacent if not within the public trail and the beach access point is is right
there. So if I'm if I'm driving in I don't want to drive all the way to the
beach I want to take the but where's the bus gonna I guess I don't understand
where's the bus gonna pick me up when I park my car or if I just want to take
the big blue bus to get to the beach where's my pickup spot. Thank you. I don't
know that we I don't know all the big blue bus routes but I would suggest that
county may have better information about where are the southern most this is the
northern terminus of the Big Blue Glass route so this is where it would end but
my understanding is that it begins further it's much further south we know
Santa Monica and further south and I believe the county may have better
information about the entire route and as we look at the parking management
piece to this I think that's a component that definitely needs to be considered
because if I don't have a place to either readily access the Big Blue Bus
stop or a place that's relatively close that I can get on the Big Blue Bus with
all my stuff then the Big Blue Bus is not going to be used very much right and
and we all agree public transportation is great my colleague mentioned it we
want fewer cars driving around looking for parking spaces but we have to do you
know the Laguna Beach model was is a good model I think for for cities and
counties to look at in terms of you park here there's a 99% chance you're gonna
find parking we will get you to these stops moving forward so I throw that out
for your consideration as you figure out the parking management piece
Commissioner Jackson would you like to hear from the applicant? Yes ma'am if
that's okay. I can see them gesticulating wildly. There's also the
representative from the Big Blue Bus. Oh all right great I think that's an
important consideration so I appreciate that. Thank You Commissioner. I had a
presentation that I was going to show that has a graphic that I could use if
they could get my presentation up and go to the graphic. If that would be helpful
it would be really appreciated if they could do that. While they're doing that
let me just explain to you. So as far as the bus coming into the parking lot, I'm
not sure you can envision the Gladstone's parking entrance. The bus comes
into the parking lot, comes right along to the front of the coastal path, which
is the coastal path that leads to the public deck and down to the beach, and it
drops you off there. So there's an absolute drop off there, very close
proximity to the beach. Then it goes around the turnaround, and there is a
a pickup spot where then it pulls in and people waiting to go on the bus pick up.
That is a walk across the parking lot that there is a there's a pathway walk
across the parking lot to the to the pickup stand where you would take the
bus out. As far as the bus route is concerned if you go on to the Big Bull
buses website and here's here's a if I can use this Commissioner for your use
if you if you can see my graphic here and if I can interrupt oh I'm sorry I get
the parking lot configuration drop off and pick up okay got I'm just concerned
about where I get on with my kids and I'm sorry I appreciate no no that's all
right I appreciate the so if you if you go on to the big blue bus website and
and we certainly can get supply for you as well you will see an existing route
for the route that comes down in this area I think it was called route 9 a or
Route 9, but I can I can get that information for you, but there's an
existing route of bus stops all the way along, and the problem with the existing
route right now is that as as as a director Steve Hudson's mentioned that
the bottom line on it right now is that it has to by turning around it has to
turn around in public space and and doesn't have a place off of off-site off
streets, but that existing route is going to stay in existence and all they're
going to do is now add an additional element where you can come down from the
last stop to the to the to the parking lot and drop off at the beach and then
come back around. No and I appreciate that I understand that I just want to
make sure it's you know it's got to be clear to the public that the big blue
bus is available for you to drive to X marks your spot or spots you can there's
room to get on with all your stuff that you're gonna need for the beach for the
day or the half a day and there's going to drop you off because then people will
be you know unlike our speaker said no one's on the big blue bus right now and
I understand that Commissioner Jackson there's a representative from the big
blue bus online might I suggest thank you madam chair okay thank you sir I
can't see that person's face but I assume there we have Alfredo Torres who
spoke earlier on Zoom. Sorry just one sec I just sent the map to Anthony if
anyone's interested in seeing it for the Route 9 as currently listed on the Big
Blue Bluffs site did you if you want to see it pull it up. Yeah so it might be
worth the commission seeing it if the chair would agree. Director Unclebitch
are we going to bring in the person? I just I have a couple comments I don't know if we're
going to bring in the is the person from the big blue bus
available to speak.
Yes, he's been waiting.
I should go ahead and speak.
Yes, thank you, sir.
Do you have any responses to the conversation?
I'll just mention that our Route 9 currently
runs through essentially the entire Palisades.
Comes to Chautauqua, goes down Sunset,
and it goes through the village and past the Palisades
high school and it goes all the way westbound on Sunset, but it
stops one mile short of PCH. There's a street called Marquez
Place. And so that one mile gap, you know, we suffer from that
basically, because if we go any further south to or further west
to Sunset, there's like no way to turn around unless you go all
the way to Mesko, and it gets, you know, really complicated. So
we turn around one mile short. So what this project does is lets us extend our
existing Route 9 all the way to PCH on sunset. And again, that at that point, you
know, we can make connections with Metro's 134 line that goes up and down
PCH. Excellent. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple final comments
if you'll indulge me. You know, approving projects is more than just moving plans
forward. It's about showing the community that we can get things done. This project
reflects considerable time between the applicant, the staff, the city, the county.
And our hearts certainly break as we recognize with deep empathy the
devastating and life-altering impact those fires have had on so many lives
and communities. This area will be under construction for years and years to come
and we certainly carry that awareness with compassion and respect for those
who will be rebuilding for years. But as each completed project it will
demonstrate progress, create momentum, and will people see results it inspires
confidence and energy for what's next success will help read success and as
supervisor Horvath mentioned this is an area that is in desperate need of
positive things to happen thank you madam chair thank you I'll move to vice
chair Hart thanks so I just want to focus on SB 79 for a second and I want
to confirm that first of all SB 79 has not been signed by the governor at this
time. That's correct. Okay is it before the governor? I believe it is on his desk.
When is the expiration? Do you have any idea? I believe Friday is the last day
Sunday is the last day for signatures and we'll be doing our ledger report on
Friday and if that is in there we'll make sure to report it. If it's been
signed or vetoed by that time. But director Hucklebridge isn't it true or
let me ask you this is it true that the coastal act is specifically called out
as as I mean it is exempted or that the coast like still applies under the
language of SB 79 even if this were a major bus stop I'm gonna ask John Drake
to respond to that Mr. Drake good evening commissioners so as Dr.
Hoggill bridge mentioned SB 79 is currently on the governor's desk and the
governor has until Sunday either sign or be to the bill as to the contents the
bill is silent on its specific interaction with the coastal act so the
substantive provisions of the development patterns that we would be
allowed the bill doesn't speak to its interaction with the act I would observe
that procedural measures of SP 79 specifically the ministerial approval
process that it includes includes carve outs for certain sections of the coastal
zone and it accomplishes that through reference to sp 423 from several years
ago. And so that's to say portions of the coastal zone including with any
development within 300 feet of the mean high tide line within a hundred feet of
a wetland, any areas subject to five feet of sea level rise, any project under SB
79 should it become law, which again it's not, would not be subject to
ministerial approval if they're in those areas of the coastal zone so they would
still be subject to the local discretionary hearing and review process.
Okay, but I do know that in SB 79 it refers to you know specific type of bus
traffic which is which is the reason I guess that supervisor Horvath and our
staff has indicated that a bus stop such as this would not qualify and I
think that's because it's meant to be applied to buses that have divided lanes
that are for commute service that sort of thing but putting the assurances with
regard to SB 79 can you just talk for a second and I I don't I agree with
Commissioner botch go on the importance of this transition away from cars but
could you talk for a second about if if the big blue bus was not part of this
project how would that impact the parking etc sure it would have very few
well that's really the only change without the big blue bus there would
have been more space in the parking lot we would have maintained approximately
41 additional spaces that previously existed and so there would have been
more cars less plus yeah I have to say I'm I'm it's not the SB 79 it's the mood
you know and I think we're hearing that from the public it's what's going on in
Sacramento and you know this intense pressure for housing and people in
Malibu are dealing with that I mean the Coastal Commission is not involved with
approvals, but there's a lot there's a lot of news about what might happen in
Malibu. I understand not just you know what it feels like to go through a fire.
I live in Sonoma County. We've been through horrible nightmare fire
situation, so I think a lot of us in California know what it feels like, but
I just have concerns about where the legislature might go with this. You know
what how sb 79 might and and so I sort of share these concerns and as a result
of that I have mixed feelings about including the bus stop at this time could
you just talk about your reaction to that or am I just since my concerns are
not well-founded or I think it's hard to know what to predict from the
legislature on all of these topics and we can't I mean in my view we can't make
decisions based on what might happen because we're afraid that certain things will come
down. That said, as you said, the mood is going in a direction. I mean, my reaction
to the last conversation we were having about the big blue bus that Commissioner Jackson
was raising was that there is an opportunity here with the bus stop to expand bus access
to the coast. I'm not sure the existing blue bus routes will accomplish that for the reasons
that we were talking about. I also don't really think that's a part of this project. That's
larger conversation that we would want to have with the county as we're working
through their LCP and then talk to the big blue bus to make sure that additional
bus lines or there's service where there is parking and you know you can bring
your coolers and there's places to put your surfboards on the bus you know like
there's a whole bunch of ways that we could address that as a transit quest
you know transportation transit type project so I and I think it is it is
better to be thinking in that direction and trying to be, you know, think about how to
positively use those types of transit. I mean, the fact of the matter is we are going in
that direction and we have to figure that out on the coast. How do we use transit to
get people to the beach? And that's the thing we're going to have to be grappling with regardless
of this project, regardless of other projects into the future. So I guess I don't, I think
adding the bus turnaround whether you know again it's for this one route but
I think having to stop there and having it and having that option could be
really beneficial for public access in the future don't necessarily think it's
there now but but that could be something that we're working with when
one recommendation that based on the conversation I didn't have a chance but
that we have a requirement on one of our special conditions that the applicants
advertise their public deck on their website.
Again, this is a public access amenity we want to add.
I would like to change our staff recommendation
to include an additional element
that they advertise that they're on the blue bus line.
So that folks that, you know,
that if you're coming to the restaurant,
you're looking it up, can at least know
that that's an option.
Again, it's small at this point,
but I think it will hopefully increase transit
And then we need to work with the county
and work with the blue bus to try to expand that use.
But that's, again, not really in the scope of this project.
Thanks, Kate.
I guess, for me, I just am trying
to take in what the public was saying.
And they seem to be, besides continuing
to have extreme PTSD, which is completely understandable,
and I can totally relate to, but they
seem to be fixated on this transit prop that this but that's by having this
transit stop it creates this potential for you know a lot of development in an
area that they are very concerned given you know the fire and the traffic and
everything else is I'm just curious and I don't even know what how the rest the
Commission feels about this but would there be a way to rather than requiring
the big blue bus turnaround at this time to put that to you know engage in a
public process around where the transit stop should be there, how it could work,
I mean, instead of including it in this project right now, and I again, I could
be alone on this anyway, you know, those are my comments. Can I ask a staff a
clarifying question about this point? And that is that Shawn you said that SB 423
carve-outs would apply in the coastal zone. So five-foot sea level rise near
the beach and that sounds like the location of this project. It's right on
the sand. So could, I mean what do you think? Is it, is that, is this, is this
location of this project would it not come under the provisions of SB 79 were
SB 79 to be signed I think from what I heard that all indications are it will
be signed into law so we should probably plan accordingly so just to clarify my
comments from before the exclusion areas that are incorporated into SB 79 through
the reference to SB 423, those apply to what the permitting process would be at
the local level for such a project. And so specifically it would, if an area is
excluded from SB 79, it would be, or excuse me, if a project is in one of
these exclusion areas it would be excluded from ministerial review, which is
to say it's not that a project couldn't potentially be subject to the
parameters of SB 79 in terms of what it allows to be built dimensionally but
what it does mean is that that project would need to go through if it's in an
excluded area the local hearing and permitting process. Oh it would be
discretionary but in this case because there has been special interest
legislation that excludes the local jurisdiction from review it's not going
get that so let me add that apart through the discretion of the chair just
for as a point of clarification for the Commission AB 178 the budget trailer
bill that staff described pertains specifically to the redevelopment on
this site in front of you this Gladstone's site what we're discussing is
what would the what Commissioner not off is asking about is what would be the
permitting process for housing in the surrounding vicinity it could be
potentially subject to SB 79 and so that's where it becomes relevant whether
potentially proposed housing in the future in the vicinity surrounding the
site is in an excluded area or not that would determine whether that housing
would go through a discretionary review process or whether it would be
ministerially reviewed. I know that there's concerns as the rebuilding in
in this area with density.
I believe that Mayor Bass and Governor Newsom
have already issued some relief,
some special rules on SB4 and density
for the Palisades area.
So I think that I'm hearing that the state
and the local leaders hear the concern
about the application of state housing law to this area.
So, I think, you know, I think it's very unfortunate that the local hearing process, I mean that's one of the things that makes the coastal permitting process work, the way it does is the partnership with the local jurisdictions and in this case, that wasn't allowed to play out so I understand how the local residents don't feel heard.
and I think it's you know then so that now it's all here and
We hear you
But I think that based on the
The policies of chapter 3 and the Coastal Act see that there have been
Amenities that and the staff has worked hard to you know help us move away from
Just cars in the coastal zone
So I see that I you know, I think there's some protections that have been built in here
And that makes me more comfortable. Although I'm very uncomfortable with the process and the lack of the local
Hearings, thank you. Commissioner Wilson and then Commissioner Escalante
Thank you
In the interest of time. I'm gonna put aside all my feet
discussion or around process housing and
Even my empathy towards the folks in Pacific Palisades around fires
Though I feel very heavily it's my specific question is actually around access
In terms of bike access and the reason I bring this up is because I'm in a community where we just opened a trail between
You know a class one trail between two cities
And we're seeing the impacts of that
Now and even that there's a restaurant at the end of it in my town that has seen
An increase in and it's in its in its sales and and and traffic
Because of that and it's a six-mile trail or maybe more actually between those two cities. This is four miles from
From Santa Monica Pier to this location and only the last half mile is not a class one trail and and I
could tell you for sure a development of this magnitude and
You know that it's just so
an iconic building of that would be something of a destination right and
Certainly the I couldn't even imagine not wanting to be see it from Santa Monica get on
the bike or the electric bike and just think so where is
where are we in that last half mile of class one trail to get to this site because I can tell you
you're going to need more than eight bike spots. If that gets built it's going to be a real
destination and we'll have a lot of really a lot of traffic associated with that.
Thank you. I can respond to that and through the chair. You're correct there's a fantastic bike
system all throughout LA, and then it peters out after Santa Monica as you get north. One of the
main constraints is the geomorph, it's the coast, and it gets very narrow there with the beach,
the geomorphology, and so we have much less space. It's a choke point between the beach
and PCH, and so that is an ongoing continuing discussion we continue to have with Caltrans
on how to complete the coastal trail and provide for those sorts of multimodal connections.
We're currently having those exact discussions with Caltrans just up coast in the city of Malibu
as part of their reimagining of how PCH will work but you're quite right that this area of
of the coast there's still a lot more work to do and I do believe that it'd
be hard to get to through the scope of this project but we do intend to
continue having those discussions with both the county and Caltrans to try to
complete that coastal trail. I would just note that this project does include the
completion of the coastal trail the walking portion on the site and so we do
believe that's an improvement. And I will say I mean there is a class one trail I
mean that goes three and a half miles it really is within a half mile of this
location is pretty close. So Caltrans I'm just I couldn't even imagine how much
actually more business this this place would get I mean and giving a
destination and what you would see in terms of access I just hoping that the
applicant in the future is really working with Caltrans to at least support
and see the benefit of that last half mile to get to that place. I mean
when we were completing the last four miles of our trail around Humboldt Bay
I mean we kept the final four, the final four, the final four, we're getting to
that place. I mean you guys are kind of the final point four, right? And in
this space I just I just really see that that would be pretty important. I know I
can't do anything today about it necessarily but I just wanted to make
sure that we're we've got this in our sites as part of the access and in many
ways where you might not see someone riding the bus you will see people you
will see people on two wheels and three wheels getting to this location if
that's if that piece of infrastructure is built thank you commissioner Escalante
thank you chair fellow commissioners for such a good discussion um I don't
know if anybody on this dais has taken the big blue bus yeah I gotta get um so
I during college and several years after that I exclusively moved around from
UCLA, around the west side, Palms, all the way to Rand in Santa Monica on the
Big Blue Bus. So I can, I've always been grateful to the service and to the city
of Santa Monica for standing strong behind their Big Blue Bus and I would
hope that they do use this opportunity and they're very good at signage
Big Blue Bus in Santa Monica so that they can sort of use this opportunity to do
both with advertisements in the buses but also on their stations or the bus
stops. How it is you know to facilitate so people can easily use this as the
service that it's supposed to be. Route 9 goes through downtown Santa Monica on
4th Street where most of the public lots are so you know if I if it were me I
I would be driving in on the 10, park my car in one of those lots on 4th Street, and take
the 9 all the way down to Gladstone's, which I've never been in my life, by the way.
I think part of it, you know, the parking always kind of scared me, so I'll be taking
the bus to check it out, and I do appreciate the, you know, expanded public access.
I think that is actually quite wonderful, and I'm a huge fan of the buses, so I would
of the bus to stay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Preciado then Commissioner Lopez.
I just wanted to join my colleague in supporting the inclusion of the bus service. You know
I was Googling how to get Ray Jackson from Hermosa Beach to this and it is possible.
You could also just drive to Santa Monica and then get on the blue bus but that's another
option. To the project, I asked staff through text, because I tried to avoid raising my hand.
The presenters talked about 200 employees will support this restaurant establishment.
And I'm just wondering if they will be provided with blue bus permits or if there's going
to be a shuttle. And I'm thinking of all those parking spaces. And if it was already addressed
and I missed it I apologize but if someone could speak to the 200 employees
that will be using this we'll be sharing the public transportation or the parking
on to support this establishment I'd like to know. Would the applicant like to answer?
Thank you Commissioner yes we have provided for and staff we've worked with
staff for a special condition to provide bus pass support and subsidy for the
employees that want to come by bless us yes thank you so much with that um I I'm
happy to join in a supporting emotion once we get there thank you madam chair
yeah I just want to share you know Monterey County's had a chair of
disasters including wildfires or a joke at times that I'm a disaster supervisor
given my experience in dealing with wildfires flooding I even had a town on
on a hill flood. You can quite figure out how that happened, a lot of fences, water came
down so quickly. But that is to say that the trauma that comes with disaster is real. And
I want to acknowledge the pain that I heard from community. My parents lost their business
to a fire and the insurance company backed out. It took seven years in court and took
it all the way to the state Supreme Court to finally win that and get it back. And they
admitted at the end it was about delaying the payment because there was no interest
on the loan. Thank you so much. Get the worry and the pain and the concern that you're feeling.
I will share that as I've watched this particular disaster play out, I've been
heartened by the fact that your voice has been heard at so many different levels that often my
communities have not. Meaning state legislation has been carved out. This body has been removed
from the decision-making process to expedite your comeback. And I support that if you ever need my
support, make sure that you're able to re-establish your communities as quickly
as possible. Please let me know because I am supportive of that. Saying that,
looking at this, our goal is to create access. Our goal is to encourage folks
to visit these places that are so beautiful that they change lives. And
this particular location with this sort of an investment in terms of the
the architecture is an important,
it's gonna be one of those places
that becomes a landmark for California,
like the Bixby Bridge and Big Sur.
People will take photos of it and say,
I saw it once with my own eyes,
like the buildings in downtown LA by the same architect.
And so to me, the bus is the right way to go at this time.
What I would ask is for reports back
if we can do that somehow in a condition every two years.
If we get 10 years down the road
and ridership is still extremely low,
Maybe we reconsider at that point and say at that point,
let's flex back and put the parking spots back.
But I also wanna encourage the big blue bus
to do something we did in Monterey
with our transportation agency, MST,
which was to create a dedicated line, right?
As we talked about the marketing,
we created a trolley system.
The cart looks different and it feels unique.
When you get on that, you know where you're going
and you know what you're in for in terms of an experience.
And so making sure that we encourage folks
acknowledge a wrapped bus or whatever it may be. In our instance it's a trolley
and a unique EV that pulls folks around in that form and it's a different open
air experience and that sort of thing can help offset a location like this and
drop those into it. So I want to encourage that. Given what we've heard
based on the legislation as it's been set up based on the addressed questions
from both local elected officials and state elected officials and it's rare as
As we heard that you get an alignment and agreement between them to say that is not the intent of these pieces.
I'm okay supporting this today but I do want to make sure that I hear the community's concerns and reiterate my support for them as they look to reestablish.
Thank you.
Commissioner Kelly. I want to align myself with the comments of Commissioner Esquale and Commissioner Lopez with respect to, including the bus service in the project and just acknowledging the same points that that were made as well as this specific
that really the intent here is not to and we've seen it stated time and again
especially in all the hearings in Sacramento that transpired this year
about SB 79 that it was very clear that the intent was not to increase density
in the Palisades not to include bus lines like this if this bus line and
this bus stop were to trigger the density it would literally be every bus
line and every bus stop in the entire state which is not the intent of this
legislation and so and frankly we don't even know if it's going to be signed into
law so all of that to be said I am supportive of moving forward and having
this project approved thank you thank you very much okay I'll make my very
brief comments and I just want to say that I I do share the concern that vice
Chair Hart articulated around just a really fast-moving and changing regulatory landscape.
But I was also, I think, swayed appropriately by the comment by our Executive Director that
we really can't base our decision-making on what may come and what we think could possibly
be at some unknowable point in the future.
all that said I did want to acknowledge that and acknowledge the concerns that
we heard in the testimony today and from the residents. With all that said I also
joined with my colleagues in acknowledging that there's a lot that's
really exciting about this project and very much looking forward to joining my
colleagues on the bus to visit it. So with that I will turn it to Commissioner
botch Co for the motion. See you on the bus. Yes. So I'm going to make the
motion. I move that the Commission approved coastal development permit
number 524 1045 pursuant to the staff recommendation. I'm asking for a yes
vote. And I'll second. Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner botch Co a
second by Vice Chair Hart. Are there any commissioners who object to a
Commissioner Lopez, I'm not objecting, just wondering, I did make the recommendation. We get data back on ridership there at the turnaround. Is that already included or something? We can. Yes, thank you. I'm through the chair. I'll respond to that. So
We do, we do have that requirement and our special condition. It requires annual monitoring, including us ridership number of people exiting at the stop or as much information as it's possible to get from that big blue bus.
It, after five years, this condition, this monitoring continues for the life of the development,
but it will transition to once every five years.
But this will go out over potentially many decades.
Thank you.
And could I just say for the record that it was SB9,
that the state has given some special consideration to the Palisades, not SB4.
Duly noted.
Thank you.
So we have a motion by Commissioner Boczko a sec a second by Vice-chair Hart. Are there any objections to a unanimous? Yes vote
Being no objections. The motion is approved
Congratulations
Thank you
Okay, we're gonna keep yes. We got a key plan through we have I believe it's about three more items
so we're gonna do our best to
Be brief as brief as possible and move us along
All right. Thank you. So item 12d is next item 12d will be presented by Marlene, Alvarado
Our senior coastal planner and the Commission's transportation unit
We do have a PowerPoint for this item if we could pull that up and Marlene, please take it away
Good evening commissioners and members of the public item 12g is the city of Long Beach is West Shoreline Drive minor realignment project
project. This project is essentially a minor roadway realignment that is also designed
to significantly improve multimodal transportation, roadside landscaping, and safety in a busy
corridor. This is a consolidated CDP as portions of the project are in the city's and the commission's
jurisdictions. So the standard of review is the Coastal Act with the certified LCP providing
guidance. Next slide. The project corridor is located long and adjacent to West Shoreline
drive in the downtown shoreline sub area of the city of Long Beach. The proposed
project is part of the larger road realignment and replacement of the
shoremaker bridge in Long Beach that was developed in partnership with Cautrains.
Though this particular segment is the only portion that falls within the
coastal zone. This slide shows a larger project with the segment before use to
circled in maroon on the left side of the image. Next slide please. Here on
On slide 3 is a more specific bird's eye view of the project before you today, beginning
at the northwestern end just south of Ocean Boulevard and continuing southeast to Queen's
Way.
Next slide, please.
Specifically, the proposal includes construction of new 2,500-foot-long shared use protected
bike and pedestrian pathway along the north side of West Shoreline Drive.
Additionally, it includes a new 750-foot-long shared use path along the south side of Seaside
way. Additional project elements include upgrades to the existing 900 foot long
bike path on the west side of Golden Shore as well as several critical
pedestrian and infrastructure enhancements including ADA compliant
ramps, new and upgraded street lighting, stormwater drainage improvements, updated
signage, and pavement markings and other associated improvements. Next slide.
Here's another street view perspective of the existing roadway. The roadway will
be slightly narrowed as part of the redesign, but will continue to maintain two 11-foot
wide travel lanes in each direction. Importantly, no parking will be lost, and no impacts to
public coastal visual resources are expected. Next slide, please.
The project area is a densely built urban environment, primarily surrounded by residential,
light industrial, and commercial land use. There are no environmentally sensitive habitat
areas here and no impact on any special status species is expected. That said,
due to the realignment and new pathway construction, the project involves
removal of about 21 non-native trees to compensate as part of their overall
greening and beautification here. The City proposes to plant 522 new trees
including 278 native trees as well as 44 non-native, non-invasive trees. Of the
native trees, about 200 will be desert below and 84 will be California
Sycamore's. Next slide please. Actually one slide back huh. Commission staff have
reached out to the local Sierra Club regarding the project and these groups
have requested changes to the tree list. Staff have been working with the city
and public correspondence to devise a tree plan that is most appropriate here
given the various issues. This includes reducing the number of tree removal from
the original proposal of 65 to only 21 all of which are non-native and
generally updating the species palette to ensure compatibility with coastal
conditions and protect coastal resources. To minimize bio impacts especially given
the size proximity to the river and LA River and the ocean city proposes to
avoid tree removal or trimming during the bird nesting season and overall the
tree removal and planting approach aligns with the city's tree removal and
trimming policy which this Commission approved in a prior CDP so special
condition to requires the submittal of a final revised landscaping plan to
ensure that only non-invasive and salt tolerant species are used along with a
monitoring program to ensure long-term success. I would also note that there is
an addendum for this item the addendum addresses public correspondence
received after the staff report was issued and outlines corresponding
revisions to the staff report. This correspondence is available online on
the agenda in response to public comments requesting further revisions to the proposed
tree planting pallet.
Commission staff have consulted with the city and Dr. Engle, the commission's senior ecologist.
Dr. Engle reviewed the species suggested by the correspondence including eucalyptus and
myroporum and determined that some of these species are considered invasive and therefore
inappropriate for use in the coastal environment.
The final revised planting pallet will avoid the use of invasive species and consist primarily
of native and non-invasive trees and shrubs that are appropriate for the
project site. Also while correspondence raised issues that the proposed species
may not tolerate the site, saline soil conditions Dr. Engle has
confirmed that the selected native species are moderately salt tolerant
and suitable for the local coastal environment, particularly with the use of
irrigation. As noted, special condition 2 does require the final revised plans and
and these plans must incorporate tree and shrub species
that are well adapted to site conditions,
avoid the use of invasives and remain consistent
with the Coastal Act policies.
And as I mentioned previously,
an ongoing monitoring requirement.
Next slide, please.
In closing, we believe this project desk condition
is consistent with the chapter's three policies
of the Coastal Act and the certified LCP,
and we're recommending approval of this project
to provide safer and enhanced public coastal access
that will bring much-needed multimodal transportation
improvements, beautification, and safety upgrades.
The motion to implement this recommendation
is found on page four of the staff report,
and this concludes our presentation.
We're available for any questions.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes to report?
Did you have one?
No ex partes.
OK, we'll open the public hearing.
Turn it over to Chris.
OK, we have with the applicants Tracy Gleason and Ed Coosie.
They are both available for questions.
and then for a public comment we have Ann Cantrell
and Anna Christensen.
And then would you wish to speak?
Okay, go ahead.
Hi, can you turn the mic on please, ma'am?
There we go.
Good evening, my name is Tracy Gleason
and I'm with COA Consulting
and I am here on behalf of the city of Long Beach.
We're very excited about this project.
Historically, the shoreline drive
was part of the 710 corridor.
Back in the 20s, it was built as an urban freeway.
And so it has wide travel lanes, wide outside shoulders,
wide inside shoulders.
And quite frankly, I think the shoreline drive
within the coastal zone is wider than the actual I-710
in many segments of the freeway.
And so we're very excited about this project
because it will transform the project
into a local arterial roadway.
And it will be a gateway that enhances connectivity
between the Pacific Ocean, the downtown Long Beach
and surrounding destinations for the residents,
visitors and workers.
And the project will also, as Monica had mentioned,
will provide for active transportation
by creating to at least 2,500 linear feet
of shared bike path,
shared bike and head path within the coastal zone.
The overall length of the active transportation path
will be about one and a half miles.
And also about 2.2 acres of impervious roadway
will be transformed into pervious surface.
And so that creates opportunity for urban greening
within the coastal zone.
And we plan to plant about over 500 trees
just within the coastal zone itself.
So we're very excited about this project.
And the transformation of this project
will really identify what has happened in the past.
And we're very excited.
And we thank you for this opportunity
and we hope you approve this project.
All right, thank you.
Anna Christensen followed by Ant Control.
I can't believe that guy said good evening.
Is it really night out already?
Yeah, who knows?
It's like being in a casino only.
Only, only not.
It is, kind of, everything's a gamble, right?
Okay, Sierra Club, California
and the Los Enrios Wetlands Task Force is very appreciative
that the local Coastal Commission staff actually reached
out to us and has subsequently altered this project along
with the support of the city in many ways,
including minimizing the number of existing trees to be removed
and adding sycamores as a native tree.
We did have concerns about that, but they've now been alleviated.
We remain concerned that the majority
of the 522 trees will not support coastal wading birds because that's our big focus
as some of you who have been here a while now is the connection between trees, birds,
nesting sites and we're losing coastal bird nesting sites and that doesn't seem to have
been solved by this.
We question the trees being selected.
We still don't think it, the city promised to plant 278 native trees.
Now the desert willow trees, well they're desert trees and they don't support coastal
bird nesting, they're not strong enough.
And anyway we got the Sycamore problem solved, I'm changing this minute to minute.
We are also concerned about the native plant selection, the plant selection because none
are native to California or to any coastal reason.
They don't support coastal wading birds, they don't significantly are valued by local birds
are wildlife, and two are potentially invasive, speaking of invasive, and toxic to people,
pets, birds, and wildlife.
We did offer multiple suggestions, not just the invasive, terrible eucalyptus trees, but
others.
And we're hoping that the city will consider those as it moves forward and not be limited
to the non-natives and non-coastal plants.
The Coastal Act mandates that development be balanced with the need to protect coastal
resources.
think that includes birds. The city states that establishing a coastal bird
ripply would not be appropriate. It's not part of the plan but we believe that you
the commissioners can encourage the city and that to insist that coastal bird
nesting sites be required for this policy as you did with the Belmont Pool
project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anne Kentrell who is on Zoom. Good
Good evening, Anne Cantrell, Sierra Club, California, and the Los Cerritos Wetlands.
The cumulative impact of ongoing eraser of local coastal wading bird nesting sites must
be a consideration when approving this CDP.
The removal and over-trimming of public trees continues to be a major factor in the decline
of local coastal bird populations.
Due to the over trimming and loss of Washingtonian Robesta palms used as nesting sites by local
Great Blue Herons, the Coastal Commission has found these palms to be a significant
coastal resource.
Special events, including fireworks shows, massive concerts and festivals, and other
outdoor events on beaches and public parks in our local coastal zone will continue to
negatively impact the ability of the coastal bird populations to survive here.
Another threat to birds, bees, butterflies, and other pollinators is the overuse of herbicides
in city parks and medians.
Although the city banned the use of Roundup in 2018, they spray herbicides containing
will fascinate ammonium like cheetah pro and sure guard. We ask that the only
that only organic herbicides containing citrus soap or vinegar be used and that
bees be relocated by local beef keepers not killed with wasp freeze as was done
last year for over 40 times in our parks. We also urge you to change the five-year monitoring plan
to an annual monitoring plan with the same performance standards. Thank you. We have no
more speakers Madam Chair. Okay thank you very much and with that we'll close the public hearing
and I'll ask our staff would like to make any final comments. We would just like to note that
we do think this is a good project overall and it does provide the
enhancement and multimodal transportation improvements that you know
we need in the city so we do support the project overall I would just know just
some comments made that the city did reduce the number just repeat that the
city did reduce the removal that they were originally proposing for trees at
the site and that effort was to maintain 37 palm trees closer to the river and
which we know do provide nesting and that was to allow for any new trees to
sort of establish and mature in the interim and so I did want to just like
highlight that that's and then also just wanted to reiterate that the city the
the city is proposing over 500 trees
and more than half of those will be native
and Dr. Engel does agree and that the California sycamores
because they are tolerant to the salt
and we know that they do support marine birds
should provide additional nesting habitat
for local marine birds.
And she's available for questions.
and thank you Marlene I just like to add to I appreciated Miss Cantrell and Miss
Christensen's comments and just want to note that our staff reached out to them
as known interested parties early in the process and we were able to work in
several of their suggestions working with the city of Long Beach which we
appreciated all that coordination there's as the they mentioned there's
still a couple disagreements, but we don't agree with all those requested changes, including
the tree pallet that was suggested. The list that was provided to us by the speakers included
some invasive species, but we do believe that the planting pallet proposed, including about
half of those 600 or so trees, will be native. The others will be appropriate for the area,
will provide nesting habitat, are appropriate for this slightly salty soil. So we recommend
that the project continue to be approved as recommended.
Thank you, that includes our comments.
All right, thank you very much.
I'm happy to make a motion.
Please.
I move that the commission approve
Coastal Development Permit number 5-25-0393
pursuant to the staff recommendation.
I recommend a yes vote.
I did appreciate the comments from the public,
but I think this is a good project.
And I actually want the public to do more encouragement
and keep on it.
Thank you.
second wow I love it okay that was a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second
by Commissioner Press the auto are there any objections to a unanimous yes vote
seeing no objection the motion passes thank you okay now we'll move on to item
13 the deputy directors report for the south central coast district all right
thank you it does bring us to item 13 the south central coast district deputy
Director's report this month.
We have two waivers, one in material amendment, one permit extension, and there's one objection
to a previously reported time extension.
To address that objection, a memorandum is included in the report, which responds.
And I would just note that because that objection was received within the 10-day period for
public comment, an in material permit extension was previously reported.
And that's for CDP 4-10-104, we're reporting back this month.
That project was for a new single-family residence in the Santa Monica Mountains area of Los
Angeles County by EKO Substance 3 LLC.
The primary contention raised by the opponent, who's a neighboring property owner, is that
the applicant does not have a valid easement to access the property pursuant to a judgment.
applicant staff agrees that the judgment is clear, however, following that ruling the
applicant filed a motion for a new trial and thus until there's a new final resolution
of that litigation, it would be premature to determine change circumstances that might
affect the project's conformity with the Coastal Act.
The opponent also asserts that habitat on site should be reevaluated and that recent
wildfire activity may constitute change circumstances, however both of these issues were already
evaluated as part of the Commission's original approval of the CDP and fire in the Santa
Monica Mountains unfortunately is not a new issue and the entire site was determined to
be sensitive habitat and thus we don't believe that any change circumstances would be raised
by these arguments and thus pursuant to section 13.169 of the Commission's regulations in order
to deny an extension request, there must be identified change circumstances, which we
do not believe is the case here.
I would note, and thus we continue to recommend that this immaterial time extension be approved.
In regard to the other items being reported today, we're not aware of any opposition to
those items, and thus we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to any
of the items within the deputy director's report.
I am available for questions.
Thank You Mr. Hudson are there any ex partes none are there any public
speakers report I know we had a Gabriel from EKO substance but I am NOT seeing
them and they are oh you're here if you wish to speak go ahead sorry if our
sign-up says you're on zoom but you're here in person it's okay I just want to
say something to get ahead of it because today I want to say I love this I look
that you guys accept the public and the work that you guys do in reading all of
these things and you know responding to them the amount of time that it takes
it's a lot and I really appreciate it and the thing here is a lot of points
that were raised in here aren't exactly true the way they raised them there's
currently an appeal but also what I want to state today that's the most important
thing of it all is that they have six attorneys on this matter and not one of
them has said that we don't have prescriptive easement rights and I know
that the commission knows the value of prescriptive rights.
Not only that, but there's also the potential
for an equitable easement.
None of those things have been judged in at all.
Because Mike Casaba only recently told us
about the easement situation.
The second he told us about that,
we've been working with the court system
to try and resolve it.
So I'm only saying that because there's no point
in more letters being made.
Me coming here, you guys having to write letters back.
And then, I mean, I heard so many passionate people here
that actually deserve your time.
To me this is like, sadly,
like a waste of everyone's time.
I mean, it's true, and that's about,
to me that's the worst way to use this type of space.
But anyway, I just wanted to say,
we are more than glad to come back here
when all of this legal situation,
this civil matter is resolved.
We're more than glad to come here,
sit down and discuss whatever we need to discuss.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And thank you for being here all day.
No more speakers.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
I echo that.
Thank you for waiting.
Do three or more commissioners object
to any item in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objection, the commission concurs.
Hey, and we will now go on to item 15a, please.
All right, thank you.
And item 15a will be presented via Zoom by Sam Fuhrer,
a coastal program analyst
in our South Central Coast District.
We do have a PowerPoint if we could pull that up, please.
And Sam, please take it away.
Thank you, Steve.
Good evening commissioners. The next item on the agenda is item 15A, which is the substantial issue hearing for an appeal of a coastal development permit approved by the City of Carpentaria for the decommissioning and removal of onshore oil and gas processing infrastructure and remediation of impacted soils at the Carpentaria Oil and Gas Processing Facility.
The applicant for the subject CDP is the Chevron west coast decommissioning program and the
appellant is Frank Arradondo. Next slide please. As shown on this slide the subject site is located
on a coastal bluff in Carpentaria. Oil and gas processing equipment was initially constructed
at the site in the 1950s with additional infrastructure added to support increased
operations in the decades following. Oil and gas production at the facility was terminated
at the site in 2017. The site also has an earlier history of use by Native Americans,
which predates oil development within the region, and the site contains mapped cultural resources.
The approved project will include demolition and removal of the onshore portions of the facility,
including all existing facility structures and complete remediation of impacted soils.
Following remedial excavation, the site will be graded to match existing contours implanted
with native vegetation. A CDP for the removal of pipeline bundles from the beach, intertidal
and offshore portions of the facility was approved by the Commission in September 2025
through CDP number 9-25-0205. The Appellant contends that the city's final environmental
impact or sorry next slide please. Thank you. The Appellant contends that the city's final
Environmental Impact Report or FVIR has not demonstrated that the approved project is
consistent with the Cultural Resource Protection policies and provisions of the Certified Local
Coastal Program, or LCP. Although the appellant does not allege that the project itself will
result in impacts to tribal cultural resources, they assert that the City's FVIR 1. does not
sufficiently analyze alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources,
2. Mischaracterizes proposed mitigation measures. 3. Fails to provide mitigation measures sufficient
to avoid or reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
And 4. Demonstrates selection preference for the Native American monitor required to oversee ground
disturbance activities throughout the project. Staff notes that the preparation of an FEIR
is a requirement of the CEQA process and is not addressed by the certified LCP.
However, the LCP policies do require protection of tribal cultural resources by requiring
that any development that may disturb important archaeological or historically valuable sites
inclusive of tribal cultural resources is carefully reviewed prior to approval, includes
avoidance measures, and includes a qualified archaeologist and Native American observer
to monitor grading activities on or in the vicinity of identified archaeological resources.
With regard to the opponents assertions regarding alternatives, the approved project was selected
by the city as the environmentally preferred project alternative, following thorough evaluation
of several project alternatives.
Additionally, the approved project includes multiple avoidance measures sufficient to
protect cultural resources, including data that are appropriate for the relevant archaeological
sites, mapping to determine where specific resources may exist, and the avoidance of
exclusion zones to ensure that identified tribal cultural resources will be preserved
in place for this extent feasible.
The appellant also asserts that the city staff report did not accurately represent tribal
consultation required through the CEQA process as specified through Assembly Bill 52 and
the project demonstrates selection preference for the Native American Monitor required to
oversee ground disturbance activities throughout the project.
Travel consultation required through AB 52 is a sequel requirement that exists outside
of the purview of the LCP and the Coastal Act, and therefore does not constitute battlegrounds
for appeal.
Regardless, staff have confirmed with the applicant and with the city that travel consultation
required through AB 52 was completed in full and was accurately represented in the city's
staff report.
Additionally, the city has confirmed that a Native American Monitor, as required through
project approval has not yet been selected for the project and furthermore the future selection
of the Native American Monitor will be performed in consultation with and at the approval of
all tribes that were contracted through the AB 52 process and staff does not believe that the
city's action raises substantial issue with any provision of the certified LCP.
In summary, the city's record includes extensive factual evidence and legal support for the city's
findings that the project is consistent with the relevant policies of the certified LCP
and that the project would not adversely impact tribal cultural resources protected by the LCP.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission find that the appeal does not raise a substantial
issue with respect to the grounds on which it was filed. The motion for no substantial issue
can be found on page six of the staff report. There is an addendum for this item that includes
letters of support from the city and from the applicant and includes a minor
correction to local processing dates. No letters of opposition were received.
This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions. Okay,
thank you very much. Are there any ex partes? Okay, hearing none. We'll open the
public hearing. I will turn it over to Chris. Okay, we have with the applicant
Mark Corte-Nahabedian here in person. Good evening. My name is Mark Corte-Nahabedian
and I work at Chevron in the West Coast decommissioning project. Thank you for
the opportunity to address the Commission and for facilitating this
important public process. On behalf of Chevron, I would like to thank the
Commission, staff, and Sam, the City of Carpinteria, the Planning Commission, and
the many agencies, scientists, engineers, and members of our community for their
contributions to the development of the final environmental impact report, the
decommissioning and remediation of the Carpinteria facility. We understand the
Coastal Commission has received this appeal and the appeal is based on issues
related to cultural resources. The staff report and Sam's presentation details,
these claims are not supported. In the FEIR analysis and the suite of cultural
resource mitigation measures are comprehensive and fully satisfy the
requirements of the local coastal plan. Similarly, both the Carpinteria Planning
Commission and city council unanimously voted to deny the
appellants appeal and uphold the project approvals finding a
cultural resource mitigation measures were measures were
sufficient. We concur with the recommendations of Coastal
Commission staff and accordingly respectfully request that the
Coastal Commission find that no substantial issue has been
raised. Chevron has been working with tribal leadership and
communities since 2022 on the decommission and remediation of
this facility as engaged with tribes and tribal community
members in a variety of formats, including listening sessions, site tours, one-on-one
conversations, training opportunities, and community and leadership roundtables to share
information about the project, to learn about tribal priorities associated with decommissioning
and form activities at the site.
Complementing the City's AB52 consultation process, we have been working iteratively with
tribal leadership identified from the NAHC Native American Heritage Commission list.
the San Ionese Band of Chumash Indians,
the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation,
arboranial ventranial band of Mission Indians,
and the barbarianial band of the Chumash Indians,
known collectively as the Advising
And we value the participation and perspective from tribes on the project. Thank you.
Next we had Eleanor Fishburne, representative for the Arboreno Band of Chumash Indians.
We unfortunately aren't seeing them in the Zoom meeting.
Eleanor Fishburne, if you're in the meeting, please raise your hand.
And then after that, we had a public agency representative, Luis Perez.
I'm not seeing Eleanor Fishburne, so Luis, go ahead.
Yes, Madam Chair, commissioners. Good evening. Luis Perez representing the city of Carpentaria.
The city submitted a comment letter to your commission dated October 2nd, which is part of your record.
The city approved the proposal by Chevron to decommission, remove onshore oil and gas infrastructure,
and remediate contaminated material from this area at the Carpentaria facility.
the project is a beneficial project that will result in the removal and cleanup of unused infrastructure and restoration and revegetation of the site, coincidentally that's consistent with your new goals and objectives.
The city has consulted with tribes and developed cultural resources mitigation measures to avoid and mitigate cultural resources impacts to less than significant.
Those measures are consistent with the city's certified LCP and the Coastal Act, and the
city supports staff recommendation that the appeal does not raise any substantial issue
with respect to the city's certified LCP.
I know that Cody Sargent from the City Attorney's Office is also available for questions, and
we're also available for any questions you might have.
Thank you.
Also note that Mindy Fog from Carpentaria
is also available for questions.
And then we do have one last speaker, Cody Sargent.
Go ahead.
I'm from the senior attorney's office
with city carpenter agents here available for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have no other speakers.
Great.
Thank you very much.
And I'm looking at Mr. Hudson.
Do you have anything you want to say?
No comment.
Great.
Love it.
I'm ready to make motions.
All right, so we'll bring it back to the commission.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'll just make the motion.
And I think that the correspondence speaks for itself.
I move that the commission determine
that appeal number A-4-CPN-25-0025 raises no substantial issue
with respect to the grounds in which the appeal has been filed
under section 30603 of the Coastal Act.
I recommend a yes vote.
OK, that's a motion by Commissioner Wilson,
a second by Vice Chair Hart.
opposition to unanimous yes vote. Seeing none, no substantial issue has been found.
Thank you and now we'll go to our final item of the day. Item 16a please. Thank you and 16a
will also be presented by Sam Fier. If we could pull up the powerpoint and Sam please take it away.
All right. Once again good evening commissioners. The next item is W16a in which the Santa Barbara
County Flood Control District or district is requesting a coastal development permit for
continuation of an annual vegetation management and desilting program for a 1.4 mile reach of a
Tascadero Creek for a term of five years. The project reaches located within an area of
Santa Barbara County where the commission has retained jurisdiction over the issuance of coastal
development permits and the standard of review for this project is the chapter 3 policies of the
coastal act. Next slide please. The purpose of the program is to maintain existing flood water
carrying capacity in Atascadero Creek in order to reduce potential flooding of adjacent residential
areas and of the Santa Barbara City Airport. The proposed project would include the annual removal
of the emergent vegetation within the creek channel through disking and or milling performed by a
bulldozer excavator and would include desilting slash dredging activities which would be implemented
on an as-needed basis to remove sedimentation in the channel after significant storm events.
The use of herbicides is not proposed for this project. Since initial approval in 1994,
the Commission has issued six CDPs for substantially the same project as is proposed by the present
application. And while previous permits have been limited to a five-year term, staff notes that the
district's annual maintenance program has been authorized and implemented for 30 years without
observed adverse impacts to coastal resources. However, to ensure the continued avoidance
of sensitive species within the project reach and to ensure that any potential adverse effects
to sensitive stream and riparian asha are minimized, staff is also recommending special
conditions that require surveys of the project site each day prior to commencement of project
activities to determine whether any sensitive wildlife species are present
and that also outline timing constraints for project activities to avoid impacts to sensitive
species. In addition to ensure that sediment placement activities on Galita Beach do not
adversely affect sensitive species or water quality, the permit is conditioned to require
testing to certify that dredged materials meet federal and state beach nourishment and spoil
discharge criteria and to require turbidity monitoring during all potential beach nourishment
activities. Staff is also recommending special conditions 1 through 11 to ensure that the
proposed activities will be conducted in a manner protective of coastal resources.
As conditioned, staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies
of the Coastal Act. There is an addendum for this item that addresses concerns raised by the Santa
Barbara Audubon Society and by members of the public and also includes minor revisions to
proposed development and corrects avian nesting season dates referenced in the staff report
by the audit bond society. The primary concern involves the potential impact of sediment
deposition at Galita Beach on the beach profile, wet sand ecology, and nearby eelgrass habitat.
Although the permit allows for the removal of up to 30,000 cubic yards of sediment annually,
the district has confirmed that desilting usually occurs every five to ten years after unusually
large storm events and that diesel tilting performed through authorization extended by
past permits for this project has typically not exceeded 3,000 cubic yards of sediment
within any given year. Staff would note that before sediment deposition may occur on
Galita Beach, the special conditions of this permit require the applicant to carry out
sampling and analysis of all sediment prior to deposition activities and require turbidity
monitoring during all beach nourishment activities to prevent significant impacts to beach,
nearshore habitats, and water quality. Any material that does not meet criteria for
beach nourishment must instead be disposed of at an appropriate inland disposal location.
Since 1997, the district has deposited all sediment dredged from the project area at
upland disposal sites due to low annual quantities and due to the presence of vegetation,
which makes it unsuitable for Galita Beach. Additionally, the Audubon Society claims that
the proposed project relies on outdated biological reports and requests an updated report within 12
months of permit issuance. However, staff notes that this is inaccurate as updated bioassessments
have been conducted and required by previous permits, including the recent bioassessments
submitted with this application. The Audubon Society also claims that the district has failed
to maintain the Atascadero Creek mitigation area restoration sites that were described in the
initial 1994 CDP and as a result these sites have degraded. SEF notes that the district has
previously completed all necessary restoration work in the mitigation areas identified in the
original 1994 permit for the annual maintenance project meeting all success criteria at that time.
On September 10, 2025, flood control district staff assessed the largest of the mitigation areas at 11 acres and found that approximately 95% of the vegetation there consists of dense native plants achieving nearly 100% ground cover, except for where access roads exist, and therefore continues to meet success criteria required through previous restoration requirements.
The updated monitoring report of the mitigation area required through Special Condition 2 will provide information to supplement the evaluation of future permit applications but is not considered to be necessary for the requirements of previous authorizations for the Annual Maintenance Project.
The motion to approve the Coastal Development Permit can be found on page five of the staff report. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions.
Thank you very much.
OK, are there any ex parte?
I have one ex parte last night at 8.20 PM
for about 10 minutes.
I spoke via phone to Mark Chitillo,
who is speaking to me on behalf of the Santa Barbara Audubon
Society.
We spoke about three main issues, all of which
are documented in the letter he submitted,
primarily the Baseline Biological Resources Survey,
the timeline for assessing the habitat restoration,
and the independence of the biological monitor
and biologist, those were the issues.
And our conversation was substantially the same
as is included in his letter.
Thank you.
Okay, now we'll open the public hearing
and I will turn it over to Chris.
All right.
We have Heather Moyn and South Shank
with the County of Santa Barbara available for questions.
They're both here on Zoom.
And then our two speakers are Mark Chutilo and Jessica Altstadt.
So first will be Mark Chutilo.
Give us a moment.
All right. You should be able to unmute and begin.
Mark. OK, there you go.
I am. OK, I figured out good evening members of the commission.
This is Mark Chutilo from the office to Mark Chutilo on behalf of the Santa Barbara
Audubon Society.
I didn't think this was going to take all day, but here we are.
Thanks for giving us a chance to raise our concerns.
as articulated in our letter,
we have four or five major significant concerns.
Staff stated that there's been no evidence,
no observed significant impacts.
And we believe that that's in part due
to the paucity of biological surveys.
So our first request is that the condition
requiring a biological survey
before the next issuance of this permit be accelerated,
not for 12 months as staff said,
but within the next 18 months
so that there is a comprehensive biological survey
of the entire project reach,
not just the annual where they're working that year,
but a comprehensive look
at the biological resources in that area.
The baseline from year 2000 is still not appropriate
for reliance on this at this time.
Second, we've asked that there be an accelerated review
of the status of the prior mitigation parcel
that the staff report,
this mission staff report indicated
that staff inspected that,
but staff just reported today, Mr. Fier said,
that actually it was the district staff.
So this was the applicant, not district,
not Coastal Commission staff that inspected
and said everything is fine.
We're not certain everything's fine.
We've observed a lot of problems,
including in the expansion of invasive,
introduced species that have compromised
the biological integrity of the mitigation area.
And that needs to be documented sooner
and not wait until the next issuance.
Third issue is the bird nesting season.
We actually lost ground on this one
with the changes that came out last night.
We would prefer and believe
that the Eastern Glitter Valley Community Plan,
which has been referenced as being authoritative
questions. So thank you for the
purposes of the commission
consideration of a task at Arrow
Creek. So Madam Chair, we would
ask that your commission do make
revisions to the conditions to
address these issues. This is a
rushed process with these
project description changes that
came in just last night. We
haven't had a chance to respond
to those. If this could be
I'm Jesse Altstadt.
Hi.
Good evening.
I'm Jesse Altstadt, Conservation Science Chair for Santa Barbara Audubon Society.
We have been advocates since 1963, including lots of work on Atascadero Creek.
The creek and mitigation sites are considered valuable wildlife habitat and are a very popular
birding destination.
We have been involved in the public process for this project since the beginning.
A few examples.
A chapter member, Paul Lehman, conducted the bird survey work associated with the original EIR.
We led native restoration and weed eradication along the Atascadero Greenway north of the creek.
In 1999, we partnered with the applicant to establish bird monitoring at the mitigation site.
We were delighted that blackbirds were already nesting for the second year at that time.
In 2000, we provided comments to the commission that,
Current maintenance practices to keep the loop access road open may be promoting weedy growth
along the road margins. Along the access road are extensive rudderal species." That is still the
case today with poison hemlock, fennel, mustard, thistle, and other weeds flanking the access road.
This mitigation site is even more valuable as it is adjacent now to county-owned lands
that have just entered land trust conservation planning. We believe that the county has the
responsibility to restore and maintain the mitigation sites, as was indicated by language
within their first permit, restore and maintain. Since the last permit renewal, I have witnessed
new invaders like Periwinkle and Tamarisk. The terribly aggressive Cape Ivy has been
spreading from the access roads, blanketing native shrubs and trees. The Canary Island
palms that were growing up under cottonwoods in 2020 are now massive and they're killing
those trees, along with many more palms sprouting up throughout the parcel. The native vegetation
cannot compete with these invaders. We want to ensure that natural resources are valued,
preserved and enhanced. This restored land is a real treasure that the county deservedly
should be proud of creating. But 25 years and several droughts later, the land and vegetation
deserve attention. There is a need for immediate action. Audubon is interested in renewing
partnership with the district for site cleanup and weed control, but we need the assessment first.
Please expedite the timeline for special conditions one and two. The longer we wait,
the more expensive and labor-intensive it will be to remove the invasive vegetation. Thank you.
Thank you. And again, we do have Heather Moyne and Seth Schenck on Zoom and available for
questions or maybe a response. There are no more speakers, Madam Chair. Thank you, Chris. Okay,
I'll return to Mr. Hudson. All right, thank you. I'd just like to respond to the issues raised by
Mr. Chitilo. He was asking for an accelerated survey, accelerated review of the previous
restoration project and had exception to term of our bird nesting season that
was cited in the report. So in this case what what they're asking for is
that this project has been going on for 30 years. We have issued a series of
five-year permits. When the initial project was done their proposed the
county's proposal included a large off-site restoration area which was
great. We as part of that they have proposed monitoring but we didn't have a
separate requirement that required any additional monitoring beyond that
original term that five-year term so that project was completed. We do we
don't disagree if we agree with the concept that there could be a
requirement going forward in the future or reevaluation and if necessary
augmentation of any previous restoration areas. That's something that we believe could be
considered, but we'd like to take a phased approach and that's the recommendation laid
out in the staff report. And so we think that as a matter of fairness at this point we'd like to
approve this necessary flood control projects, but our conditions lay out a timeline for some
additional work to occur. One of those updates is a review of the previous
restoration project and we want that to come in before the next application. So
this permit term is five years. We have a check just a midpoint checkpoint at
three years to ensure that we get that report prior to the next application. We
said three years because we wanted some buffer and we didn't want to bump up
against the next application and have a problem.
The other request was updated biological surveys
of just the entire area.
And that was because some of the surveys are based
on older information.
We are requesting that those updated surveys be provided
as part of the next application.
And so that's reflected in our condition.
We don't think it's necessary that that be a condition
that it be moved up or accelerated because this permit,
like all the other five year permits requires biological monitoring and surveys occur before
and during every single potential dredging event.
So every time there's a dredging event, there is a biological monitor on site that performs
that work before the work occurs and during the work to ensure there's no adverse effects.
We simply disagree with the request that the biological monitor must be an independent
third party. The Santa Barbara County has qualified biologists. The requirement is
that those qualified experts be acceptable to the executive director and
the county has qualified staff that can perform that. We don't believe it would
be appropriate to require another governmental agency to use third parties.
In regard to the last item I heard, the bird nesting season change, I believe it
It was just a difference of maybe half a month, 15 days on when the season ends, and that's
laid out in the staff report.
I believe it's the difference between October, September 15th or October 1st.
The dates that we use are the updated protocols from Fish and Wildlife, and so there was a
change from the earlier projects that we approved that may have had that different set of dates
that were different by a couple weeks.
But the dates that we use now have been reviewed and approved by our ecologist, including Dr.
John Engle.
And I'll just note that we believe it's important to continue using the same protocols developed
by Fish and Wildlife, and that Dr. Engle believes are appropriate.
And of course, Dr. Engle is available on Zoom right now if there are any additional questions.
So with that, I'll close staff comment and just note that we do recommend this phased
approach to get, agreeing with the problems that were raised by the concerned parties,
but noting that this phased approach will allow us to resolve those issues over the
course of this term, of this permit, so that we'll have that updated information at the
time that the next permit application comes through the door. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson. I have one very brief question, and I'm sorry, I'm so tired I can't
find the reference that I'm thinking of so just tell me I'm off base if that's
the case and I I think that I read somewhere that there's going to be
different machinery used moving forward and I'm concerned about the impacts of I
think it's now an excavator and it used to not be or something do you know what
I'm talking about and can you allay my concern yes I would I would never say
you're off base you are correct someone asked you there there is different
equipment. I believe it's a bulldozer. I'm gonna ask Sam if he could provide clarity
about the change in equipment. So Sam, if you could answer that please.
Sure, yeah. And I actually see that the district through Seth's drink has a hand raised so
perhaps they could better address this if that's alright.
Sure, yes. And just very brief would be good. Thank you.
Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. That came up due to the 94 permits and EIR do have
reference to a dragline crane being used in association with dozers and excavators in this
channel. And I think somewhere along the way, the project description got slightly confused with the
the Gelida-Slue Project Description, which is just downstream of this, only separated
by a check structure, which does use a dragline crane for those deeper water excavation projects.
And a dragline crane would not be feasible here, it would actually be more impactful
because of the size and the vegetative banks that are present in Atascadero Creek, and
the lack of water for this.
So it was just a clarification it's been meaning to be done for, for several permit iterations now to just clarify the proper equipment being used.
Thank you very much. Commissioner not just to be sure as you said a phased approach. The last comment we heard is they wanted to speed up the wetland special condition to.
So you're saying that that is moving from what you're going to get that information in three years or did you say what how much time you're correct.
So the way it works is they would like this reevaluation of this old restoration area.
We agree that will happen in a three year time period.
Three years isn't wasn't a magic number.
We were just coming up with what sort of a midpoint so we can ensure that we get this information and we don't bump.
up against the expert the five-year term and we don't want to have any delays at
the time that the county comes in for the next permit so we wanted to create
that buffer because I thought I thought her point about if there's invasives get
them out sooner rather than later was well taken so if I if I may through the
chair and respond to that so of course we could require it earlier but this is
just a check on the previous restoration there's no requirement that some action
occur the idea is that this information would be used by the Commission and its
evaluation of the next permit application and so the idea is this
wouldn't be timely until that that action occurs. I'm ready to make a motion.
All right. Appreciating everyone's input and I really appreciate the groups
holding it all our agencies to the feet to the fire and arcing towards better
solutions all the time. I move that the Commission approve coastal development
permit number four dash two five dash zero one six five pursuant to the staff
recommendation. I recommend a yes vote. The motion by Commissioner Wilson a
second by Commissioner Bochco and I'm gonna ask for a roll call vote very
briefly just to make my own comments. I think our staff has done a very very
good job putting together a phased iterative approach here. I also think
that the Audubon Society has raised some really important issues in
particular want to appreciate Mr. Chitelo for raising them to me and I on
the timing just continue to have concerns about the cumulative impacts of
the delay and and so in solidarity with the Audubon Society and Mr. Chitelo I'll
be voting no but very grateful to our staff for their thoughtful work and their
deep analysis of the comments thank you. Commissioner Jackson aye Jackson yes
Commissioner Kelly yes Kelly yes Commissioner Lopez yes Lopez yes
Commissioner Nada not off yes Commissioner Presiado yes Presiado yes
Commissioner Turnbull Sanders yes Turnbull Sanders yes Commissioner
Wilson yes Wilson yes Commissioner Bacheco no Bacheco no Commissioner Escalante
Yes. Escalante. Yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart. Yes. Chair Harmon. No. Harmon. No. The vote is
nine yes to no. Thank you. The permit is approved. I think we'll trail the
statewide items if that's okay. We will adjourn today with gratitude in honor of
Chairman Turnbull-Sanders. Can we say so to quote one of our favorite people can
Can we make one last play and say please don't leave the Comostal Commission?
It was worth a final shot.