good morning everyone welcome welcome to the Thursday session of the October
meeting of the California Coastal Commission before we start with a roll
call I would like to formally welcome our new commissioner we're very excited
to have you okay and with that we'll have a roll call vote please
commissioner O'Malley present commissioner Kelsey here commissioner
esquilante here commissioner Hart present commissioner Jackson here
commissioner Kelly here commissioner Larson here commissioner Lee here
commissioner Lopez here commissioner not all here commissioner preshiato here
Commissioner Williams? Here. Commissioner Wilson? Present day. Commissioner Herman?
Chair Herman? Here. You have a quorum. Thank you very much, Ms. Miller. Okay, now
we'll move to the virtual meeting procedures, please. Alright, 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-Ban.org.
If you have access to the internet and wish to watch or listen to the meeting
only and not speak on an item, we recommend use the CalSPAN website. Those
who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person through the Zoom
platform or by phone. The speaker request forms may be found on the Commission's
webpage. Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittal are
available on the Commission staff table just outside the meeting room. For those
on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda webpage, which
is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up to two minutes
to speak at the discretion of the chair.
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after
9 a.m. on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation, you
may speak on a specific topic one time only each month. Those speaking on an
agenda item that is not general public comment are typically allowed two to
three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. We will accept a request to
speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing on that
particular item. If you have internet access please go to the Commission's
webpage and click on the link to fill out a speaker request. If you do not have
internet access or prefer to testify by phone please call the Commission staff
at 562-477-9089. Again that number is 562-477-9089. Staff will provide you
with a telephone call-in number and instructions for how to participate and
provide testimony by phone. We will manage speakers coming in and out of the
meeting through a meeting organizer. When it is your time to address the
Commission, the organizer will invite you to turn on your video and microphone or
provide instructions on how to unmute your phone. Madam Chair, that concludes
the virtual hearing procedures. Thank you very much Chris. Okay and now I will go
to Mr. Schwing for agenda changes please. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning
to the Commission and to everybody who's joining us today. I'll start with our
Our agenda changes.
We posted a memo earlier this week and there's one addition to that which I'll note as I
go through the list.
Starting with item 9A, that's the application 525352, the penal application from Seal Beach
that is moved to consent.
Item 9c, that's application A5 dbt 2349, the Mohudin matter out of Dana Point, that's
postponed.
Item 9d, application 524.137, the Avila application from San Clemente, that is postponed.
Moving on to item 11a, this is the city of Encinitas LCP amendment on their short-term
This is just an LCP time extension that's moved to consent
another Encinitas LCP amendment the safety element update again just an LCP time extension that's moved to consent
item 11 C the city of San Diego's
LCP amendment on their ADU density bonus program changes again just a time extension. That's moved to consent
item
12a that's application a six DMR 23 22 the vander wreath
Application from Del Mar that's moved to consent
item 12 be
application 6 23 835 the Eaton application out of Carlsbad that's moved to consent
Item 12 see and this is the addition. This is
Application 624 632 the L.H.O Mission Bay Hotel San Diego also known as Paradise Point that is postponed and
Then last item 12 D
Application 625 431 the day Simone application from Solana Beach that is postponed
And that concludes our agenda changes this morning
Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And now we will move to general public comment
Okay for members of the public I'll be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite you to speak when it is your turn
Each speaker will be allowed two minutes during general public comment at the discretion of the chair in
Order to allow for live video testimony on zoom
We will be bringing you in as panelists as we bring you in your zoom will reload and this may take a moment
To speed up this process. We will bring several people in at a time
But please remain muted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak
After your time is up, you'll be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room,
I'll call your names in the order that they appear in our 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 your hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by dialing star 9.
If you are participating by Zoom, you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you sign up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand now
When it is your time to speak we'll invite you to unmute and turn on your camera
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six
So today we have 19 people signed up for general public comment and we'll start with people in the room
We have Jennifer Creston Adam Levrens. Hi, Austin Peter Kaz and Michael Spano
Jennifer Creston
Good morning
Commissioners my
Newport Harbor stakeholders, and I are very grateful that you're here today to let us speak with you
My name is Jennifer Kristin, and could you please call up my slides? Oh, there's one
In the lower half of this photo
There's various businesses and little offices and things and that remains pretty consistent today in the upper part
There are primarily small cottages and boats on moorings well while the moorings remain today
the small cottages are mostly gone now. Next slide please. These are some current listings
for what has now replaced the cottages along the shoreline of the harbor. 14 million dollars,
14 and a half million, 18 million, 19 and a half million. Reportedly the most expensive
home sale along Newport Harbor in the past three years was for 47 and a half million
dollars in May of 2022. The most expensive current home listing is for 59 million dollars.
It seems that some of the people who can afford these prices would prefer not to see others
on the same public tide lands outside their windows, but the harbor is not their property
and neither they nor the city should have the right to exclude others from accessing
these places.
Next slide, please.
There are many, many people who can't afford the level of coastal access that owning property
in Newport offers.
This is where preservation of the near 100-year-old mooring permit system comes into play.
Here's some historical information showing that initially moorings were rent free.
This enticement encouraged their development at the risk and expense of those using them.
It's how cost efficiency was achieved and has been maintained into the present day.
While mooring rent is no longer free, the local coastal program, coastal land use plan
seeks to preserve them as an important source of low-cost public access to harbor and water.
Apparently though, people on moorings don't fit in very well with the current socioeconomic
Environment of Newport Beach the city has laid various plans which will shift access to the more localized and affluent
these various substances
Require CDPs and it is time for the Commission to step in and assure equity. Thank you very much
Thank you Adam levering
Moment switch our presentations around I always love being in the room with you folks
That's so nice that you travel around the state and give the opportunity to people for that
I am also talking about things in Newport Beach and those of you have been in here for two years
They've heard me a lot the six new commissioners not so much
but a 40-foot mooring in Newport Beach has an annual rate of a dollar 36 per square foot and
as was just mentioned the local coastal program is
provide moorings as a low form low-cost form of access
Other information on this slide are city rates for other Tidelands users. Residential peer
permits pay 58 cents a square foot, which is
substantial less than a mooring. And on the lower left side are the commercial Tidelands permits. And all of those
for-profit permits pay less than offshore moorings, except for large commercial marinas and HOA docks,
30,000 square feet or greater.
moorings are very difficult to access. There's no shore side. You know, you can't step on a boat on a mooring.
There's no power, no water. But typically, they're less than other
Tidelands users. And the next slide are some quotes from a year ago today as the executive officer of State Lands spoke before the Coastal Commission in
San Diego. And she said, quote, I think what's really appalling in this situation is that incredible discrepancy between the peer rates and the mooring rates.
And I can also acknowledge that the amount of tidelands that are being utilized by those private recreation
or residential piers and the vessels that are attached to those piers is significantly larger than moorings
and the boats associated with those moorings.
So there is some real definite iniquity going on here, close quote on that.
And then from the same meeting and other quote, we have different rates for moorings versus piers.
On the piers and the mooring boys, we also charge for an impact area.
So when the boat is tied up to either pier or the mooring buoy and the occupation of the land
That's based on that in all honesty our mooring buoy rates are much lower than residential pier rates
Close quote and the city in Newport has this reverse that has the lowest tier access paying more than anyone else
And throughout the state there's consistency. It's the other way around and again, we're seeking
Thank you.
Hein Austin and give us a moment again to fix the presentations.
While my slide is being pulled up, I have an article from the log in front of each one
of you that was handed out for the reference in my comments here.
So while my slide is coming up, thank you for your service to our state and we really
appreciate the time that you put in.
Thank you.
Honorable commissioners, my name is Hein Austin and I would like to clarify some misconceptions
regarding the privatization of tide lands and Newport Beach.
If you look closely at the satellite image,
you will find a pedestrian walkway and a sea wall
separating the tide lands from the city property.
There is no abutting property lines.
Both docks and moorings are identical users
on the tide lands because both are recreational,
self-installed, self-maintained,
long-term boat storage permit holders using the same water.
No one should have property rights to the tide lands,
Yet the affluent dock owners on the Harbor Commission consider the water
under their docks an asset in perpetuity and they feel entitled
to a 4,000% discount, 17 cents per square foot for the dock with boats
and $8 per square foot for the moorings.
Websites were referenced here that moorings are being sold for $40,000 to $50,000 each.
To clarify, no mooring holder has ever bought or sold a portion of the public tide lands.
The having a mooring permit allows the permittee to transfer the equipment the improvements and some
Overhead to the next person for a partial refund
Doc owners are the only ones claiming to have property rights over the tight lands
Even those with no abutting property lines the chair of the Newport dock owners Association Bob McCathy
Told the log in 2014 that all docks have property rights over the tight lands and quote
This property right is estimated at one million dollars in some cases end quote
Finally while moorings are criticized for selling their equipment for thirty to forty to fifty thousand dollars
Doc's with no legal property rights to get a free pass to sell their peers as forever
Real estate assets for up to one million dollars in added equity in their homes
Could there be any example better example for the double standards in Newport Beach?
Thank you. Thank you. Peter Kaz, Michael Spano, Erin Berry, and then Steve Ray.
Good morning Compshares. I have a video to play. Okay. The video first? Yes. Okay.
Give us a second. My name is Dick Andrews. I'm a veteran. Also a liveaboard
Newport Harbor's boring, and all that the city's been doing is driving me nuts.
I don't know if I have a home or don't. They change things on a regular basis,
sometimes I follow the rules, sometimes I don't even know what the rules are.
Please help us. Newport's Liverpool community has been around for almost a
100 years before the million-dollar houses were built.
There are maximum about 50-per-meter live abode
at each given time, and the city is planning to eliminate
and destroy them all.
Live abode is a cost-effective and great alternative
of California housing crisis with minimum effect
on environment by being off-grid using solar panels
and benefiting those who rely on the electrical grids.
Next slide.
Liberty boards are mostly retired people
on social security who are highly passionate
and skill boarders and mostly with captain license.
Liberty boards borders are the watchdog
and the first respondent of the harbor
and have rescued and saved many kayakers,
boarders and even a marine from helicopter crash.
In this picture we see one of the Liberty boards,
she lives right there on that right corner,
right boat and trying to rescue a guy who was he thought was attacked by the
big fish but he was actually a sea lion. Next picture. Thank you. So speaking of
sea lions, thank you for for watching the sea lions and seals situation closely
for the safety of animals and public safety in La Jolla and hopefully we can
stop the city from eliminating and destroying the liveable community as
will by requiring by requesting a CDP from the city thank you so much thank
you Michael Spano Aaron Berry and then Steve Ray good morning staff
commissioners and steam chair Harmon and all the people of California that are
listening I am dr. Michael Spano and I'm here yet again to speak to you on the
issue of offshore moorings and coastal access in Newport Beach as you may know
State Lands has issued their draft report on the investigation into the conduct of Newport Beach,
and our esteemed lieutenant governor said on August 21st, and I quote,
this commission does not set the rates for the peers. Okay, that is not our call. This is the
city's call, end quote. The issue with this stance is that Newport Beach is using an appraisal method
that sets mooring rates to a ludicrous 13 times the State Lands own benchmark calculation for
for what a fair mooring rate should be
in the state of California.
Furthermore, Newport is revoking all mooring permits
and establishing city licenses
in their July 2024 ordinance.
It's clear to me now that the power
to regulate Newport Beach has never lied with state lands.
Coastal access has always been an issue
for the California Coastal Commission.
I humbly ask you to please send a letter to Newport Beach
informing them that their July 2024 ordinance drastically changes coastal
access to the public and therefore requires a coastal development permit.
Let this issue be deliberated in plain view of the public and the state. Thank
you very much. Thank you. Erin Berry. Good morning, Erin Berry. I was 2024
president of Smart Coast California. Smart Coast California is a nonprofit
organization providing planning advocacy and information to our coastal
communities. Our mission is to foster a robust and balanced dialogue on smart
land use planning along our coast. We focus on education, collaboration, and
sharing resources for effective decision-making. We have 1,100 miles of
state coastline and we want to include all voices at the table and develop
solutions that work statewide creating smart remedies to sea level rise with
neighborhood scale adaptations. Last year we had the opportunity to present a
dynamic policy summit program where the California Coastal Commission Deputy
Executive, your deputy executive director Madeline Cavallari and her team brought
forward updated public review draft and sea level rise policy guidance. Next week
we will be holding our 2025 Policy Summit developing delving into legal
issues as well as coastal community LCP amendments movement and outcomes, private
property rights, public trust, sustainability, environmental needs and
solutions. During our upcoming summit we are fortunate to have your Executive
Director Dr. Kate Hacklebridge share her reflections on the future of our
coastline and introduce her team to discuss updates to sea-level rise
adaptation planning. Executive staff will also include discussion of a recently
initiated NOAA project of special merit to better assess beach
resilience at a local level and integrating this information into sea
level rise adaptation plans and LCP updates. We appreciate all the efforts
being made to address climate change and sea level rise with a hybrid approach, and look
forward to working with you guys on this. Thank you again.
Thank you, Steve Ray. And then we'll move to our Zoom speakers, starting with Captain
Mike Fleming, Betty Maruto, and then Nathan Brenner and Ron Askeland.
Well, good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners, staff, and members of the public out there
listening in today. Change is going on here at the Commission. Yesterday we
said our goodbyes to Commissioner Effie Turnbull Sanders. Recently we've said
goodbye to several other commissioners and every month the executive director
announces retirements of long-term and senior staff members. Change is the foot.
But as a matter of fact, nine years ago, Banning Ranch, which was one of the major projects
ever considered by this commission, was heard, it was just nine years ago, and today there's
only one commissioner, Commissioner Abachko, although she's not here today, who was here
then.
So change is afoot.
There's been a tremendous loss of institutional knowledge, as was mentioned yesterday.
All that's happening.
but change can also be good. It brings in new people, new ideas, new perspectives.
I'm interested in finding out what all those perspectives are and working with all those,
holding those perspectives as we continue down the road here. You know, one of the things I've
always believed that's so important to the commission is to get out there and see this
world that you are making decisions on. Last month, you had a chance to do that at Fort Bragg,
You had a major project brewing up there,
and you get a real feel for what's going on
when you're actually standing on the site and looking at it.
And I want to invite you back to Morro Bay next year,
because there's a lot brewing in Morro Bay.
And when you stand there in the property and see it,
you get a much better feel for it.
I know that happened at Banning Ranch,
and that was a significant change in attitude
towards that project.
So I look forward to working with all of you, and good luck.
Thank you.
Moving to our Zoom speakers now, we
have Captain Mike Fleming followed by Betty Maruto
and then Nathan Brunner.
Good morning, commissioners.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to speak.
I believe I have three slides.
This first slide is an article from the Sun
Times in Seal Beach in regards to the Coastal
commissions, approving a raise in parking permit prices.
And that in the future, that just to keep things safe,
that you recommend that there be a special condition
3 to require the city that any future increases,
that they would get a new CDP or amend that current CDP.
Next slide, please.
This is a statement from back in 93, which was done by Peter Douglas, your executive
director back then, and it is reading about coastal development permits being required
for anything that's increasing rates or limiting access.
And then slide number three, the, I can't read my own slide, it's so small, the California
of Public Resource Code 1002 clearly states that California is one of provide equitable
opportunities and affordable access. The maximum public access is what the state is looking
for and yet here we have an attack on people who are economically disadvantaged. The rates
that the city mooring plans to convert to permits are up there at the same
rates as the Yacht Club permits and that's just not everybody in California
can join a Newport Beach Yacht Club or pay those kind of rates. So we really
really request that you require a CDP from the city to to make such a radical
change in prices. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Betty Maruto, Nathan Brenner, Ron Askeland. Betty
Maruto. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Betty Maruto, and first of all, I'd like to thank
you so much for all that you do to preserve and protect our amazing coastline. I strongly urge
you to continue those efforts by supporting our park it proposed reservation and shuttle system
for Point Lobos state natural reserve. I'm a frequent visitor and steadfast supporter of
Point Lobos. I'm a member of the Parkett Steering Committee. I'm a docent at Point Lobos and the
president of the Point Lobos Foundation Board. Point Lobos is a place I love deeply, not just
for the natural beauty but for the way it invites stillness, connection, and appreciation of our
wild California coast. I've brought friends from out of state, family members, colleagues,
all sorts of friends and folks to share that experience. But over the past years, visiting
has become increasingly difficult and really downright dangerous. If I bring someone who
isn't physically able to walk the one to two mile hike from the highway to the coast,
that's when the entrance is closed because of already being full, we have to be mindful
about arriving early or later in the day and at times still no luck and we must come back or just
skip it all together. If my guest is physically able we're able we walk along the shoulder with
cars flying by us at 50 miles an hour which is terrifying and there's no buffer from the traffic
and the parking experience itself just to find a spot is not safe along a highway with
pedestrians walking and cars flying by. That is not the way a visit to a state
natural reserve should feel or be. I see families with toddlers, camera
equipment, some clearly confused about where to go or where to be and how to be
safe. I've seen people dart across the highway, kids running ahead of their
parents, which causes stress, danger, and a very tragic accident waiting to
to happen.
Carcass.
Thank you.
I urge you to support our parking program for reservation shuttle system.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And now we have a joint presentation from Nathan Brenner and Ron Askeland.
Following that will be Diane Edmonds and then Kaitlyn Quinn.
Nathan Brenner.
Greetings commissioners.
I'm Nathan Brenner with the Sierra Club Seal Society.
I'd like to take a moment to offer a warm welcome to Commissioner Lee.
year. Last month, the Sierra
Club presented to this
commission regarding the
ongoing harassment of sea lines
at the way a cove. We're here
again this month to provide a
status update as to what the
city of San Diego appears to be
doing and give feedback as to
what is and what is not working.
We are grateful for this
commission's efforts and believe
they are having a positive
impact in reducing sea line
harassment, but there is more to
be done. Next slide, please. In
Coastal Commission to update the Long-Term Management Plan for Point La Jolla. This modification
permitted city rangers staffed at Point La Jolla to also monitor the La Jolla Cove and
make safety announcements asking people to stay back a safe distance from the sea lines.
At the August 2025 Coastal Commission meeting, the Sierra Club presented a graph documenting
ranger safety announcements observed in June, July, and August, indicating less than two
safety announcements made on average per day.
September 2025 safety announcements increased slightly. For October 2025, ranger safety
announcements appear to have increased to between 5 to 7 per day, but they are not made
with consistent frequency, and the announcements seem to be implemented as optional measures.
We are pleased that ranger safety announcements are increasing and urge the City to provide
even more frequent and consistent announcements.
Ideally, rangers would provide recorded safety announcements in multiple languages.
Next slide please.
Notwithstanding the noted improvements, the City's failure to adequately staff rangers
at Lohoyukov makes the current situation untenable.
safety issues remain and sea lion harassment continues. I'll turn the presentation over to
Dr. Ron Askeland. Good morning commissioners. I'm Dr. Ronald Askeland, Conservation Chair of the
San Diego Sierra Club. On September 24th, Robin Davidoff and I had the pleasure of meeting Lindsay
Kane, Coastal Program Analyst for the Coastal Commission at La Jolla Cove, so that Lindsay
could get a first-hand video of interaction between members of the public and sea lions.
Next slide please. Let's be clear, we support keeping La Jolla Cove open year-round. We need
short-term immediate and management actions. We need to require rangers to be staffed at La Jolla,
staffed at Point La Jolla to monitor the cove every 30 minutes at a minimum and to make
announcements on the blow horn. For public safety, we need signage on the beach informing people to
to stay a safe distance of at least 20 feet back
from sea lions.
Cones and tape need to be placed around sea lion pups,
injured sea lions, and difficult to see sea lions,
those that look like rocks.
This happens at other California beaches,
including Delmar, Oceanside, Los Angeles, and Pismo Beach.
Why not, La Jolla?
Next slide, please.
Please tell San Diego Parks and Rec
to temporarily close the western stairs
when sea lions are resting on them
to prevent people from descending the stairs
and not seeing the animals until they almost step on them.
Public access on the eastern stairs on the lifeguard side
keeps the cove open at all times.
We support keeping the La Jolla Cove Beach open year-round.
These actions are not difficult to implement
and will improve public safety.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Our next speakers are Diane Edmonds, Kaitlyn Quinn,
and Julia Manko, Diane Edmonds.
Hi Diane, you're muted still.
Okay, there you go.
All right, hello, my name is Diane Edmonds
and I'm concerned about the radioactive waste
at San Onofre.
Edison repeatedly states that the sea walls
in front of the plant are 30 feet high.
This is not true.
I've measured the sea walls from the sand
to the top of the rear sea wall
and the height is approximately 16 and two thirds feet
in front of the waste storage area.
Because Song sits on a known earthquake fault,
the height of the seawalls or the tsunami walls
is very relevant.
At your Long Beach meeting back on April 10th, 2024,
several of us shared our concerns
about nuclear waste at Song's.
After our comments, several commissioners
discussed the waste issue and Dr. Hucklebridge
gave a detailed summary of the commission's actions
on this issue.
The commission required Edison to complete
an extensive monitoring and reporting inspection program,
including a third party review
of both of the spent fuel storage sites at songs.
And Edison was required to report those findings
back to the commission.
The first area's inspection had already been completed
at that time, which was April of 2024.
And you were expecting a report from Edison within 180 days,
which would be October of last year.
This was for the older horizontally stored canister site.
Dr. Hucklebridge said the newer vertical canister storage area
was going through the inspection process at that time,
and a report would be coming later that year,
which would be December of 2024.
This site is most concerning
due to its proximity to the ocean.
To my knowledge, the results of both of these inspections have not been shared with the
public even though nearly a year has passed since these reports were promised.
I respectfully request that the topic of songs waste be added as a future meeting agenda
item at your earliest convenience and that you share all of the reports from Edison as
well as the results of the third party review.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Caitlin Quinn, Julia Monca, Bud Koomins, and Patricia Koomins.
Caitlin Quinn.
Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
Thank you for all the good work you do protecting our coast.
I live on the coast in Pacifica, and I'm reaching out to you today about the new short-term rental ordinance our city recently passed,
and which is coming into full effect in the non-coastal parts of Pacifica.
This ordinance establishes sensible restrictions on unhosted STRs,
such as requiring the property to be the SDR operator's primary residence
and an operating limit of 60 nights per year for unhosted STRs.
Eight years ago, my family bought our dream home in Pacifica.
When three years ago, the CEOs of a vacation rental company bought our neighbors' home,
that dream morphed into a nightmare.
You've heard the stories before, so you know what happens next.
The noise, the parties, overflowing trash, the trespassing.
The lowest point was when the police came to our door over Christmas to ask if we had
seen, quote, any activities involving children and drugs at the Airbnb next door, end quote.
When we've spoken up about these issues to the listing platform's help sites for neighbors,
we've been sent threatening letters by the vacation rental company's lawyer.
This unhosted SDR that charges thousands of dollars to stay at the weekend does not provide
affordable access to the coast, and the majority of the guests staying there are not here to
avail of Pacifica's beautiful beaches, but are here for business in San Francisco.
We now know when all of the big conferences are taking place in San Francisco, because
of the endless array of lanyards hanging from the necks of the guests coming and going.
That SDRs not only rob neighborhoods of neighbors, they rob them of community.
On my street, over 50% of the homes have been converted into full-time, unhosted SDRs.
We're relying upon new commissioners to please give those of us who live in Pacifica's coastal
zone the chance to regain our lost community and quiet enjoyment of our home.
Congressman's comes before you, hopefully soon.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Julia Manka, Bud Kumins, Patricia Kumins. Julia Manka. Good morning everyone. My name is Julia
Manka. I am originally from Italy and six years ago I moved to San Diego, a city that I fell in
love with because of its connection to the ocean. And I still remember the first time I went to
La Jolla Cove. I was speechless, seeing wild animals, sea lions resting on the beach. It was
was very magical.
And that feeling quickly changed.
I watched people surround the animal,
shouting, touching pups, pausing for selfies,
and even throwing rocks, sleeping mothers.
And six years later, it's still happening
every single day, sometimes at night.
Mothers can rest, pups, they cannot nurse safely,
and the ranger's voice, when you can hear it at all,
gets lost in the crowd.
I've seen so many violations during those years,
but never once a single citation.
And we all know that without consequences, people don't learn.
So I asked, what are we waiting for?
What a child to be beaten for a tragedy
to make us finally act?
We call ourselves an ocean city, a place
that values wildlife, conservation,
and respect for nature.
What does that mean if we can even
protect the most visible and most vulnerable animal
that lives in our coast, in our community?
So today I speak as an American citizen,
as a woman in conservation,
and as a voice for those who cannot speak.
The sea lions of La Jolla Cove deserve better,
they deserve rest, and they deserve safety.
So I'm asking this commission today to take bold actions,
to support, at least the sea lions at least
during the critical times, popping season and nursing season,
and demand consistent real enforcement at the cove,
because protection on paper
means nothing without real action.
Let us be the generation that says enough,
and let us be the ones that would choose compassion
over convenience.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Blood Coomans, Patricia Coomans, and Lila Ranero.
Blood Coomans.
Thank you.
for your work and oversight. Please play my video of a fellow Maureen Holder.
My name is Marlene and I just want you to know I really appreciate you giving us the opportunity
to hear our concerns. I'm a 73-year-old grandmother and I've been living on my boat for
13 years and I realized early on that I was not going to be able to retire and live off my social
of security. So I came up with this great idea and I sold my condo and I used that money to purchase
my mooring and a beautiful 50-foot motor yacht that I have enjoyed living on for the past 13
years. I have a great community out here and what the city's trying to do is going to absolutely
drive me off my mooring, excuse me, and at that point I really don't know what I would do. I don't
I don't want to move out of state because I would have to be away from my grandkids.
So we appreciate you hearing our concerns.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, sorry.
That was the video.
Yeah, I'd like to continue if I may.
Yes, go ahead.
All right.
I'm a boater, retiree and a liveaboard.
I was a machinist, blue collar, good pay, but without the present mooring system, I
data could own a boat in Newport Harbor. I'm very afraid changing to the license program
that they want to do here will not allow the live-abords and a 500% increase at minimum
because it's also going to be tied to the dock to the marinas. And the average worker
will not be able to afford a boat in Newport Harbor. Thank you.
Thank you. Now, Pat Goomans.
Hi, can you hear us?
I can hear you. My name is Pat Coomans. I am a licensed captain and mooring
little board holder and I want to thank you for your time here. Thank you for
protecting coastal access for working-class lower-income and retired
people. The mooring community is facing a whole suit of changes that are
threatening our affordable coastal access in Newport Harbor. Please help
protect low-cost mooring permits in the harbor. Please don't allow the wholesale
conversion of low cost permits to high cost licenses. People like me will not be able to stay
and it will keep the younger generation out of boating. I'm surprised I still have more time.
May I add in Newport Harbor, we have a long list of revolves. There's no houseboats allowed.
They must be seaworthy. Lines must be a certain length and width. We get timed at our dinghy docks.
we get our boats inspected at their docks with a two-page checklist.
Harbor workers go by a few times a day.
If a boat is dirty, they'll get a warning.
And this helps keep it, it does keep it orderly.
This is not a free for all mooring that people might have heard of.
This is a very organized, beautiful harbor.
And we'd love to stay here.
And I think big decisions will be made that may be changing this for ourselves
for a lot of people here. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, Lila Reneiro, Andrew Meyer,
and then I'll start calling names that we weren't able to find. Lila Reneiro.
Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, great. Greetings, honorable chair and commissioners.
I am Lila Reneiro, concerned citizen residing in the coastal zone of Pacifica,
a Peter Point neighborhood. I spoke at yesterday's meeting during public comment regarding short-term
rentals. I wasn't planning on speaking again today but I was greatly concerned and alarmed
hearing the stories from all of the victims and residents of the Pacific Palisades and Malibu
fires who were trapped in traffic, separated from their children and were scared for their lives.
So I felt compelled to add my voice. This is a situation that could very easily have happened
here in Pacifica or many other parts of densely populated coastal California. We have had
alarming issues here recently with tsunami warnings where we received conflicting directions
from different agencies. Without pointing the blame anywhere in particular, we live in an area
where our kids are assigned to two different school districts, which gave us differing
protocols for student pickup, and other emergency response agencies were not aligned in their
protocols. There are a number of future proposed developments in Pacifica that greatly concern me
for safety reasons, including lack of egress and the ramifications of SB 79 and other SuperPro
building laws affecting the coastal zone, where building would be out of control, especially
around what may be defined as transit hubs. I realize the Coastal Commission may not be in
the position to legislate these issues currently, but I want to make sure that they're on the radar
well in advance of when they come before you. California is facing a climate crisis and we
have had so many fires, loss of homes and lives, and resulting insurance issues. We need to be
protected from developers who are trying to build as much as they possibly can in Pacifica and other
parts of California. Because SB 79 and other pro building laws will likely override the
planning decisions of local governments, coastal communities such as Pacific Palisades and Pacifica
may need the CCC to exert their power and influence as much as possible to protect Californians.
We should not be forced to or allow developers to have CART launch to build as many units as
possible when our communities simply do not have the infrastructure to support it.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important issue.
Thank you and then Andrew Meyer. Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk.
Thank you Coastal Commissioners for all the work that you do. My name is Andrew Meyer. I'm the
Director of Conservation at the San Diego Bird Alliance down here in the southern part of the
state and I'm also the manager of the Rewild Mission Bay project and I wanted to emphasize
the Rewild Coalition supporting substantial tidal wetland restoration in Mission Bay is 98
organizations strong, we're all pushing for substantial wetland restoration in the northeast
corner of Mission Bay. Yesterday I attended the Blue Carbon Collaborative Conference hosted by
Coastal Quest and Wild Coast, and got to present about ReWild Mission Bay as a local example of
coalition building and moving a project along, and all of us got re-energized about the importance
and opportunities to fight the climate crisis through vibrant, enduring coastal habitats,
not to mention all of the water quality, access, and endangered species habitat that tidal wetlands
can also bring along. The San Diego Bird Alliance has supported Scripps in researching the carbon
stock in the Riewild area for several years and we are supporting the scientists in publishing
that as soon as possible. Research is critical to understand the carbon storage in a tidal wetland
habitat and how to rebuild that as these habitats are restored. But a paper analyzing our blue,
one blue carbon soil sample has just been published in the UC San Diego Student Journal
by Dr. Matt Costa who led the research and lead author Finn Schwartz, a former student
and employee of the Bird Alliance, with a little help from me about the rewild local
local component. So we urge the Coastal Commission to prioritize wetland restoration
and speed while reviewing the city of San Diego's Deanne's and Natural Amendment to the Mission Bay
Park Master Plan and want to emphasize how important blue carbon is as one tool and a
critical tool for all of the positives that come along with mangrove and eelgrass and especially
title wetland restoration along the coast of California thank you very much
thank you and we're only unable to find one person Diana Sandoval if you're in
the zoom meeting please raise your hand and again Diana Sandoval okay I'm seeing
no hands raised madam chair thank you very much Chris and thank you to the
public for your testimony so as a reminder to my colleagues this is now an
opportunity for you to ask questions about matters that you may have heard in
public comment for the purposes of determining whether we should put this
on the agenda for a future item. So with that are there any questions or comments?
Commissioner O'Malley. Thank you Chair. I want to give a little bit of update to my fellow
commissioners based on some of the sea line issues in La Jolla. First I
want to thank the sea line folks who continue to be on top of this in the
Sierra Club. I also understand that local staff have had, San Diego local staff
had ongoing meetings to discuss this more seriously and and I really want to
thank them for their efforts as well. I know their their efforts are increasing.
Last week Dr. Hucklebridge and I met with City Council President Joe
LaCava, City of San Diego to discuss our ongoing concerns. It turns out he
also that the district that he governs is La Jolla Cove area. You know he wants
to see this solved as much as we do. One of the main issues just to be quite
frank is parks and rec department employees don't want to put their boots
on the sand and they say that today they have been unwilling to do so fearing
for their own safety which is a little bit ironic because we're pointing out
the safety issues that are going on in the Cove here. So quite frankly I
I think the conversations between our staff
and the parks and rec folks and the mayor's office
are continuing and working better
as you see some of the sealant folks say.
But quite frankly, I think it's gonna come down
to the mayor's office to give direction
to the parks and rec folks that they need
to start implementing some of the seal society suggestions,
which to me seem very practical and it's an iterative process.
So short of closure, I think that those are
type of issues that are going to be necessary and so I thank them for their
suggestions and I'll stay on top of this and appreciate you guys listening.
Thank you Commissioner O'Malley we appreciate it. Any other comments, questions?
Commissioner Nada? I was just gonna say that I appreciate the test, what we heard
of just elevating the issue of concern around Point Lobos in the state park
there in the unsafe situation with all the cars parked along Highway 1 and I
understand that we'll be seeing some proposals there but I just wanted to
flag that it's I do agree with the testimony that it's a very unsafe
situation. Thank you. Vice Chair Hart. I just wanted to ask staff on the topic of
seals, there's been this incredibly accelerated die-off of seals in Monterrey.
I'm not sure that you're aware of that, but the Chronicle has been reporting on
it in the latest article, October 6th, and I'm just, while we're talking about the
issue with seals, I think it's really common to think, oh, there's lots of seals
and seals are everywhere, and it's not something that we need to be concerned
about. We do need to be very concerned about it based on what's, you know, what's
going on up in Monterey. So I don't know if you have any response to that or if
the Commission is on top of this or working with any of the scientists on
this. I was not aware but we'll look into it it's possible that staff is I'm sure
we have staff that are aware of this and are tracking it so I don't have any
other comments beyond that only to say I agree with you that it's you know there
are a lot of pressures on marine life especially these days with you know
water quality issues and climate change and and I think I'm not surprised if we
won't see more events like that and we need to figure out what we can do to at
least address the pieces that are under our control so I'll look into it and have
staff look into it and we'll be on top of it. Thanks Director Hucklebriginal
forward the article the most recent article to you. Thank you. Thank you very
much with that well oh yeah Commissioner Jackson thank you madam chair thank you
for everybody's participation this morning thank you commissioner O'Malley
for your update with regard to what's going on I understand that there are two
ingress and egress is associated with this beach where the seals are located
What I don't understand is if I'm a park ranger and I go down the stairs where the
seals are, and there are seals literally on the stairs, or right at the base of the stairs
– again, I'm a simple-minded guy – it would make sense that I would put some yellow
tape up at the top of the stairs and say, this is closed, please use the other one,
As opposed to allowing people to climb down, touch, pet, walk over into the little sea
of sea lions.
I mean, I, again, I'm a simple-minded guy.
This isn't that hard in my opinion and I just, you know, this is more just a comment and
frustration because for my first meeting in May, every single meeting has been a sea lion,
sea lion, sea lions.
And when you got those little girls down there touching and petting and you know
There are a lot of smart lawyers out there that are going okay
You know as soon as one of these kids gets injured
It's gonna be a problem and a big problem because they are noticed they they know this isn't a should have known they know
this is a clear issue so I
appreciate the
The follow-up from the folks who are on the ground who are observing this and watching this happen
day in and day out and I'm just literally flabbergasted at the
Lack of attention in my opinion to the seriousness of this issue
I mean we have other beaches up and down the coast that close access points when the sea lines in there, but for whatever reason
The the city is choose choosing not to do what again in my opinion seems common sense, so
more frustration
Than anything else, so I appreciate the the indulgence
Okay
All good all right great. Thank you, so we'll move to the consent calendar, please mr.. Schwing
Thank you, so that does take us to item five the consent calendar for all units and districts on the agenda today
we have four items from Orange County aren't aware of any controversy on those items and
Applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations.
So staff's recommending approval of these items on the consent calendar.
Great.
Thank you.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
No speakers for this item.
Okay.
Great.
Do any commissioners wish to remove an item?
No?
Okay.
Then I'll take a motion to approve consent.
So moved.
Second.
The motion by Commissioner Kelly, a second by Commissioner Notoff.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none the consent calendar is adopted now we'll move to those items that have been removed from the regular calendar, please
Great. So that's item six and let me walk through the list. We have item 9a
That's the pinel application five twenty five three fifty two
Item eleven a the city events need us short term rentals LCP time extension
Item 11 be city of Encinitas safety element update LCP time extension
Item 11 see the city of San Diego's
ADU density bonus program changes
LCP amendment time extension
Item 12 a the Vonda wreath application from Del Mar and
Item 12 be the Eaton application from Carlsbad
Do you want to note that on item 11 C the city of San Diego?
staff they raise some
Concerns with the time extension on their revisions to the ADU density bonus program
We recognize this matter is a priority for the city. However
HCD has raised some concerns with the city's program revisions and
We understand additional comments are going to be provided shortly
So ideally we would see the city and HCD work through those
concerns before we bring the matter in front of the Commission for a final action on the LCP amendment.
So there is correspondence from HCD as well that is supporting the staff recommended time extension on that amendment.
Also wouldn't mention there is addenda on item 12a the Von der Riethe item.
That was just to correct an exhibit and
and an addenda on 12B Eaton with some changes to the monitoring condition that staff has
agreed to and correspondence expressing some support from the staff recommendation from
Surf Rider Foundation but also providing some additional comments regarding that site.
Otherwise, there's no known opposition or objections on these items and we're recommending
these matters get moved to consent and approved for the staff recommendations.
Great. Thank you very much. Any ex partes? Any public? Oh, excuse me, Commissioner Lopez.
12C on that list. I know it was postponed. Do I do ex parte on something
that's postponed or do I wait to come back? You submit the paper document.
Yeah, you submit it in writing and then when it comes to forward it will
are to be on the record.
Thank you.
Thank you.
OK, Chris, are there any public comments?
Yes, we have across the items a few speakers in person.
For item 11A, we have Jim Holtz.
OK, I'm not seeing Jim Holtz here.
For item 11C, we had Mitchell Christie signed up on Zoom,
but we weren't able to find them.
Mitchell Christie, if you are on Zoom, please raise your hand.
and Mitchell Christie.
Okay, I'm not seeing any hands raised.
For that item we also have two people
from the city of San Diego, available for questions.
For item 12A we have one available for questions
and then we have Mitch Silverstein
who signed up for this item
and I'm not sure what specific item that 12B.
Okay, go ahead.
Good morning commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein, California policy senior coordinator
with Surf Fighter Foundation.
Commissioner Lee, congratulations on your appointment.
Welcome to the commission.
So the item of the consent revolves
around a rock revetment along a stretch of beach in Carlsbad.
That's mostly armored in some places with revetment
and in others with bluffs stabilizing seawalls.
For clarity, a revetment is a pile of large boulders
on the beach that offsets the wave impacts
to protect property behind it.
This beach is an area of concern for our San Diego County
chapter because it offers great surfing.
And because lateral beach access at high tides
is no longer possible due to all of this armoring.
We support the particular CDP as it resolves
a longstanding coastal act violation
and improves conditions at the beach.
It does this by reducing the footprint of this revetment,
which was approved in 1993,
but built across a much larger area
than was originally approved.
So for 30 years, the revetment was illegally too large
and worsening erosion on the beach.
We do hope these violations
can be resolved quicker in the future.
And I say this not to ding the great work
of the enforcement team,
But actually to support what's in the draft strategic plan
that's gonna come before you, I think in a couple months,
which calls for bulking up enforcement staff
in the next five years.
We also support the $203,000 mitigation fee,
not because we want to see coastal lag violators fined,
but because we know that without consequences,
people might freely violate the conditions of their CDPs.
And then lastly, this revetment was actually approved
in 1993 without a home even built yet,
which is not something that Surfrider agrees with,
but it does help me explain why armoring the coast is so bad.
Because this empty lot was surrounded by existing armoring,
that armoring was actually worsening,
kind of redirecting stronger wave impacts
to the unarmored area.
So it kind of shows that like armoring the coast
only creates the conditions that don't force,
but require more armoring.
So armoring always begets more armoring,
and then we, the public beach goer, lose our beaches.
So I just wanted to mention that for everyone and do support.
This is going to improve what you said.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And across the other items moved to consent,
we have no other speakers.
Madam Chair.
OK.
Thank you very much.
Does anyone want to remove any of these items?
No, but I just wanted to note that one of the items, 12A,
I think we did find substantial issue,
and now it's going through in consent.
I thought that was an interesting process note. Okay. Motion to approve
consent? So moved. Second. The motion by Commissioner Nadoff, a second by
Commissioner Kelly. Any objection to unanimous consent? Seeing no objections,
the consent calendar is so adopted. Okay, thank you and now we'll move on to our
enforcement report and that's going to be item 7.1 through 7.4 which can share a
single combined staff report. Just give us one second to change our staff team
out. All right commissioners I think whenever you all are ready we're ready
to get started. All right thank you very much. So as I said we're now going to
I consider items 7.1 through 7.4,
which share a single combined staff report,
which includes the proposed cease and desist order,
restoration order, and administrative penalties.
The orders are all issued, proposed to be issued
to John C. Levy Jr. and Jim Kelly
in their individual capacities and or as trustees
of the John C. Levy Jr. Revocable Trust
and or the Buena Vista Revocable Trust
regarding properties located at 2401 Mountain View Drive,
Carlsbad, an adjacent state-owned parcel
designated as APN 155-101-66 and an adjacent parcel
owned by the Beach Homeowners Association
designated as APN 203-010-21.
Would the alleged violator and or its representatives
identify themselves for the record, please?
Could you come up to the mic?
Thank you, Ms. Flavin.
Shondra Slavin on behalf of the respondent John Levy. Thank you and then
we have two others that'll be on virtual so thank you. And to our staff, good
morning. Can you please identify what items are already part of the record?
Yes, good morning chair, hard man commissioners. The record consists of the
contents of the staff report and supporting documents, the appendix, this
presentation, and two addenda, the first of which contains nine letters of
support from this enforcement action, including letters of support from Buena
Vista Audubon, Disability Rights California, Surfrider Foundation, the
Sierra Club among other individuals. It also includes letters from and to the
City of Carlsbad and from and to a representative of the alleged violator
which all were sent after publication the staff report for this item, as well
as minor corrections to the staff report. We also received another letter of
support after the first addendum was posted and this is included in that
second addendum. Late yesterday afternoon we received a letter from the alleged
violators representative with hundreds of pages of exhibits. This letter
includes similar arguments that we have addressed in the staff report and will
also be addressed in the presentation. And I would just note that under our
regulations their defenses were due on months ago and not right before the
hearing but as a courtesy we did work last night to respond to some of their
arguments and this is also included in the second addendum which was posted
early this morning around the same time has this letter came in yesterday we
also received a letter from the Pacific Legal Foundation and approximately 115
pages of exhibits and we also respond briefly to this letter in our second
the agenda as well. Thank you very much. Before we move on I want to just circle back. Ms. Slavin
mentioned that the other representatives were on Zoom. Could I ask them to identify themselves as
well? Yes, let me go ahead and unmute them. They're already on Zoom. So we have John Levy and Paul
Beard. Hi, can you all hear me? Yes. I'm Paul Beard and I'm legal counsel for this matter.
who do you represent good morning it's john levy and i'm uh thank you mr levin can you hear me
yes okay thank you thank you okay um and so mr mclendon how long will you need for your
presentation we'll need 38 minutes but we'll try to keep it under that okay thank you um there
shouldn't be any ex parte communications as this is an enforcement matter but do any commissioners
have any such communications to report. I'll just report that I received an
email from Ms. Leyvin requesting an ex parte and I responded that I do not take
ex partes on enforcement matters. Okay so now I'm going to review the rules for
this proceeding. Staff has asked for up to 38 minutes for its presentation so
I'll give the alleged violator the same amount of time. They may also request to
reserve some of that time for their own rebuttal. After any presentation by the
the alleged violator, we will allow three minutes for any other party who would like
to speak as an interested member of the public, after which the chair, me, will allow the
alleged violator to use any reserved rebuttal time to respond to comments from interested
parties. Staff then typically responds to the testimony and to any new evidence that
may be introduced. Anyone who speaks at this hearing may propose questions either orally
or in writing that they'd like commissioners to ask
to any other party, but it's not appropriate
to suggest questions to be asked to yourself.
Commissioners may, but are not required
to ask the proposed questions.
So now we're going to begin the public hearing,
and I'll turn to staff for their presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
On this slide, you can see a photo of a permanently locked
gate within an accepted public access easement,
an open space easement that were both required
by a commissioned CDP.
This access way leads to a scenic beach in Carlsbad
called North Beach, which is located
at the mouth of the Buena Vista Lagoon.
As we will discuss in detail later, if it were opened,
the access way you see here would also provide
the only legal public access to this beach and lagoon mouth
for persons with mobility issues.
It would also provide important access
for persons with strollers, beach wagons, bicycles,
and the like.
Mr. Levy has installed Halak Gate and another easement required by the city CDP that would
provide important access along the lagoon.
Further, Mr. Levy has undertaken a large amount of unpermitted development along the edge
of the lagoon and with a wetland buffer that was required by a CDP.
As we will detail, Commission enforcement staff has attempted to resolve these violations
amicably with Mr. Levy for over eight and a half years to no avail.
At any point in that period of time, Mr. Levy could have simply opened his gate and removed
his padlock from another gate within the easements and removed his development from the wetland
buffer and avoided this entire proceeding.
But after all this time and after considerable effort by your staff, he has chosen not to.
We'll now start the presentation of our recommended actions to finally ensure the Coastal Act
is upheld here.
Today's presentation presentation will be given by Rob Model-Malak who is the lead headquarters
enforcement attorney on this case and commission ecologist Dr. Cory Clatterbook.
Next slide please. Good morning Chair Harmon and members of the commission. On this slide you can
see a map of the region. The violations are located in North County San Diego in the city of Carlsbad.
Next slide please.
On this slide, you can see Buena Vista Lagoon on the left
and North Beach at the bottom right.
The yellow star shows the house owned by Mr. Levy,
the alleged violator.
As you can see, Mr. Levy's house is located in a unique area
at the mouth of a large lagoon
in just inland from a wide beach.
We will start the presentation by giving an overview
of the properties, easements, and violations at issue
before getting into the details of the story.
Next slide please.
There are three different public access,
Sorry, three different public easements that are being violated by Mr. Levy's development and we'll start with the first two
We will discuss the permit history in detail later
But it helps to have some bearings first for this one
The locked vehicle gate that you saw on the first slide is located at the white star at the top right
The large parcel outlined in blue in the center of the screen is owned by the homeowners association for the subdivision in the bottom
Right marked by the blue star known as the beach HOA
However, although this area is beach HOA property it's subject to two of the key easements at issue here a public access easement
That will call the beach access easement and opens and sorry and an open space easement
Despite the fact that the public access easement crosses this property and has been legally accepted
The only public access way to North Beach and the mouth of the lagoon that is currently open is at the far bottom right
Marked by the green star and it's a long stairway
It's important to note that the beach HOA is not the target of this enforcement action,
and in fact, the beach HOA supports the commission's efforts to open Mr. Levy's locked vehicle
gate on their property.
Next slide, please.
We will now take a look at the other easements involved.
At the top left, you can see a yellow star where Mr. Levy's house is located and a yellow
triangle showing his property.
On the left, you can also see a white line extending along the lagoon, identifying the
the location of the other key easement at issue,
another public access easement
that we'll call the Lagoon Access Easement.
The white star at the bottom of the white line
shows where Mr. Levy has an unpermitted lock gate there.
Finally, though not directly relevant to this case,
at the top right, you can see an orange line
which shows where Mr. Levy also holds
a non-exclusive Ingress and Egress easement
allowing him to drive over the beach HOA property
from the public road on the right of the screen
to reach his house.
Next slide please.
And here we've added the other easements back in
and you can see that Mr. Levy's ingress and egress easement
extends over the same area as the beach access easement
and the open space easement.
These easements all coexist as there's no conflict
between Mr. Levy driving to his house
and the public easily using the same road.
Next slide please.
On this slide you can see an overview
of the violations at issue.
First, Mr. Levy has maintained a permanently locked gate
within an open space easement
and within in blocking a public access easement
in violation of those easements
and the commissioned CDP that required them.
Secondly, he also installed an unpermitted lock gate
and fencing at the entrance to the lagoon access easement.
Further, he installed an unpermitted parking lot
in an area that the city's CDP condition
required to be protected as a wetland buffer.
And he also cleared vegetation
throughout the entire wetland buffer.
Finally, he also constructed a concrete sports court
and placed additional pavement around it.
Next slide, please.
With that overview, we're now going to go through
the permit and violation history here.
The yellow star shows where Mr. Levy's house lies today,
and the blue star shows where the beach HOA
housing development exists today.
Much of the area at issue was created
by placing fill in the lagoon in the early 70s,
but by the end of the decade,
vegetation covered most of the area, as you can see.
In this image, you can see many trails
across what is now the beach access easement
in the center of the photo and along the lagoon edge
on what's now Mr. Levy's property.
Next slide, please.
Now I'm going to walk you through the permit history
of the two CDPs that are relevant here,
starting with the first one.
In 1983, a developer applied for a CDP
to build the housing along this oceanfront bluff
that is now the Beach HOA complex
where the blue star is shown at the bottom left.
As mitigation for the impacts to public access
natural resources caused by paving over this natural bluff
and building retaining wall across it,
the commission required the public access easement
and open space habitat conservation easement
that now exist below the bluff,
which you can again see outlined in blue.
Again, the beach HOA still owns the land
underlying these easements,
but again, they support Mr. Levy's lock, sorry,
they support opening Mr. Levy's lock gate
across their property that currently blocks the easements.
Next slide, please.
15 years later, in the late 90s,
Mr. Levy applied for a separate CDP
for the development of his property.
In this image from 1993,
you can see what his property looked like
just prior to development.
The yellow star shows where his house is today,
and you can see the trail that extended
around his property and along the lagoon.
In reviewing his application,
the city looked to their LCP,
which we'll now discuss briefly.
Next slide, please.
In this image from the early 1980s,
you can again see the trail
that the public historically used
along the edge of the lagoon
on what's now Mr. Levy's property.
The LCP required the area of this trail
to be protected for public access.
Next slide please.
However, public access was far from the only resource
protected by the LCP and the Coastal Act
on Mr. Levy's property.
His property sits adjacent to wetlands on two sides,
which provide important habitat
for the endangered light-footed Ridgway's rail,
which you can see on the right with its little chicks.
In addition, the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
of the city's local coastal program states that quote,
the lagoon provides habitat for critical populations
of the California lease turn, Western snowy Plover,
light-footed clapper rail, American peregrine falcon,
California brown pelican, and white-faced ibis.
Next slide, please.
Here's another image of Mr. Levy's property
prior to development.
The Carlsbad LCP also requires that quote,
minimum setbacks of at least 100 feet from wetlands
shall be required in all development, unquote,
and further states that these buffers shall be protected
by open space easements.
Next slide, please.
In a letter to Mr. Levy's agent from 1996,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service further confirmed
the importance of the habitat on and around
the Levy property.
The service noted that, quote,
in addition to the endangered ridger-based rail,
numerous migratory waterfowl are known
to use the property for loafing, foraging,
and possibly nesting, end quote.
Therefore, the service recommended a 100-foot wetland buffer
to be planted with native vegetation.
Next slide, please.
Mr. Levy did not only need sign-offs
from the city in this US Fish and Wildlife, though.
He also needed approval from the property owner,
the Beach HOA, to build a paved road
to reach his house over their property,
where he held the ingress and egress easement.
The Beach HOA gave permission to Mr. Levy
to build a vehicle gate on the condition
that persons, quote, legally entitled thereto
shall have access at all times through the gate, unquote.
At the time, the public was not yet legally entitled
to use the area because the offers of the easements
were not yet accepted, but they will be soon,
as we shall discuss soon.
Next slide, please.
The city approved CDP 9759 in 1998,
authorizing development of a house, driveway,
and vehicle gate, and included conditions
to comply with the LCP policies we just discussed.
Condition 12 required recordation
of an open space deed restriction to protect wildlife
within a 100 foot buffer area between his house
and the adjacent wetlands.
Condition 13 required Mr. Levy to dedicate the entire area
to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Condition 16 required Mr. Levy to remove invasive plants
from that same buffer and plant natives there.
And condition 17 required Mr. Levy to record an offer
to dedicate a public access easement along the lagoon.
Next slide please.
Two commissioners then appealed the city's CDP.
In response, Mr. Levy created this color coded map
to show how protective CDP 9759 would be of public access
in the lagoon environment and submitted this map
to demonstrate why he believed the commission
should not find substantial issue with the city's approval.
The pink triangle in the center of the map
showed the only approved building footprint for his house
and the blue and yellow areas were required to be protected.
the commissioners voted to find no substantial issue in no small part
because of the many protections for coastal resources that you can see on
this map. Next slide please. With regards to vehicle access the Commission
recognized the need for Mr. Levy to be able to drive across the beach HOA
property where the offers to dedicate the beach access easement and open space
easement had been recorded. As I mentioned earlier there's no conflict
between the public and Mr. Levy both using the same area however his proposed
vehicle gate at the entrance to that road did present a future conflict. The
Commission concluded that because the easement offers had not yet been
accepted at that time, the Commission did not need to address whether the gate
would be legal at some hypothetical future time when the offers would be
accepted and the easements would come into existence. Next slide please.
Commission also found that as approved, the pedestrian gate at the entrance that
Mr. Levy proposed at the entrance to the lagoon access easement would be
adequate to protect public access. That's because the commission noted that
the approved pedestrian gate there was a time lock gate that would be open from
dawn to dusk and therefore would not impact the public's use of the area. The
approved plans, which you can see on the right, further specified that it was a
dawn to dusk gate. Next slide please. However, following the Commission's
finding that the appeal raised no substantial issue, Mr. Levy began
undertaking violations immediately. In this image you can see a permanently
lock gate with a padlock circled at the entrance to what would be the lagoon
access easement. This is not the time lock gate authorized by the CDP and
instead is unpermitted development and it is unpermitted development regardless
of whether or not the city recorded its acceptance of this easement. In addition
Mr. Levy also did not record the required offer to dedicate the public
access easement along the lagoon and also did not record the required open
space deed restriction within the wetland buffer either. He eventually
recorded these documents more than two decades later after Commission
enforcement staff insisted that he do so. Next slide please. Mr. Levy also built
unpermitted fencing that extends across land owned by the state of California
including into the water of the lagoon itself as you can see in this photo. Next
slide please. On this slide you can see a screenshot from Mr. Levy's rental
website. Around 20 years ago Mr. Levy moved abroad to New Zealand and began
using his property as a short-term rental and wedding and event venue. This
is when a second wave of violations began. Next slide please. In 2005 the
Beach Access Easement and Open Space Easement were accepted by the city.
There's no dispute regarding this. However, Mr. Levy did not
open his vehicle gate to the public. Instead on this slide you can see that
Mr. Levy did allow his paying guests to pass through his locked vehicle gate and
and drive down onto the beach access easement
in open space easement to put on weddings
and events there on the sand.
He later put an unpermitted sign on his lock gate,
which stated private property, no trespassing,
even though Mr. Levy does not even own the property,
and even though the public has a right to be there
and use this access easement.
Next slide, please.
Mr. Levy also began undertaking unpermitted development
along the lagoon.
In the above photo from 2010,
You can see the area required to be protected
for wildlife as a wetland buffer outlined in yellow.
In the photo below from 2013,
you can see that Mr. Levy has cleared nearly all
of the vegetation in this area for use as a wedding venue
in short-term rental.
In the yellow circle, you can see an air stream
and parked cars in an area of the wetland buffer
that Mr. Levy turned into an unpermitted parking lot.
Next slide, please.
Here are some more before and after images.
On the left, you can see vegetation
both sides of the house in 2008 and on the right in 2012 this area of wetland
buffer was cleared down to the bare earth. Next slide please. In this image
you can see the wetland buffer outlined in yellow and how Mr. Levy cleared
virtually the entire area of vegetation by 2012. It's worth noting that this
area was required to be dedicated to cowfish and wildlife and that Mr. Levy
therefore undermined the goal of this requirement through all of his
unpermitted development. Mr. Levy's CDP also required him to record an open
and space deed restriction to protect the area you see here,
which he did not do until August of this year,
over 25 years after he obtained his CDP.
Next slide please.
This photo from 2014 is helpful to illustrate the scope
of the unpermitted parking lot.
We count at least two dozen cars parked there
with room for plenty more.
Now we are going to turn it over
to commission ecologist, Dr. Corey Clatterbuck,
to talk about why Mr. Levy's unpermitted development here
cause substantial negative impacts to adjacent wetlands
and onsite habitat.
Good morning, commissioners.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see an image
looking south of the unpermitted parking lot
as it looked in 2018.
This is one of the areas that the US Fish and Wildlife Service
recommended to be a vegetated 100-foot buffer
for the adjacent wetland prior to Mr. Levy's development.
The purpose of vegetated buffers is
to protect sensitive habitat and the animals that live there
from uses related to development, such as noise, lights,
and pets.
Further, buffers with native vegetation
retain soil and reduce soil erosion.
Instead of a vegetated buffer, there
are large areas of bare earth on the right,
and the wood chips Mr. Levy placed in the foreground.
Because there is no transitional habitat here,
this allows noise, lighting, and other pollution
from development to enter the wetlands.
Cars parked adjacent to wetlands cause impacts
by dripping fluids, shining headlights into the wetlands,
and creating engine and other noise
that disturbs the native wildlife.
Unbuffered lights and noise can disorient and flush
native wildlife into unsuitable areas,
making them more vulnerable to predation.
Bare earth erodes as a result of vehicle use and rainfall.
Eroded soil then flows downslope into the wetlands
where it slowly contributes to the filling of the wetlands.
Next slide, please.
In this photo looking east, you can see tulees
where the wetlands are in the background
and woodchips in the foreground.
This helps to show just how close
the unpermitted development,
including placement of woodchips, occurred to the wetlands.
Woodchips are placed to prevent plants from growing,
which while useful for cars,
also prevents any vegetated refuge for birds
or other creatures that would otherwise roost
or transit between the wetlands and uplands here.
The woodchips may also run off into the lagoon
cause fill impacts there. Next slide. On this slide looking north you can see
invasive ice plant along the lagoon. Ice plant is from South Africa and is a
common threat to native species here on the California coast. While some native
plants are also present on the property, Mr. Levy's repeated unpermitted clearance
of vegetation in this area has created conditions that are ideal for invasives
like ice plant to grow and spread. I'm now going to turn it back to Rob. Thank
Thank you.
Next slide please.
Now we will detail the initial enforcement history here.
The photos you just saw, as well as the one on this slide, were taken by commission staff
on a site visit after commission enforcement staff first learned of these violations in
2016.
After coordinating with the city, commission district enforcement staff sent a number of
notices of violation to Mr. Levy beginning in 2017.
District enforcement corresponded with Mr. Levy for many years in an attempt to resolve
these violations amicably and without any formal order hearing or penalties.
Next slide please. At first it appeared the district enforcement efforts to
obtain compliance were bearing fruit. In the photo on the left you can see that
Mr. Levy opened his unpermitted gate at the entrance to the lagoon access he's
met. He also posted the sign on the right ostensibly to notify the public of their
rights to use the area. However as you can see his sign included a lot of
language that was likely to discourage the public and so commission staff did
not approve it. Mr. Levy also finally recorded the offer to dedicate the lagoon
access easement in 2018, two decades after he was required to do so, and he
also took down his unpermitted no trespassing sign from his vehicle gate
and the beach access easement. Next slide please. The Commission's district
enforcement team was helped by the support of the City of Carlsbad and we
appreciated their efforts. In an email from 2016, the City requested that the
Commission take the lead on enforcement regarding the lagoon access easement. In
In 2018, the city also sent an email stating that the city was planning to remove Mr. Levy's
vehicle gate within the beach access easement entirely.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see a screenshot of the city's interactive trails map website,
which shows the beach access easement going from left to right and the lagoon access easement
in the center extending upward.
The city called all of it the North Beach Trail.
The recorded offer to dedicate the lagoon access easement allowed for the offer to be accepted
via city council resolution or is authorized by a section of the city
municipal code dealing with the acceptance of trails into the city's
trail system. In 2019 the City Council voted to adopt a new city trails plan
that included the lagoon access easement thus meeting both criteria for
acceptance. However it's important to note that regardless of whether the lagoon
access easement has been accepted Mr. Levy's lock gate is still on permitted
development and must be removed. Next slide please. As you can see in this image
of Mr. Levy's unpermitted no trespassing sign, his move towards
compliance did not last long and he quickly backtracked. He locked the
unpermitted gate at the lagoon access he's met once again in 2019. We want to
note that Mr. Levy's sign in this photo is incorrect because Calfish and
Wildlife did not require this area to be closed. In addition, Mr. Levy's sign is
ironic given what you saw about how he has not protected the endangered
Ridgeway's rail and is instead turned its wetland buffer into an unpermitted
parking lot. Next slide please. By 2024 Mr. Levy had completed work on more
unpermitted development. In this image you can see is unpermitted pickleball
court and pavement next to it on the left. While Commission staff is not
necessarily opposed to Mr. Levy erecting a pickleball court on his property
because the large impermeable paved area causes erosion and scour impacts,
Commission planning staff would have recommended that it be cited further
further inland, further away from the lagoon.
Had he complied with the Coastal Act in the first place
and applied for his CDP for this new development
on his property.
Next slide, please.
As you can see on this slide,
the Commission's headquarters enforcement unit
spent nearly a year sending numerous letters
in an attempt to resolve these violations
amicably with Mr. Levy.
The headquarters enforcement unit
is proud of amically resolving most of its cases.
However, Mr. Levy refused to engage
in the typical confidential negotiations
that are widely used, including in virtually all
of our cases that successfully settle.
Mr. Levy refused to talk with us
unless he could personally record all of our conversations.
And so commission staff was forced
to send many letters to him,
all of which are now included as exhibits,
but to no avail.
Last month, Mr. Levy's representative reached out
to commission staff and stated that Mr. Levy
no longer wanted to spend any time discussing this matter,
and he requested this next available enforcement hearing.
Thus, as requested by Mr. Levy,
we brought this matter to you today.
Next slide, please.
Now we're gonna show some overview photos
of the areas at issue.
To give you a sense of where things stand today.
This photo is taken looking over Mr. Levy's
locked vehicle gate and the beach access easement,
and shows that just beyond it is a nicely paved road.
Next slide, please.
And here's another image further down the same paved road
within the public access easement.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see that the road on the beach access
easement soon reaches a fork.
On the right, the paved road continues
to Mr. Levy's property.
It's worth noting, though, that the Beach HOA owns all
the land that you see here.
On the left, you can see that another road leads towards
North Beach in the mouth of Lagoon.
That unpaved road is currently used by city vehicles,
such as lifeguard trucks, but because of Mr. Levy's gate,
the public cannot similarly use this public access way.
Next slide, please.
This image shows the view.
Further down the unpaved road, this is all within the beach
access these meant and could easily accommodate things like off-road
wheelchairs, beach wheelchairs, disability wheelchair vans, strollers, beach wagons,
or bicycles. However, this area is completely inaccessible to mobility
devices due to Mr. Levy's lock vehicle gate. Next slide please. On this slide you
can see the end of the road where it reaches North Beach in the mouth of the
lagoon. This large, relatively flat area of Back Beach would be ideal for families
to enjoy the beach with wagons full of things like tents and beach chairs or for
persons with disabilities to enjoy the views without having to go into the deep
sand. Next slide please. This photo shows the beautiful views at North Beach from
the end of the road and Beach Access easement. The lagoon reaches the sea here
which makes for a unique coastal ecology and experience. Next slide please. This
photo shows the sandy shoreline at North Beach down coastal lagoon. This area is
being used by members of the public because of its proximity to the only
open beach accessway here, which is a large set of stairs. Next slide, please. On this
slide, you can see the only public beach accessway to North Beach. It includes 45 steep steps
and presents a major barrier to accessibility for many people. Next slide, please. Now for
some photos from the mouth of the lagoon. In this image, you can see Mr. Levy's house
circled on the right, behind the tule. On the top left, you can see water birds resting
on the power line next slide please here's another image of the lagoon in
the center of the photo you can see someone fishing along the Tule the
lagoon is a popular place for fishers and birders to visit and would be even
more accessible had mr. Levy not installed a permanently locked gate that
blocks the lagoon access easement next slide please these violations also raise
environmental justice issues because as a result of the violations persons who
cannot use the steep 45 step stairway on the left are unable to access North
beach in the mouth of the lagoon, while Mr. Levy and his paying guests get to enjoy the
nice road on the right.
These violations disproportionately impact persons with disabilities.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see a map of the nearest beach access ways that are accessible for
persons with disabilities.
The yellow star shows the area at issue at North Beach.
To the north, the nearest accessible beach access is at Buccaneer Beach, two miles away
an ocean side at the top blue star, to the south, the nearest is Carlsbad State Beach,
a mile away at the bottom blue star. Both of these other access ways are separated from
North Beach by many sea walls which erode the beach and make it difficult to access
North Beach from those other access ways and this difficulty is exacerbated for someone
attempting to use a beach wheelchair to do so. Next slide please. In this photo you can see Mr.
Levy's vehicle gate code box within the beach access easement. Now we're moving on to
to commission staffs recommended orders and penalties.
The Coastal Act authorizes the commission
to issue a cease and desist order
when development has occurred
without the required commission permit
or is inconsistent with an existing commission permit
or is in violation of an LCP, all of which is the case here,
as is explained in detail in the staff report.
Next slide, please.
In this slide, you can see that in addition
to the continuing impacts of the invasive plants
and erosion caused by his unpermitted development,
Mr. Levy continues to clear a vegetation
in his unpermitted parking lot area
within the wetland buffer as recently as this year.
The commission has the authority
to issue this restoration order here
because Mr. Levy's unpermitted development
is clearly unpermitted and is inconsistent
with the Coastal Act and the LCP
and is also continuing to cause resource damage
as is detailed in the staff report at pages 31 and 32.
As you've seen in prior slides,
these violations have caused negative impacts
to wetlands and water quality and biological productivity
protected by the Coastal Act.
Next slide, please.
In addition, there's a basis for issuing
administrative penalties here for the various violations
of the Coastal Act that have been discussed.
There are two separate penalty actions in this matter
that I will describe in detail in the next few slides.
Next slide, please.
In assessing administrative penalties,
the Commission uses the required five factors
that are detailed in Section 30820C of the Coastal Act,
which include the gravity of the violation,
susceptibility to restoration, sensitivity of resource,
cost of the state, and any economic profits,
among other factors.
This analysis is detailed in the staff report
at pages 36 through 41.
We do want to note that the commission may assess penalties
for each day that each violation persists
for up to five years.
Next slide, please.
In this photo, you can see a wide beach at North Beach.
One of the key goals of these orders
is to open the public's easements once and for all.
And so it's important to note that with regards
to the proposed public access penalties,
commission staff is recommending zero penalties
if Mr. Levy complies with the cease and desist order
and simply opens or removes his locked vehicle gate
blocking the beach access easement.
However, if Mr. Levy does not rectify
his vehicle gate violation as required by these orders,
staff still recommends a conservative approach here.
As detailed in the report, Mr. Levy would only be required
to pay a penalty for the short period of 129 days
of violations at a level 25% below the maximum
for a total of $1,071,562.
Next slide please.
This slide shows the mouth of Buena Vista Lagoon
looking towards Mr. Levy's house.
Commission staff also recommends a conservative approach
to the penalties for the other violations.
Although there are at least four discrete violations here,
each of which has its own associated accrual
of daily penalties under the Coastal Act,
including the unpermitted parking lot,
unpermitted vegetation clearance,
the unpermitted lock gate and fencing,
and the unpermitted sports court and pavement,
staff is grouping all of these violations into only one
and only recommending a penalty for one violation
for a brief period of 129 days
for a penalty of $1,428,750.
Next slide, please.
In summary, commission staff is recommending Mr. Levy
be required to open or remove his locked vehicle gate
in the beach access easement,
remove unpermitted development along the lagoon,
and restore the protected wetland buffer with native plants.
In addition, commission staff is recommending Mr. Levy
pay just over $1.4 million for his violations
along the lagoon, and pay an additional penalty
of just over $1 million if he fails to remedy the violation
related to his vehicle gate in the beach access easement
as required by these orders.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see a screenshot
from one of Mr. Levy's Yelp reviews for his wedding venue.
Over the past eight and a half years of commission efforts
to resolve this matter amicably,
Mr. Levy has made a number of different arguments,
most all of which do not go to the commission's
jurisdictional requirements to issue these orders,
but we have still worked hard to address
all Mr. Levy's arguments in the defense responses
section of the staff report at pages 41 through 69,
as well as the second addendum this morning.
We will directly address a few of his main arguments now
before we conclude, but our full response
is detailed in the staff report.
Next slide, please.
First, Mr. Levy has argued that although the Commission's
1983 CDP required public access and open space easements
over the beach HOA property
where Mr. Levy placed his vehicle gate,
he argues that the Commission must have intended
to include an exception for gates
because Mr. Levy believes that there was a gate there
at that time.
However, the findings do not mention any gates
and there's no indication that the Commission
was aware of any gate.
Moreover, there is affirmative evidence against the idea
that the commission intended to create an exception
for any gates here.
The commission included six express exceptions
for various other types of existing and future development
across the three easements required by the CDP,
one easement of which is not at issue here.
But there's no mention of any gates
in any of the required easements.
Mr. Levy is essentially arguing for the existence
of a seventh unwritten exception here,
but there's no evidence to support this.
Further, any gate exception here would be in direct conflict
with the purpose of the public access easement
to allow for the public to walk along the access way
to get to the beach.
Next slide, please.
Mr. Levy has also argued that he cannot open
the locked vehicle gate because the beach HOA
owns the underlying land.
However, the beach HOA's letter of authorization
to Levy actually requires that he open the gate
to persons legally entitled to use the area,
which has included the general public since 2005
when the offer for the public access easement was accepted.
Mr. Levy has provided zero evidence that the beach HOA
has ever stopped him from opening the gate.
In fact, the HOA has stayed to commission staff
that they support opening the gate on their property.
Finally, although Mr. Levy argues
that the city's 1997 CDP allows him to keep a gate
within the easements after it is accepted,
that was clearly not the commission's understanding.
In explaining this decision not to take up the appeal,
The commission made an explicit finding
that it was not addressing the long-term legality
of the gate, indicating that it may well need to come out
following acceptance of the offers of the easements.
Next slide, please.
With respect to the lagoon access easement,
Mr. Levy has argued that the offer to dedicate
the easement has not been accepted.
However, that offer states on its face
that it can be accepted via city council resolution
or via addition to the city trails master plan
and both have occurred.
The yellow star on the left
shows where the trail is located on the city map.
Moreover, even assuming this easement was not accepted,
which the facts demonstrate that it was,
the permanently locked gate and fencing there
is still on permitted development,
and these orders require its removal.
Next slide, please.
On that point, Mr. Levius argued that he has a right
to keep a locked gate because he argues
that the lagoon access easement is not accepted.
However, he has no coastal act authorization
to do so either way.
The commission stated in 1998
that it only found no substantial issue here
Because Mr. Levy was proposing
a dawn to dusk time lock gate,
Mr. Levy did not build a dawn to dusk time lock gate.
He built an unpermitted permanently padlock gate
along with unpermitted fencing on state land
and in the lagoon, which has no CDP
and must accordingly be removed.
Next slide please.
Regarding the development in the wetland buffer,
Mr. Levy has argued that because he did not use
construction equipment to build his parking lot,
no development occurred.
This argument simply disregards
the broad definition of development under the Coastal Act.
He placed wood chips over a majority of the wetlands
buffer area, which is placement of materials.
He removed major vegetation,
and he greatly increased the intensity of use of the area,
all of which constitute development
under the Coastal Act definition.
Further, all of the development activities
are in direct conflict with the CDP requirements
to provide a lagoon buffer to protect wetlands.
Next slide, please.
Mr. Levy has also argued that he has attempted
to resolve this matter,
but commission staff were not interested,
which is simply untrue and is not supported by the facts
in commission enforcement's eight and a half years
of efforts to reach an amicable resolution here,
which you can see on this slide.
We've been asking Mr. Levy to comply with the Coastal Act
in his CDP for years and he has refused,
and this is why we are forced to bring this order to you today
to compel Mr. Levy to finally address his violations.
Next slide, please.
In early September, Mr. Levy requested that this matter
be heard on quote, the next available agenda, unquote,
and stated that he would be prepared to appear
with documentation to support his defenses,
we worked hard to honor his request
and made it onto the agenda for this month.
However, a week after the staff report was posted,
he asked for a postponement,
referring to, quote, the 71 page report
along with hundreds of pages of exhibits, unquote,
and what he characterized as, quote,
extremely limited time, unquote, for a response.
However, we don't believe this case is any more complicated
than the typical enforcement matter that we bring to you,
And Mr. Levy has had the normal amount of time to respond,
consistent with the requirements in the regulations.
In addition, as you've seen,
staff has been corresponding with Mr. Levy
for almost a decade about these violations,
and fairly intensively throughout this year.
And the vast majority of the arguments
in the staff reports and exhibits
are ones that he'd seen before.
So we decided it was appropriate to proceed.
Next slide, please.
Late yesterday afternoon, we received a long letter
from Mr. Levy's representatives
with its own extensive attachments,
as well as a letter from the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Despite the length and having only last night
to review them, staff produced a second addendum,
both to disseminate these letters
and to provide responses to all the new arguments raised.
One such argument was that Mr. Levy submitted
a new Public Records Act request yesterday,
the day before this hearing,
and then argued that this hearing should be postponed
until we respond to this latest request.
However, that request is largely duplicative
of previous requests as well as the correspondence
in the first addendum which he had requested yesterday.
Commission staff already fulfilled his first request
and sent him more documents yesterday.
In addition, the first addendum includes virtually all
of the additional correspondence
in his most recent request and there's no rule requiring
the Commission to delay an enforcement action
in response to a PRA request.
Next slide please.
And finally, here's a photo of Mr. Levy's lock
vehicle gate as it looks today.
While we spent a lot of time walking you through the history
and all the resources that continue to be affected here,
this case is really about Mr. Levy blocking
three public easements and undertaking
unpermitted development directly within
a protected wetland buffer area.
The headquarters enforcement unit is recommending
adoption of the proposed orders and penalties
in order to finally right these wrongs
and provide important beach and lagoon access
for persons with disabilities as well as families
wagons, bicyclists, birders, fishers, and the general public. The proposed orders
and penalties would also finally provide the wetland buffer habitat that the
endangered Ridgway's rail and other birds need. Commission staff recommends
that the Commission vote yes on the four motions which can be found at pages 16
through 18 of this staff report and we are available if you have any questions.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Much appreciated. Before we move on to the
alleged violator and its representatives I'm going to suggest that we take a
a brief break. It's 1048 if you could all be back at 11 please. And just just a
reminder we're in the middle of a hearing so please no side conversations
between commissioners or with the public. Thank you. Okay thank you everyone. So
now we will turn to the alleged violator and or its representatives. You can
address the Commission. You have 38 minutes and anything that you don't use
will be reserved. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning Chair Herman and
commissioners. My name is Chandra Slavin appearing on behalf of John Levy. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear today and for the work staff is invested in
this effort. You'll have to forgive me. I will need to read from my talking points
as I'm somewhat sleep deprived this morning due to the flurry of documents
being exchanged.
Next slide.
Speaking with me today will be Paul Baer, legal counsel and John Levy, my client.
I will focus on four key areas.
One, our request for continuance.
Two, providing the necessary background for this item with an aid of a visual map.
three, context of the 1983 CDP 6-83-05 and four, a summary of our primary argument.
Paul will then detail the legal aspects of this project and John will close out the presentation.
Next slide.
Let me begin with our shared goals with you today.
Our first one is we want to support a fact-based and collaborative resolution grounded in the
record.
We see closure on this matter that was initially resolved 27 years ago.
And finally, we remain committed to working respectfully with both the Commission and
the City of Carlsbad to uphold our shared values for the coast.
Next slide.
First, we respectfully request a continuance for this item
to the next available commission meeting.
By way of background, on September 26th,
after business hours, we received a 70-page staff report,
appendix, and more than 100 exhibits.
Oppositional letters, some dated within the past week,
were only released to us yesterday.
Another addendum was published this morning,
which I have not had a chance to review.
This has provided less than two weeks to review
and respond to hundreds of pages of new materials
while defending against proposed penalties exceeding
2.4 million dollars.
This compressed schedule does not allow
for meaningful review, coordination with the City
of Carlsbad, or consultation with experts
on recently raised issues such as the acceptance theory
of the trails master plan, ADA assertions,
and habitat characterizations.
A postponement would ensure complete and accurate record,
allowing my client, Mr. Lively,
currently out of the country to appear personally.
Finally, I'd like to briefly address
our request for the hearing,
which staff has referenced multiple times
in their correspondence.
In my experience, obtaining a hearing date
typically requires requests over several months,
given the commission's extensive document.
We never imagined that our matter would be placed
on the commission's agenda in less than two weeks.
And with that, I'd like to move on to the next slide.
Thank you.
This map illustrates the factual foundation of the site.
Let's start first with the contested Mountain View Gate.
To be clear, the gate sits entirely
on the adjacent Beach HOA property,
not on my client's property.
He holds a non-exclusive Ingress Egress easement
that provides the only access to his residence.
The reference 1997 Ingress Egress easement, excuse me,
was recorded and used for private vehicle access only
and not a public trail.
The driveway occupies the full length of the easement.
Moving to the conditions contained in the levy CDP 97-59 listed on the left of the map,
I want to state the following.
The city approved the completed revegetation, which was condition 16, and the open space
deed restriction, condition 12.
A 25-foot by 30-foot trail, which is condition 17, remains and which has never been accepted
by the city.
The trail extends only 300 feet into the property, therefore connectivity is impossible, essentially
making a trail to nowhere.
Adjacent to the Levy property is a very active railroad corridor.
Over 90 trains pass daily along the lagoon's edge, highlighting serious safety risks associated
with uncoordinated public access.
In summary, the physical and legal record confirms that the alleged access way is not
open, not accepted and not located on Mr. Levy's property.
Next slide.
Moving on, understanding the 1983 approval is essential to contextualize the current
staff claims.
The 1983 CDP for the adjacent subdivision now owned by the Beach HOA established the
the original public access framework for this area.
The framework was entirely seaward facing,
not inland from Mountain View Drive.
Special condition two required an open space easement
over the bluff face of lot two, strictly
for the purposes of resource protection.
Special condition six required open space easements
over lagoon adjacent portions of lot three
for habitat and buffer protection, not public access.
Special Condition 8 required a lateral beach access easement
along the shoreline of Lot 2,
connecting the Ocean Street stairway northward
along the beach frontage.
To be clear, the recording of these easements
was the responsibility of the beach HOA, not my client.
In summary, the 1983 staff report and associated easements
confirmed the commission's original intent
for lateral shoreline oriented access from Ocean Street,
not for public ingress from Mountain View Drive.
Next slide.
To summarize, the lagoon access easement as referenced
in CDP 97-59 has not been accepted by the city.
The 2019 trails master plan is a non binding planning document, not a recorded acceptance of the plan. The city has confirmed this multiple times, and their correspondence dating back to August 1 September 11 and recently on October 3.
Under the Coastal Act and the city's municipal code,
no access way can be opened until a public agency
accepts responsibility for maintenance and liability.
Finally, the city's letters confirm full compliance
with CDP 97-59, no basis for gate removal
and improved vegetation condition.
Next slide.
Claims of continuing resource damage, for-profit weddings,
or unpermitted development are not supported by evidence.
The re-vegetation area was completed and approved in 1999.
The Pickleball Court, located outside of the lagoon buffer,
is constructed on a permeable surface
and has no measurable impact.
The Pacific Legal Foundation's letter underscores
that the enforcement process as applied here
raises serious constitutional concerns,
including a lack of due process, structural bias,
and conflicts of interest related to penalty revenue.
Next slide.
And with that, I will turn the presentation
over to Paul Baird, our legal counsel.
Thank you so much for your time.
Good morning, commissioners.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
I'm Paul Beard, and I serve as legal counsel to Ms. Levy in this matter. And I'd like to just
briefly address some of the legal deficiencies in the staff's report and recommendation. First,
I'd like to underscore again the importance to Mr. Levy of securing a short continuum so that
he can adequately present a defense. You know, staff dropped a 1200 plus page staff report with
exhibits and appendix just two Fridays ago with the expectation that Mr. Levy's team could
thoroughly review all the factual allegations and legal arguments and produce a defense in
less than one week for a hearing in less than two. Then just yesterday we received a 197-page
addendum attaching a number of letters from opponents of Mr. Levy and we haven't had time
to digest or respond to those, but based on the date stamps it appears Mr. Model Log has had some
of those letters since over one week ago, yet we only had access to them yesterday. And then I
hear this morning that there's another 157 page addendum that was dropped. We weren't given any
notice that that was coming or that it would be dropped and we haven't had an opportunity to review
that. So our comments this morning and our submission certainly yesterday is very limited.
We did the best that we could to respond to the many claims and arguments made by staff in its
lengthy staff report. And just as an aside, while this sort of 11th hour approach to hearings might
seem reasonable in the context of routine permitting matters, it's grossly unreasonable
and fair in the context of a quasi-criminal prosecution like this one. I mean, the stakes
here are extraordinarily high implicating debilitating penalties seemingly aimed to
ruin and shame the accused. Common sense and due process require more in this sort of
unique context. So we would again ask for a short continuance so that we could put on a full defense.
Second, with the limited time that we've had, we've been able to cobble together a response,
at least to some of staffs conclusions regarding the public access, the alleged public access
violations based on the gate off of Mountain View and the gate at Mr. Levy's property adjacent to
the lagoon. And we've concluded that neither alleged violation has occurred here under the law.
So starting with the Mountain View gate, there's been a permanent barrier at Mountain View on the
beach HOA's land since at least 1983 when the subdivision was approved. Mr. Levy obtained the
HOA's limited consent to make that barrier into a mechanical gate but the location and the dimensions
of the barrier have not changed. The gate is located on Mr. Levy's limited access easement
that provides ingress and egress from his home, but again it's on the beach HOA's land. It is not a
temporary or easily removable gate and the gate was designed and built for this specific location
at the entrance of Mountain View. Mr. Levy and the beach HOA never had an agreement written or oral
permitting him or anyone else to remove the gate or to modify its use by for example keeping it
permanently open. That would have been a modification that runs counter to the beach
HOA's historic placement of a barrier there, even before Mr. Levy owned the property.
And further, the public access easement that runs across the parcel where Mr. Levy's residential
access is located, it doesn't anywhere dictate that access must be provided from off-mountain
view and it nowhere refers to the easement as Mr. Modelmock does as a quote beach access easement.
Staff has presented no evidence whatsoever contradicting any of these facts and under
Civil Code section 660 the gate is clearly a fixture on the HOA's land and under Civil Code
section 1013 such fixtures quote belong to the owner of the land end quote in this case the beach
HOA. Ownership and control over this gate live with the HOA, not Mr. Leavy. And this staff's
insistence that Mr. Leavy has the legal authority to remove the gate or modify the gates used to
allow the public onto the HOA's land or onto the city's public access easement finds no support in
the law. Only the HOA has such authority. And if Mr. Modelnlog's claim that the HOA supports opening
the gate is true. The claim that we've heard for the first time this morning, the HOA has the
exclusive authority to do so and it could do so today but it hasn't. As for the lagoon area gates,
as Ms. Slavin has explained, the gate on Mr. Levy's land there near the lagoon doesn't block or
otherwise impair public access because there is no public access there. The city itself,
the only party who could accept that offer, as repeatedly stated, it has not accepted
the offer to dedicate. Now, staff points to a resolution whereby the city adopted a trails
master plan. But the resolution makes absolutely no reference to the acceptance of the offer
to dedicate this location. Now, maybe staff is relying on a flawed theory of implied acceptance,
But the case law on acceptances of offers to dedicate clearly establishes that acceptance
must be expressed.
The Court of Appeal in its recent decision in Shenzhen, S-H-E-N-S-O-N, versus County
of Contra Costa, at 89 Cal. 5, 1144 stated the rule as follows, quote, in the absence
of an express acceptance, there must be evidence of implied acceptance of dedication through,
For example, the public entities assumption of maintenance or repair of the property.
Of course, the city hasn't assumed maintenance or repair of the easement, that is the subject
of the offer to dedicate, and in fact it's confirmed time and again that it has not accepted
it and doesn't want to accept it.
Without acceptance, there is no public access.
So the Laguna area gates does not in any way block or impair any existing public access.
So my comments thus far have dealt with the alleged public access violations.
The other violations that staff has raised also find no support in the evidence.
Mr. Levy has tried to resolve the unpermitted development issues with the city through an
after the fact permit, but there appears to be a jurisdictional tussle about which entity
the city or the commission will entertain such an application. And as for the vegetation removal
or destruction, mislaving in our written comments discussed this at great length,
so I won't belabor the point here, but I want to add and emphasize that if we had had a reasonable
time to respond, including to Dr. Clatterbuck's letter, we'd have had much more to say to defend
against this particular violation. So in light of the foregoing, we believe there's no basis
is whatsoever for a penalty order.
Our written submission in today's testimony
attempt to establish again with the little time we've had
why neither the evidence nor the law support an order.
And we're here to answer any questions
in case the commission has any further questions
about the matter.
With that, I'll turn it to Mr. Levy.
Mr. Levy, can I unmute yourself?
Yes. There you go.
Okay, can you see me?
Yes, we see you and hear you.
Okay, great, thank you so much.
Madam Chair and commissioners,
Kia ora from a very early morning here in New Zealand.
My name is John Levy and I'm the owner of the property
referred to in this enforcement matter as Levy Land.
I must begin by apologizing
for not being able to speak to you in person today.
I'd requested a one month continuance
as Ms. Slavin and Mr. Beard have pointed out
as I'll be back in California in a couple of weeks,
but that courtesy was unfortunately denied
to my team by staff.
There's a lot to unpack here, as this is a 29-year-old matter dating back to 1996.
Before I begin, I want to emphasize that I recognize and respect the Coastal Commission's
commitment to environmental justice, and especially coastal access.
As a lifelong surfer and the son of a San Referee Surf Club founder, I share that passion,
having spent my life surfing on our coast.
I deeply understand the delicate balance between the importance of local coastal access and
private land ownership as these issues are intrinsically linked.
The last time I addressed this commission was 27 years ago in 1998 in Yukia, California.
I had brown hair then, and I know you folks have nothing to do with this transition to
white, but seriously, I've spent two years negotiating, or I had spent two years negotiating
with nine different resource agencies, with the San Diego Coastal Staff being the lead
agency in the negotiations.
After two years, 96 through 98, local coastal staff approved the mitigated negative declaration,
And the City of Carlsbad issued CDP 9759.
Incredibly, staff appealed it,
destroying all of their records
and feigning they had never heard of the project.
When Commissioner Christine Kehoe
learned of their malfeasance,
she asked that her signature be taken off the peel,
which staff refused.
The full commission heard and denied the appeal
in September of 98,
and Chairman Rusty Arios turned to District Director,
Chuck Dom, directing him to apologize for his staff behavior,
Which they did.
As I watched staff's presentation today,
I would like to remind everyone
there are two sides to each story.
Just as in the 1998 hearing, there are many falsehoods
that staff is pointing out here today
with photos and misrepresentations
of what has actually happened here.
First, I would like to point out, to my knowledge,
I have not heard that the Beach HOA has supported
opening the gate on Mountain View Drive.
As I've always said, it is the Beach HOA property
and they solely have the legal ability to open the gate.
I think a good question to ask is, why haven't they?
I'm not preventing them from doing so, it's their gate.
Secondly, I think it's important to point out
about the weddings Mr. Model Mogg has referenced.
I did not rent my house out for weddings, I allowed them.
In our exhibits, you will see that my rental agreement
did not mention weddings.
It was strictly a weekly beach rental.
However, I was providing the facto beach access
by allowing people an affordable place
with access to the beach for their weddings.
I live in New Zealand.
I had no idea that unpermitted activities
such as parking in the open station was taking place.
And these are the first time
I've ever seen these photographs.
To be honest, these photos that I've just seen
were taken in 2014 when I was in New Zealand
undergoing care for stage four cancer.
As you can imagine, my property in California
was not at the forefront of my thoughts.
Moving on to response to the notice of violation,
I was astounded to see this NOV last October
because I am not blocking public access
among many other false allegations
in this notice of hearing.
These facts as presented by the city of Carlsbad attorney
and the director of community development letters
dated 8-1-25 to Mr. Montemalog
and again to the chair commissioners last Friday on 10-3-25
specifically addressing the city of Carlsbad's position
to this matter.
Despite Mr. Montemalog's many false accusations today
about me not wanting to work with staff.
The record clearly shows that I responded
in a timely professional and respectful manner
to each of his letters.
However, it was Mr. Montemag who refused to communicate,
repeatedly demanding a non-recorded settlement conference.
I offered multiple times to speak with him
providing the conversation was recorded.
He continually refused,
constantly reminding me of the commission's administration
fines of $11,250 a day per violation,
given that Mr. Model Mog is essentially
a prosecuting attorney and I am a defendant like position,
it is imperative to have a memorized, audible record.
He didn't think so.
On May 19th, 2025, I wrote to Lisa Haig
expressing my frustrations with Mr. Model Mog
and requesting that I be assigned
a different prosecuting staff person.
I never received the courtesy of a response.
The city of Carlsbad's findings on CDP 97 and 59
and false accusations of blocking public access
on Mountain View and the non-accepted IOD trail.
In May, I requested a code of compliance letter
for Mr. Eric Lordy, the planning developer,
director, excuse me, for the Carlsbad city
to certify that all 19 conditions of the CDP
had been met in 1998.
The staff had jurisdictional authority
since they issued the CDP oversaw the appeal
and oversaw the compliance of the conditions.
On May 23rd, Mr. Modelmogg sent a rather threatening letter
to the city not to issue the Code of Compliance letters
stating, importantly, please note,
that is also our understanding
from our conversation yesterday
that Mr. Levy is requesting the city provide him
with documentation asserting that Mr. Levy
is somehow in compliance with CDP 9759.
This is unfortunate since this would be clearly contrary
to the facts and the CDP as well to contrary
to the city's prior written positions.
As a 50 year resident of Carlsbad,
I am fully within my rights request a code
of compliance letter from the jurisdictional authority.
And in my view, this behavior is troubling.
The city of Carlsbad has subsequently firm my compliance
in respect to the allegations.
August 1st, 2025, city attorney, Marisa Kawaki,
wrote a 51 page document outlining the city's position
regarding public access at the Mountain View gate,
confirming that I was not blocking public access.
The document cited a 1998
post appeal coastal commission staff report.
There has always been, and I quote,
there's always been a permanent lock gate
at Mountain View on the beach HOA's land
since I obtained the HOA's limited consent
to make it electric.
but the location and dimensions did not change.
The gate is located on my access easement to my home.
But again, it is on the beach HOA's land.
It's not temporarily, temporary, or easily removable gate.
And the gate was designed and built
for this particular location
where it had found at the instance of Mountain View Drive.
Me and the beach HOA never had an agreement,
written or oral permitting me or anyone else
to remove the gate or modify its use.
For example, keeping it permanently open.
I would like to confirm Mr. Beard's comments to this effect.
Also on August 1st,
Community Development Director Jeff Murphy
responded to Mr. ModelBogg with a Code of Compliance letter
and all in a 91 page document he found me compliant
with all 19 conditions of CDP 97
with the exception of a minor deed restriction
not being recorded that has since been cured.
Most importantly, he addressed the fact
that the city has not accepted the public access
or offer of dedication IOD
to the public trail, despite Mr. Modelmog's false narrative
that had has been accepted.
The bottom line is that I'm in full compliance
of my CDP 27 years ago, and I'm not blocking public access.
Finally, consequences of staff misconduct is conduct.
In early August, I learned of another disturbing development.
Mr. Modelmog had leaked the notice of violation
of Mitch Silverstein, California Policy Senior Coordinator
for the Surf Rider Foundation,
who disseminated to several local environmental NGOs
and most significantly to Phil Dial,
a reporter for the San Diego Union Tribune.
This led to the first article
parodying the false narratives of the NOV
followed by an article in the Coast News.
Meanwhile, many speakers continued to parrot
the NOV to the city council.
I invited them to all come down
to get a first explanation of what was actually happening.
They all refused except for Mr. Silverstein.
I anticipate they will continue to speak today here
supporting Mr. Montemag's false narratives.
Additionally, Mr. Montemague shared the Nanove with three neighboring properties, the Beach
Summer House in the San Molos HOAs, with a rather disparaging letter about me.
What I find interesting is that none of these people, including Mr. Montemague to my understanding,
have ever set foot on the property.
On Monday morning, I woke to multiple emails and text messages from my friends here in
New Zealand with a picture of yet another article on the cover of the San Diego Union
Sunday paper, headlining $2.4 million fines, hanging over Carlsbad homeowner.
Let me be clear about why this is so wrong.
In this age of algorithm-driven media echo chambers, there are real consequences to false
acquisitions in the press.
People get murdered, as we have seen in the recent Charlie Kirk and House of Representatives
Speaker Melissa Hortman, her husband's, marks murders.
A Carlsbad police report from 2015 through 2025 shows 105 police responses to my home
out of 120 months.
That's nearly one a month for 10 years.
In fact, there was a murder last year in Lot 3.
Now everyone knows where the rich dude that blocked public access lifts.
I'm extremely worried for the safety of my family and me from this deliberate attempt
to name and shame me in the court of public opinion.
For a moment, I would ask each and every one of you, if you have been named and shamed
on the front page of one of the major papers in the country as I have been, what would
be your reaction?
That is precisely why we requested a hearing that should be adjudicated by the Commission
itself, not the press, albeit we have had two weeks to respond to as Mr. Beard has pointed
out this very lengthy staff report.
Conclusion and request, I respectfully ask the Commission to focus on our comprehensive
body of evidence, factual evidence. Please read the multitude of documents from the City of
Carlsbad-Turney and Development Director, including the 167-page letter from last Friday's
address to the Chair and Commissioners. Please read the comprehensive submission from the
Pacific Legal Foundation as to the egregious proposed fines. Excuse me. I'm not blocking
public access. I was in full compliance from my CDP 26 years ago, 27 years ago. I did have a
a pickleball court on lot B,
which is legally separate lot,
not in the open space setback area
as the staff report falsely states.
I was in New Zealand when it was built
and the contractor was not aware of CDP was required,
nor I, I've submitted an affidavit
from the contractor testing to that.
I'm now in the process of applying for one,
even the city is, excuse me,
even though the city has always been considered
to have LCP jurisdictional authority on my property.
In light, they have issued the CDP, now 27 years later,
staff, because of mis-mapping issue,
is now claiming jurisdiction.
I meet all aspects of section 30613,
and I ask that the commissions grant me so that so,
the City of Carlsbad can rightfully regain jurisdiction.
I respectfully ask that this matter be brought to close
or continues just as it was 27 years ago.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
And I didn't catch the clock at the end there.
Okay, thank you very much.
You'll have nine minutes that we will hold in reserve.
Thank you.
And now we will move to public comment.
Are there any public comments on this issue, please?
Yes, we have one person, in person, Steve Ray.
Go ahead and go to the podium.
And then we have about seven people on Zoom.
Well, good morning, or good afternoon, I guess it is now.
With the chair and the commissioners, the staff and members of the public.
I'm going to take issue with both sides here on different matters.
First of all, the plea of ignorance, a plea of lack of information, a plea of lack of
time by the defendant's side, I'm sorry I have trouble buying that.
has been going on for years, even decades, and to plead ignorance when I just listened
to the defendant, it seems like a very, very intelligent person, very knowledgeable about
this whole process, has a great command of the facts.
I can see how he could be very persuasive and everything.
But to try to ask for a continuance or more time or whatever, because, well, we don't
have information we don't know and that rings false. I don't know what part of
you know of years and decades that they don't understand when there's been a lot
of delay, obfuscation, and non-compliance during all that period of time. And I'm
going to take exception with the staff who did I thought a wonderful
presentation and I'm always impressed by how much work they get done. I'm going to
take exception with the amount of the fine that they're proposing. I think it's
wholly inadequate all of the years this has been going on all of the amount of
efforts has been expended over the years. You know maybe the defendant might want
I come back from New Zealand more often and get more involved in all of this and
I know the staff is trying to take a very, and not attuned toward correction
compliance, but sometimes punitive measures send a better message and I
think in this case a more punitive measure a higher fine is in order. Thank
you very much. Thank you C. Ray. So next we have Zoom which is Kyle Sweetland
followed by Natalie Shapiro, followed by Kendra Mueller, followed by Diane Nygaard.
I will be moved these all to panelists.
Kyle, if you can unmute yourself.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Go ahead.
Awesome.
Good morning, commissioners.
I speak on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation and wish to comment on due process concerns
related to agenda items 7.3 and 7.4.
The Commission staff is proposing enforcing administrative penalties that total more than $2.5 million against Mr. Levy,
and the current statutory framework authorizes cumulative penalties that can exceed $20 million.
When government action threatens property owners at this scale,
the Constitution requires due process procedures that meaningfully protect them.
However, the current administrative penalty regime applies informal civil enforcement procedures
that lack basic protections required when quasi-criminal punitive penalties like these
are at hand.
The rules as applied here deny Mr. LaVie virtually all the critical due process safeguards normally
available to defendants, including the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, require
testimony under oath, exclude unreliable information, compel production through subpoenas, and adequate
time to mouth the dissent.
His emissions substantially increase the risk of erroneous deprivation of Mr. Levy by the
Commission.
The Commission's institutional role also creates additional concerns.
The flow of penalties into the violation remediation account, together with the Commission's responsibility
to prioritize public access, produces a questionable appearance of bias when the Commission investigates,
prosecutes, and can benefit financially from enforcement outcomes.
That structural conflict heightens the need for neutral adjudication and enhanced due
process protections for the accused.
For these reasons, I respectfully recommend three actions.
First, allow Mr. Levy to have a standard judicial review under Section 30820.
Second, adopt formal regulations that require administrative penalty proceedings to have
critical due process protections.
And finally, third, refrain from imposing or escalating any additional penalties or
irreversible remedies, while those regulations are developed and implemented.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kyle.
Next is Natalie Shapiro.
Hi.
Good morning.
Can everybody hear me okay?
Yes.
Great.
Thank you.
Hey, my name is Natalie Shapiro, Executive Director of the Buena Vista Audubon Society,
and thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today on agenda items 7.1 through
7.4. I did submit detailed written comments earlier. Our organization is the Coastal North
San Diego County Chapter of the National Audubon Society and operates a nature center and preserve
in South Oceanside at the edge of the Buena Vista Lagoon. We have been directly and negatively
impacted by the Levy Land House and associated structures which have reduced coastal access
for our members and harmed critical coastal wetlands for endangered species of birds.
Regarding coastal access, one of our bird walks leads from our nature center to the lagoon.
Currently participants can't walk down the gentle slope of the driveway that leads to the lagoon
due to Mr. Levy's locked gate. Instead of walking down the gentle slope of the driveway,
our group must walk down the steep staircase, which is difficult for our birders who experience
mobility issues. Then they must walk some distance along soft sand to reach the lagoon where we then
observe birds and the ecology of the lagoon. Thus, the gate is a significant obstacle to access for
our birding community. Regarding impacts on wetlands, the federally listed is endangered
Ridgway's rail nests and breeds throughout the lagoon, including areas less than one quarter
mile from Mr. Levy's house. With much of the lagoon filled in for development, what remains
is vital for wildlife habitat. Mr. Levy destroyed wetlands by building a parking lot and clearing
vegetation in wetlands by his house and thus has detrimentally impacted the rich raised rail.
In summary, we support Coastal Commission staff recommendations and actions. The gate needs to be
open to the public, the parking lot removed, and the damaged wetlands need to be restored
and protected. Thank you, and this concludes my statement today. Thank you.
Thank you, Nixxis Kendra Mueller. Kendra, if you can unmute yourself.
There we go. Good afternoon to everybody. Good afternoon to the commission, and congratulations.
My name is Kendra Mueller, and I am an attorney with Disability Rights California,
the largest disability organization in the nation. Disability Rights California holds
the unique position under federal and state law as the agency responsible to provide investigation,
education, litigation, regulatory and advocacy projects to address disability discrimination.
Disability rights frequently interacts with many disabled community members who have experienced a lack of equal access to California's nature and green spaces.
First, I want to recognize that DRC recognizes and deeply values the dedicated work in safeguarding
California's coast and ocean and public access.
Indeed, disabled individuals have strongly advocated for environmental justice matters
because of the fact that pollution and environmental violations disproportionately affect those
with disabilities and can also cause disabilities. So we strongly support access to clean air,
water, and soil for healthy, safe, and livable communities. DRC's expertise lies in disability
rights law. So in addition to the violations that are asserted in this hearing, DRC affirms
that a lack of access to public accommodations is a violation of state and federal disability law.
individuals with disabilities deserve equitable access to California's natural
beauty and the outdoor recreational opportunities it holds. Many many
individuals are eager to participate in activities such as sightseeing, birding,
picnicking, hiking, fishing, however accessibility barriers often prevent
this. We're happy to report that this case actually presents a really easy
as there's not necessarily any need for additional construction or access modifications.
The only requirement to provide public access is to simply open the gate.
That is a very easy remedy.
And finally, I would like to tell you my personal lifelong experience.
I've used a wheelchair for over 15 years, being paralyzed in my younger years,
years and for myself and my family it means a great deal to utilize the beautiful nature
of California and whenever we find a ramp point like this I can't explain the amount
of joy that it gives. Thank you. Thank you Kendra. Next is Diane Nigar. Diane if you're
going to meet yourself? Yes. Good morning. We're getting an echo. Do you have your other
another item or anything that's causing the echo? No, I don't have anything else. Is there
a winner? Okay, let us come back to you. You work on that, we'll come back to you. Okay,
Let's go to Pamela Heatherington.
Good morning commissioners and a warm welcome to our new member.
And I want to thank Director Kate Hucklebridge for coming to San Diego for our 9th Annual
Environmental Leadership Summit.
She was a real joy to listen to.
I am Pam Heatherington speaking on behalf of the Environmental Center of San Diego.
Thank you for agendizing this important item today.
The public trust doctrine guarantees
that our coast and waterways remain accessible to everyone.
It's one of the cornerstones of this commission's
jurisdiction, and I hope our new commissioners are already
familiar with its importance.
In San Diego, we've seen too many examples
of blocked public access, from the Princess Street Coastal
Access Trail, which has been closed for more than 35 years,
to more recent issues at Camp Land and Paradise Point
in San Diego's Mission Bay.
These cases remind us that protecting access
is not just a legal responsibility.
It's an ethical one.
Far too often, individuals or businesses
try to limit access to our shared coast
for personal or financial gain.
We strongly support staff cease and desist order,
restoration order, and administrative penalties
proposed today.
Enforcement is critical.
The public only becomes aware of their rights to the coast
when this commission holds the violators accountable.
We urge you to uphold the staff's recommendation
and take decisive action at the Levy land site
to restore public access and reaffirm the commission's
commitment to the public trust doctrine.
Thank you for your time and for continuing
to protect California's coast for all of us.
Thank you.
Next is Andrew Mayer.
Good morning.
Thank you.
Just still morning.
My name is Andrew Mayer.
I'm the director of conservation at the San Diego Bird Alliance,
another bird-focused group.
I'm glad that our partner at the Buena Vista Audubon Society
is also here talking about the real and important and critical
work that we could have been doing for decades
at this particular spot to improve the habitat
endangered species, like light-footed ridgeways rails. The Coastal Act protects access to the
coast for everyone, not just the wealthy few, and Chapter 3 of the Act forces the Commission
to pursue habitat restoration wherever possible. This opportunity for habitat restoration,
agreed to by the applicant, has been unrealized for decades. The development was very controversial
at the time, decades ago, when it was proposed, which is why the Coastal Commission included
these kinds of permit conditions to require coastal access and to restore sensitive habitat
along the lagoon, the publicly owned and publically um public benefit of the lagoon. This seems like
it is a willful intentional violation by the owner, locking the gate, preventing coastal access,
and not restoring the habitat as required. Buena Vista Lagoon is a treasured resource. It's great
efforts. Great efforts have gone into creating additional nesting sites for Ridgway's rails,
the federally and state endangered species in this basin of the lagoon. And years of effort on
the lagoon restoration plan has been spent by all kinds of community groups looking to improve and
restore habitat in this particular spot on this particular coastline. The public should not have
to restore land that this owner was supposed to have done as part of the permit for building this
house. And we encourage the Coastal Commission to require bird safe windows applied to this house
as part of the mitigation for this abuse. This is a bird haven and the large glass windows on the
house, as seen in the Yelp reviews, increase the risk of bird strikes and dead birds from this
private house on this beautiful public wetland. San Diego Bird Alliance supports the staff
recommendation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we're going to try Diane again and if you can
unmute yourself and turn off one of your audios.
Diana, can you speak up so we can hear you?
Yes. I'm afraid I don't know how to do that. If the only audio I heard...
As Diane, you're still echoing. You are on our end logged in on two places as an attendee and as a panelist.
if you are listening back on audio could you turn your speaker down because I think the audio
that you're listening to is providing feedback. It's in a loop. Is that better? Yes. Now go ahead.
Now it came back. When it's down, can you hear me now? Yes, now we can hear you. You can? Go ahead.
I'm sorry when I tried to tell you you can't hear me.
Ma'am please mute one device and then go ahead.
I only have one device.
Go ahead we can hear you.
Can you hear me now?
Yes please go ahead.
Diane please speak.
Sorry I don't think this is going to work.
Hi Diane, this is Ray with AGP video. Can you do us a big favor and just log out on all devices?
We'll go ahead and move on to the next speaker and then we can move you back to a panelist.
We see your video, we just need you to try to talk clearly.
Okay, she logged out. I think it's just best. Oh, we still, okay, we're gonna try to unmute her.
it looks like she may be on the phone so we're gonna try to unmute her from there.
Diane if you could speak. Diane Nygaard maybe she locked in the Zoom twice or oh hold on.
Can you hear me? Yes please speak go for it. Oh my goodness I didn't change anything. I'm so sorry
for this um I'm Diane Nygaard representing Preserve Calavera and we're in North County
conservation group. You don't really easily see the levee house from the public streets or access
areas, but you sure do when you're going by on the train. And I would say it doesn't just stick
out like a sore thumb. It's like the whole right arm. You've got some sense of that when you saw
some of the images. There really isn't anything else that sticks out into the lagoon like this.
and I really wonder if this house would even have been permitted by today's coastal commission.
But seeing that really gives you an idea about why the coastal commission was so concerned about
this when they issued the initial permanent and why they put so the conditions on that they did
to protect public access and habitat restoration. It was several years ago that I looked through
that locked gate on Mountain View to see what the conditions look like and I was pretty
shocked to see piles of landscaping degree right there. Lawn clippings and palm fronds
and cuttings from vegetation. A fresh pile, but there were also numerous old piles so
it clearly had been going on for some time. I filed a code enforcement complaint with
the city of Carlsbad and it was cleaned up.
And I believe that practice has stopped.
But to me, I think that's pretty telling
of the respect for the priceless coastal resources
that this owner has demonstrated.
That was just what one person could see
looking through the fence at one time.
And we now know that there are numerous violations
and things that have been built
that were done without permits
and without really protecting the priceless resources
of our lagoon.
So we fully support all four enforcement actions
with the Coastal Commission staff.
In fact, we think they've gone pretty easy on it,
giving the flagrant nature of these violations.
And we really urge you to vote yes for them.
Thank you.
Thank you, Diane.
We have one person, Penelia on Zoom,
but we don't see them.
So that concludes all the speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
Thank you for your help.
Hey, and thank you to the public.
We will now return to the alleged violator.
They have reserved nine minutes for rebuttal.
Thank you, Ms. Leven.
Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity
to add some additional comments.
I first want to address the comments made
by the representative related to ADA.
I want to be very clear, obviously, we respect the ADA
and those who are handicapped and so forth,
but it's a little more complicated
than just simply opening a gate.
There's issues of liability,
and then also long-term maintenance
to ensure that the trails meet ADA standards.
Again, it's not as simple as one would think.
I recently did a walk with the city's director
and Parks and Recs on another trail,
again for Coastal Commission,
and they went into great detail on the costs
and the cut, fill, slope,
all the technicalities to make a trail safe.
And as I've noted before,
the city has not accepted the trail on my client's property.
We surmise that it's due to the fact
that it does not connect to anything,
and they do not wanna take on the liability
and long-term maintenance to ensure that it's ADA specific.
Then moving on to the beach HOA parcel,
Again, it's not as simple as just opening up the gate.
It would be the beach HOA's responsibility to ensure that that area is ADA compliant
and follows all of those requirements.
Which I think then begs the question here that we're missing a few key characters here.
First of all, we haven't heard the City of Carlsbad say that they want this easement,
that the gate should be opened.
They've been firmly against that and have supported our efforts and those are the letters
in the record.
We have yet to hear directly from the Beach HOA that they have an intention to open the
gate.
This was the first that we heard that today in staff's presentation.
And again, if it was so easy, why have they not opened it?
And I can say as of today, it has not opened.
So, thank you.
And I'm going to leave the rest of my time to my fellow applicants.
So, thank you.
Thank you for listening.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Levy, would you like to make any comments?
Well, while Mr. – this is Paul Beard, again, while Mr. Levy – while Mr. Levy is preparing
his remarks, I just wanted to say one thing.
If we have some time or if the Coastal Commission is so inclined, we would like to respond to
any rebuttal that staff may have since we are the defense and given the stakes of all of this.
I know it's not the commission's practice to do that, but I anticipate that there will be a
response by the staff and it would be good if we could get the opportunity to respond to anything
we think should be responded to. Thank you. I'll pass it over to Mr. Levy.
Yes, thank you so much. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can.
Okay thank you so much. So after hearing the environmental speakers speak, I think it's
important to respond to these false allegations about the environmental issues and the HOA access
or ADA access presented by the speakers. Again I would like to point out that the majority of
these speakers have never set foot on this property. How can they possibly opine without
actually firsthand knowledge of the site.
And then in reference to these issues
or these alleged issues of environmental damage,
I think it's important to look at the open space today
not 15 years ago.
In our, as I said, I was in New Zealand,
I did not know what was going on at the time.
And there's a couple of pictures there
that I was not aware of, but however, in our response,
our current pictures clearly show that the open space
looks exactly like all the surrounding open spaces
in area lot three today.
They're exactly the same.
Look at the current pictures, not pictures from 15 years ago.
In terms of the ADA access addressed by one of the speakers
through the mountain view gate,
The city, the Carlsbad City Attorney has recently
opined that because of the steepness of the driveway,
it is not ADA compliant, nor could be.
I would like to return to the fact that the beach HOA
is solely responsible for opening the Mountain View Gate
as Chandra has pointed out.
They are the legal owners of the gate.
And this is the first time we've heard today
that they are supporting opening the gate.
If they wanna open the gate, it's their gate.
They can open it.
I have nothing to do with that.
But for to find me or alleged fines with this whole thing,
it's ridiculous.
I cannot grant public access
over somebody else's property.
It's impossible.
I'd like to thank the commission for the hearing today.
And again, how much I support open space access.
Thank you.
Mr. Beards, this is your opportunity for final comments.
You have three and a half minutes remaining.
If you'd like to make any follow-ups.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
I've not heard any legal arguments,
so I am not responding to anything at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now I'll turn it back to staff.
Would you like to respond?
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
And my apologies in advance
If our response isn't perfectly streamlined
or includes some redundancy,
it's a little bit difficult to coordinate
a seamless response with so many claims
being lodged so quickly.
I want to address a couple of things though.
First of all, the procedural claims.
Staff followed the normal procedure here
as outlined in the Commission's regulations.
Our staff report, as we've indicated,
is composed largely of facts and arguments
that we've been making for years.
There was very little, if anything, that was new in there
other than the way it was put together and presented.
They had almost two weeks to prepare a response
that they provided today.
And I have to note the irony of them objecting
to our issuing that report two weeks before this hearing
when both Mr. Beard and Ms. Slavin each independently
submitted hundreds of pages of responses
just late yesterday afternoon.
In terms of the claim of conflicting roles,
the enforcement team does observe a strict division of roles.
As you know, none of you have had any contact
with this team about this matter.
You're being advised by Mr. Contreras
from the Attorney General's office,
who's sitting with you,
and who's been walled off from this matter.
So there is a strict division.
And as we explained in the second addendum,
the 2014 Hagopian decision addressed this issue
and squarely said that the process is appropriate.
As for the claim that this proceeding
constitutes a quasi criminal proceeding
that requires additional procedural safeguards,
as we also explained in the second addendum,
claim too was lodged in the Lent case and the Lent case dispensed with that
claim. A couple of things where there may be some redundancy here but I just want
to address a couple of the points about the Mountain View gate. To be clear the
city does not dispute that it accepted the offer for that easement. That easement
is in place and there's no dispute about that. As for the direction of use of it
the easement directly abuts the public road so it that's just not how it works
you don't have to explain in an easement which direction you're going to be walking through it.
If you have a public easement that directly abuts a public road, then the public has a right to go from that road into that easement.
In terms of why the Beach OA hasn't opened it, the Beach OA explained to us they don't have the code to it.
Mr. Levy built the gate, pursued it to a permit, and he has the code, and he in fact has an agreement with the city to share the code with the city,
and he has not shared the code with the Beach HOA,
so there's a very simple reason
why the Beach HOA hasn't opened it.
It's also, as I said, Mr. Levy's gate, which he built,
in terms of the claim that they were not aware until today
that the Beach HOA is willing to open it,
that's simply not true.
We've explained the Beach HOA's position in letters
in June and July to Mr. Levy,
and as we indicated earlier today,
the Beach HOA specifically had to permit Mr. Levy
to build that gate because it's on their property,
And in permitting him to build it,
they conditioned their permission
on him making it available to the public.
Finally, he opens it.
He has to be able to open it in order to drive down it.
So this idea that he can open it for himself
but can't leave it open is just nonsensical.
Obviously, he has the legal and the practical ability
to operate that gate, meaning to open it.
And so once it's open, there's no reason
why he can't leave it open.
There's no explanation of what legal impediment
there would be to that.
I think I'm gonna leave it at that for now
and I'm gonna pass it to Rob
and will be available for any questions, obviously.
Thanks, Alex.
I would just add to Alex's discussion
of the HOAs role here,
that we would note that Mr. Levy also shared his gate code
with many, many paying guests over the years.
We have no evidence that Mr. Levy ever asked the HOA
if he could share his gate code with,
I mean the thousands of paying guests over the years
and wedding guests, or the city.
When I reached out to the HOA, they told me,
we don't have the gate code.
What are you talking about?
Like, can we go down there?
I mean, that was what they asked me.
They're very insubordinate of opening it.
It would be helpful to them as well.
I also want to note that with regards to ADA issues,
there's been a lot of comments about whether or not
area of the beach access easement and the paved road is accessible. What I will say
is that with regards to ADA grades, it could be less steep. However, wheelchairs or especially
disability like wheelchair vans could very easily go down it. It's a smooth paved road.
And it's certainly much easier to use than a 45 step stairway. I would add that we looked
into this issue and persons with disabilities routinely use areas that are not perfectly
ADA accessible, like this area, and in addition, the area could be greatly improved by the
addition of, for example, designated ADA parking spaces, however, once the gates open, people
could use it. There's really nothing that needs to be added and alternate to Aaron.
Thanks, Rob. I just have a few things and then we'll close. First, you know, collecting
Taking penalties in unilateral orders involves years of work and many hours of staffing.
We tried for many years here to resolve this case without assessing any penalties at all.
And unfortunately, it didn't work.
Mr. Levy refused to comply.
There was some references to press and public participation here and somehow there's some
type of bias.
And I would just note that public participation
is critical to the commission's work.
We rely heavily on the public, our local government partners,
and nonprofit organizations to report violations to us.
That's where we receive the bulk of our reports.
They're on the ground with the key knowledge of local issues.
In this particular case, there were
members of the public that did want to speak today.
However, it's our understanding that they are not doing
or they didn't do so after receiving intimidating
correspondence from Mr. Levy.
Also note that there was some arguments about the press.
Our work does generate a lot of press
and the press does reach out to us for comments.
We share public information with them
and answer their questions.
And I would just note that the bulk of the press
this matter quoted Mr. Levy extensively and not us. There's there was also
references to your staff. Your staff is persistent and doesn't give up even when
cases take years to address. We work hard to resolve violations but even in the
most contested cases we remain professional, courteous, and understanding.
Even though we only have two full-time staff to process these elevated cases to
you, we aim to resolve all of our cases amicably. But unfortunately Mr. Levy
chose to take another approach. The claims made by Mr. Levy and his
counsel related to your staff are simply not true. And I just close, you know
public access and protection of wetlands are afforded the highest
protection under the Coastal Act. They are our treasured resources. Most of
California's wetlands have been filled and the strain on existing access ways
to the beach as our population grows and that narrow strip of beach shrinks as
sea levels rise just makes it harder and harder for us to get to the coast. We
spend a long time walking you through the history here, our years of attempts
resolve this case and Mr. Levy's refusal to do so. There are a number of arguments
made but the bottom line here is these violations block public easements and it
involves development located directly in protected wetland buffer. These orders
require that these long blocked easements are finally open for the
public and that the wetland buffer area can now provide that necessary layer of
protection between the built environment and the significant wetlands habitat and
with that I'll close but we're happy to answer any questions thank you mr.
McClendon thank you to our staff on the advice of counsel I'd like to offer the
alleged violator an opportunity to respond in the same amount of time and
you'll have five minutes thank you oh thank you I appreciate that thank you I
I did want to just clarify, according to my client, actually, the HOA, you know, this
is a he said, he said, she said kind of thing, but the HOA, the Beach HOA does have the gate
code, though, and they have for many years.
So again, I feel like this is all just kind of coming fast and hard, and I do feel bad
for all of you guys trying to keep up with, again, the he said, she said dialogue that's
going on here today but again this is what I've been told that they do have
the code and have for some time. Just wanted to put that out there. Thank you.
Mr. Beard? Mr. Levy? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, thanks so much.
I'd just like to reiterate what Chandra just said. The Beach Homeowners
association has always had the gate code. They routinely have contractors down there working
on their property through that access. That's complete nonsense. And, you know, we, in terms of
staff conduct, it's been very, very clear. Mr. Model Mog did disseminate the the NOV
vis-a-vis through Mitch Silverstein to the San Diego Tribune, Union Tribune, and I was asked to
respond. I had to respond or would have been a very negative art article about me. I invited
everyone that's, I mean, the newspaper reporters down to the property and to show them that in
In fact, I'm not blocking public access.
It's complete nonsense.
Two points here.
I mean, we have two big issues here.
We've got the Mountain View Gate.
I don't own the property.
I cannot grant public access.
If the Beach Homeowners Association
wants to open up that gate, that's fine.
But what you have to understand about this also
in Mr. Mottlemaugh's response is that there's in lot three,
there's an open space deed restriction
with a pedestrian easement over the top of it.
You can't drive cars through there.
The in the city of Carlsbad is pretty adamant in their opposition to it as well because they do not want to have to please people
Driving down to the beach itself without proper abutments for people to drive on the beach
In fact a gentleman almost died there several years ago
It's drunk somehow or another got through the gate and drove his car into the ocean
so, you know
It's just not as simple as opening up a gate because the the road goes down to the beach itself and
And it's going over a dedicated open space
that's supposed to protect flora and wildlife.
So the only vehicular access down to the beach
is for public service, public safety,
and or maintenance on the weir.
So it's a very, very complicated issue.
But again, it's not my issue.
It's owned by the Beach Homeowners Association.
Thank you.
Chandra.
Hi, yes, thanks.
I just want to close again,
Because again, as you can see,
there's just been so much back and forth.
I think this really begs for the fact
that we do need a continuance
so that we can have the time necessary
to again, check what was just shared today
in staff's presentation and vice versa.
And we welcome that.
But that takes time to do that
and to have a productive discussion and dialogue
and exchanging of facts and so forth.
So therefore I repeat my request, respectfully requesting
a continuance.
And thank you again for taking your time today
in consideration listening to the various parties.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will now close the public hearing
and bring it back to the commission for deliberations.
Are there any questions for staff,
for the alleged violators' comments?
I'll begin with Commissioner Jackson.
And I'm putting a list here, so just catch my eye
if you'd like to get on that list.
Thank you, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you to staff.
Thank you to the respondent for being here today.
Thank you for calling in from New Zealand, sir.
Your participation in this matter, obviously,
is critical and appreciate you being here.
I have some comments, but I don't know
if you want all questions first, then comments?
Or you want a question?
Maybe let's go through and do a round of questions first,
and then we'll go back for comment.
Thank you.
So my first question revolves the 120-day
open up the gate recommendation
as opposed to an immediate open the gate order.
Maybe some confusion.
There isn't actually a 120-day limit
that with the way the orders are structured
is that they create a process,
sequence of events where Mr. Levy is given first of all an option to either
open or remove the gate. He has a decision to make. He can choose which
option he wants to pursue and then if he's whichever one he's going to pursue
he has to present a plan then he has to finalize that plan and then he has to
implement that plan and each of those stages there's a separate deadline and so
the requirement is that he meet each of the deadlines outlined in section 7 of
of the order for those three steps
in order to avoid paying the penalty.
So we could not issue an immediate opening of the gate.
Well, you don't have to follow the provisions
that we proposed in the order.
You could do it differently.
Okay.
But we recommend that there be this kind of a process
because in part because we were trying to provide
Mr. Levy the option of either removing the gate
or opening the gate.
Right, but it seems to me based on testimony
that the gate could be opened
probably from my phone right now if I had the code.
So, okay, so we are not precluded
from issuing an immediate or an order to open it
earlier than 120 days.
I'm not aware of any reason why you couldn't
modify the order in that manner.
Thank you.
And a restoration order would include,
what would that include specifically?
Yes, so the restoration order
would focus on removal of invasive plants.
As you saw, there's just a ton.
Ice plant, non-native grass.
And afterward, it would require revegetation
with native plants.
And there's a five-year monitoring period
after the revegetation is complete.
So they would have to go out and weed all the time essentially
and submit quarterly reports to us to make sure
that it's on track to meet performance standards.
That they would have to hire like a biologist
as a consultant that would propose what native plants
are going to be planted,
what percentage of native plants would be considered optimal
and we would, our ecologists would review it and approve it.
appreciate that and with regard to the unpermitted pickleball. Yes so with
regards to unpermitted pickleball court we are ordering Mr. Levy to remove it
however we do think that he could have a pickleball court potentially further
inland on his property like closer to where his existing paved road is so that
it's not impacting the wetland buffer in the same way with scour and runoff.
Thank you and my last question there's been some testimony some folks have
talked about the amount of the administrative penalty that can be
imposed and there's been some talk that what you have proposed is is not as
robust as it could be. What is the max within our authority? So the maximum
under the Coastal Act, we the Commission has the authority to impose penalties
for five years. $11,250 a day per day that each violation occurred. In this
case there's potentially five separate violations and so it's tens of
millions of dollars would be the maximum.
And your recommendation was based on a singular violation?
So there's two separate penalty actions here.
One pursuant to 30821 for the access violation
and the other under 30821.3 for the other violations.
So there's two separate administrative penalty actions,
But yes, we did, for the, I'll call it non-access violations,
we did combine them and treated it as one.
Okay, thank you for that.
That's all the questions I have, Madam Chair,
and I'll reserve my comments for later.
Thank you, Commissioner Jackson.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
First of all, I just wanna say that,
you know, I really feel that what's alleged here
goes to the heart of the Coastal Act,
and I'll have further comments later,
but I wanna focus on a couple questions
I have about exhibit 52 which in my mind kind of helps to resolve the he said she said issue
regarding the gate. First of all I do want to be clear that as of today Mr. Levy is saying
that if the HOA would agree to open the gate he would not object. Would that be correct?
Ms. Levy if through the chair would that be acceptable?
Ms. Slaven. Ms. Slaven I'm sorry combined you into one family.
Okay, so he is perfectly fine with providing the code again providing it even to our staff if that's what's necessary and
Opening the gate. Yes, he's provided it also to the city of Carlsbad, right? But I guess there's some confusion around that
um
And with regard to the he said she said issue exhibit 52 is a letter from the John corn law firm
Presenting mr. Levy and in the letter. He is saying there's no
Statement this is asking in the form of a question
Regarding
HOA control of the gate. He doesn't say anything about that. Is that correct?
Mr. Model Maggi just says he'll open it. He never makes any allegation regarding
HOA control of the gate. I'm
He might be referring to the lagoon access easement the other easement in that letter
I'm not sure but I would add that
You know, mr. Levy would be required to obtain any necessary approvals to to do all this work
And so he would have to you know get approval from anyone necessary
But we don't even think it's necessary for him to obtain approval from the HOA. They haven't objected
They we don't think they could stop him from removing it
I would just note that throughout that letter he seems to be saying that his compliance with all the conditions are
Demonstrated simply by the fact that he was issued a permit by the city and that's
That has been his argument. Yes, and that continues to be he has argued. Yes that
He's made a number of arguments this today that he'll open it if the HOA allows him
He's never to my knowledge directly made that argument. He's also argued in voluminous correspondence that
fact he has a right to close it he's also argued that it's not good for
access because it's not ADA like you've heard a number of arguments even today
can I ask you if the gate was opened and the the easement is for pedestrian
access easement does not the beach access easement does not specify so it
could be for you know any any kind of access okay all right let me see if I
have any other questions as well and I just want to comment to just confirm
staff is not recommending any penalty with regard to the Mountain View gate if
it is open within 120 days but if it was open today even better correct okay
thanks thank you mr. presciado questions
a couple of questions for staff why does the gate exist at all on what appears to
be a public access road, why is the gate not on his doorway or his driveway in
his property? So why does the gate exist at all? It isn't the fact that the gate
is in place an intention to limit or restrict or prohibit public access to
begin with. Mr. Levy applied to put the gate there when he applied for a permit
to build his house in 1997, and so he did get a permit
from the city in 1998 to build his house and the gate
in that location.
However, that permit, as you heard,
was appealed to the commission.
The commission considered the appeal,
included that indeed the gate is in a problematic location
given the two easements that were not yet in place yet,
but that were on offer, and indicated that that issue
could simply be addressed later.
Well, it seems that it's at the core of our conversation
and I'm just interested in seeing if fines can be levied
until the gate is eliminated
from the public access roadway.
I assume that I have 24 hours access to the road,
to the beach, is that correct, based on the permit?
Oh, I'm through the chair.
Yeah.
there's no limitation on hours in the easement.
So I don't have to contact Carlsbad or the HOA
or Mr. Levy if I wanted access.
And I wanted to take my roller down there
as an ADA American.
I don't really, or should have to.
I think I would support the idea of conditioning
continued existence of the development
on the elimination of the gate.
I'm happy to have anybody put as many gates
as they want around their own property,
but I don't understand why there is a gate
in a public access easement
that's intended to allow 24 hour access.
And so that right there is the beginning of the challenge.
The second one is,
I need to understand if we condition development
on allowing easements to protect
the biological resources that are in the immediate vicinity,
why is the development allowed to exist at all
if they can make the claim or that the city
or local partner in this development process
can simply say, we don't accept these as has been claimed.
How is that possible that someone can accept
or not accept the easement
and then announce that liability issues
or grading levels or some of these other things
are concerns.
I'm just trying to understand legally,
does the city of Carlsbad have the flexibility
to accept or not accept an easement that they approve
for a development as a condition for the development?
I'm trying to get, I'm trying to understand
where the cart and the horse is here.
I think I understand your question.
My apologies if I'm not addressing it, let me know.
But this is one of the things
that was perplexing to us as well.
When the city approved the permit in 1998,
it included a condition requiring
that Mr. Levy offer to dedicate
the public access he's been along the lagoon.
The assumption is that when he did so,
the city would then accept it, obviously.
Otherwise, why would they require him to offer it?
And yet he offered it and the city has not accepted it.
And it's been several years since he offered it.
So this does seem to be a bit of a loophole, right?
When the commission considered the appeal,
they assumed that if the city was requiring this offer,
that the city would accept it when the offer was made.
And so they axis way would actually come into existence.
Well, it kind of begs the question,
does the city of Carleved seriously?
where is the city of Carlsbad? I'm concerned that the city of Carlsbad
may not be acting in good faith from the point of view if it processes a
permit, conditions it to meet the standard of the Coastal Commission law
and then it can inadvertently through you know getting the city attorney to
claim that they don't accept it because it may be a liability risk. I don't
understand how that's possible. Yeah so through the chair we're confused at the
city's actions too. That being said what with regard to the lagoon access area
what what the violation is is constructing a locked gate where the city
approved a time locked gate so regardless of the city's acceptance that
locked gate is unpermitted development and must come out and they could put in
the time block gate that was approved there by the city with regard to the
question about the the beach access gate that you mentioned we have structured
the order in a way that does require its removal or the opening of it and if they don't do
it, then those penalties that you were mentioning kick in. So that's embedded into the recommended
orders. So I'll just make this point. If we decide to move forward today, I would like
to explore the idea of ordering as a condition
or as part of the penalty
that the gate be removed completely.
And that if the gentleman, Mr. Levy,
wants to protect his property,
answer it up, do whatever it is that is permissible
if Carlsbad thinks it's a good idea.
But I don't believe a private property owner
should have control of the public access in any way.
Thank you.
Thank you.
OK.
Commissioner Kelly, then Wilson, then Lopez.
Thank you.
I have a couple of questions for different folks.
Is there a representative of the city of Carlsbad
available for questions?
No.
I'm seeing shaking no heads.
OK.
So Mr. Levy, are you available?
And can you hear me?
Is he available to speak?
Team?
It looks a little frozen on me.
Sorry.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
I have a question for you.
I am open to any questions.
Thank you.
So I appreciate you making yourself available for this hearing and thank you for your participation.
that, but that's not it.
So, a couple things that you
raised that I just wanted to
get a little clarification on.
You talked a little bit about
public safety. And that there
were a number of police calls
to the property. Is that right?
That you said that there were a
number of police calls?
Yes, there's 105 police calls
from the years 2015 through
a month. And what were the nature of those police calls? Always had to do with homelessness,
trying to break into the house, violence, primarily through homeless issues down there.
And so, and were the neighbors calling the police or? Either the neighbors or myself.
You have to understand that area through our overview, it's literally a no man's land down
there because of the amount of open space and the floor, especially around the railroad
track.
So that's a corridor for homeless to transition in, grassy grass through Oceanside through
Carlsbad.
That's their kind of corridor along the coast there.
And then they see this large swath of open space there.
They enter down there.
Light fires, break-ins, it's, you know,
I'd like to also point out in this huge amount
of information that you folks have is that,
from submissions from Summer House,
which is the adjacent to the Mountain View Gate
and also the San Mauro homeowners associations
and their opposition to opening that gate
amongst many, many reasons,
but it's because of the homeless issues down there
that we're dealing with.
Now I'd like to point out the city of Carlsbad
does a fantastic job in their homeless outreach.
Sorry.
You can continue.
I'm sorry.
So the City of Carlsbad does a fantastic job
in their homeless outreach down there.
And I really applaud the city's efforts there.
But regardless, it's a huge, huge problem
because there's many, many homeless encampments
in the open space directly to the east of my probably
along the railroad tracks.
And I think that another thing that really has to be pointed
out here about this whole area down there,
Mr. Mottlemog and his environmental speakers
kind of want to coin this as this Yosemite of the coast.
There's 90 plus trains that go right through the middle
of the wildlife habitat area down there.
There's hundreds of homeless encampments down there as well.
So, Mr. Leavy, your property on the east side
of your property that's adjacent to the railroad easement,
is there a fence along that side of the property
that is basically securing, so your property
is completely wide open to the train tracks?
No, so, well, yes and no.
So there's a natural, and you can't quite see it
from the pictures, but the lagoon,
Yeah, there's a small portion of the lagoon
that runs adjacent to the railroad tracks with Thule in it,
so it's an impassable area there through that area.
Got it, but there's no fence.
No, no.
Okay, but it's impassable.
It's impassable, correct.
Okay, and then you had mentioned earlier
that when you were living abroad
or that you owned this property,
but then you weren't living there full-time,
You weren't aware that there were weddings happening on site and I understand that's not the nature of the violation that we're discussing here
But I just wanted to clarify it. So you didn't know yeah
Wedding sorry, let me finish the question. Did you know if people were renting your property for weddings?
Thank you for that question because I really want to clarify that because this has been very much
Mischaracterized by mr. Modelg and staffs report. So I moved to New Zealand started moving
Totally immaterial the dates. I just need to know. Did you know that the property was being rented out for weddings?
It was not being rented out for weddings. It was a weekly
Beach, I mean beach rental. There is no reference in any of my
Contracts to weddings whatsoever. No, I was not renting out as a wedding venue. It was a beach
Rental one week at a time and then who was I where weddings were happening there?
on the property in the legal non-open space areas. Yes, we were allowing that. However,
there was no way that we profited from weddings. Never charged a dime for a wedding. No.
Okay. And then you had mentioned that this is an affordable rental. Can you define
what you mean by an affordable rental?
Well, yes, I mean
you know at the time I think it was like
$3,500 a week to rent the property for a week and
You know what what happened was is um, I think it was about 2009 or 2010 a young lady
Wrote to me and said mr
Levy, can we get married down there? And I said yes, as long as you adhere to these rules of
um, you know parking in these places no music
And she goes, thank you so much.
I mean, we don't have any money.
This is a way that we can have our family
and friends come down here and have an affordable wedding
and actually get married on the beach.
This is public access in my view.
Yeah, I'm reading.
There's actually quite a few,
I think about 50 wedding reviews online
for all of the folks who experienced their weddings
we'd be land when it was when those events were taking place and then it
seems as though even though maybe you didn't know unclear that they were being
rented exclusively for weddings that there were staff from your property or
your estate who were staffing those events Edgar no and specifically no you
I think you were not aware of that.
No, no.
Okay.
So with respect to the gate and kind of the back and forth
that has happened amongst the different HOA's involved
and then your specific property,
it sounds as though there's a clear written record
that the HOA would like to move forward
with opening the gate and having that available.
and that you said in your testimony that you would be making
that you're open to being open for the gate to be open.
Is that accurate if because it is not your gate
and it's not on your land?
Sorry, it is your gate, but it's on their land.
Okay, I wanna be clear.
The gate is not my gate, okay?
It is owned by the Beach Homeowners Association.
Did you pay to install the gate?
Yes, I did.
However, it is on their property.
Okay.
answer your question again I have said all along if the beach homeowners
Association is it is their position to open up the gate they can open the gate
it's not my gate I just have access through it if I build if I build
something on your property who owns that property thank you please only answer
specific questions directed at you okay thank you I just wanted to ask staff as
follow-up to that and that your understanding as well that he does not
own the gate and that the gate is owned by the HOA. That is not our
understanding. Mr. Levy obtained he applied for permits for that gate he
built the gate the HOA gave him a letter of authorization to build it they told
him he could build it so long as he allowed legally entitled persons to use
it he hasn't done so. We've pointed this out to Mr. Levy multiple times and
multiple correspondence that are in the exhibits and he continues to when we
point that out right he just makes other arguments like well it's not ADA well
the city doesn't want it open well and he just pivots. Okay thank you yeah I
think you know in a in some of the dialogue that we've had about you know
what would be the best outcome here and I guess I can reserve this for the
comment section but it seems as though the nature of the ownership of the gate
and the access component is at best, as he said, she said,
and at worst, willful non-compliance
with the rules and regulations that are before us.
So I would say that it's gonna be difficult,
I think, to move forward in a way where we can ensure
that this isn't an ongoing issue if the gate remains intact.
So I think I would be leaning, if possible,
and I would look at staff's recommendation for gate removal
because I don't see how we don't find ourselves
future if the gate remains, just given the ownership challenges, the management of the
codes, et cetera. And then there was a question that was called out a couple of times, this
is to staff, around the jurisdictional component of where do we have jurisdiction here, what
is the boundary of the LCP, you know, those types of issues, and I just would ask for
ask for some clarity on that?
So I'll start, and then pass it over to Rob.
So the Commission has enforcement jurisdiction everywhere in the coastal zone.
So that's not an issue, I think.
And so referring to the LCP jurisdiction, I'll let Mr. Maldonado.
So just to confirm, even if this was squarely within an LCP, and there weren't things at
issue, we have enforcement jurisdiction full stop.
There are steps that we do have to take under the Coastal Act those steps were taken here the city did
Request that we take the primary lead in enforcement. So we've met that wrong in the Coastal Act
So we do have enforcement jurisdiction
over over the whole area here
with regards to some comments about the permitting jurisdictional let mr
And before he does just one additional point what mr. McLennan just said is about enforcing the LCP
There are no steps we have to take to enforce our own permit. So because the Commission issued its own CDP here in 1983
Commission retains the authority to enforce that CDP
regardless of the LCP status of the area
Thank you. I think what mr.
of levy is upset by is that what he's argued right is that well it was a city
CDP for his house and and the stuff down by the lagoon and so he's upset that
the Commission is doing any enforcement at all and what we would point out is
that as as mr. McClendon just pointed out we do have LCP authority to enforce
here but also he's undertaken on permitted development here and this area
in the 90s there was a what's the word some confusing confusion with our
mapping apartment in the city's mapping department and so the city was able to
issue this CDP however both the city and Commission mapping staff have now
agreed that the area of Mr. Levy's property is actually within the
Commission's retained permit jurisdiction and so any permits going forward should
go straight to the commission.
I understand that Mr. Levy is upset by this,
but the city agrees with our position.
That's my understanding.
Mr. Levy, have you been previously made aware
that we retain original permitting jurisdiction
so that any permits that you seek going forward
would come through the California Coastal Commission
and not through the city?
Yes, I'm aware of that.
However, I've asked the city
to file a 30613 action for their jurist,
for them to retain jurisdiction.
As Mr. Mottlemaugh just pointed out
that this is a mapping issue.
It is the only property in the city of Carlsbad
that does not fall within their LCP.
And there's three conditions to meet the 30613
clarification and I meet all three of those.
Understood and just for your knowledge and awareness
that because this commission oversees the entire coastline
of the entire state, it may be that in Carlsbad
that this property is uniquely situated.
This is not a unique issue to the commission.
We've definitely seen properties in the past
where there is a clear jurisdictional boundary
between multiple jurisdictions
and making that determination is not unique.
I will say this is an incredibly unique property that you own it is you know there are a lot
of components of it that make it beautiful and unique and I think really get to the heart
of the work that we're doing here to ensure that we maintain public access for the coast
and protection of those environmentally appropriate areas.
So thank you for your participation thanks.
Commissioner Wilson questions.
hold on one second, let me get to the part here. So, I just have a just a basic small list. So,
it seems like moving or removing or moving the gate can be part of a remedy, or we could consider
that as part of a remedy. Is that correct? Yes, it could be. We could, we currently give him two
options. One is to either open it and one is to remove it. We could just strike the opening
option so he would he'd only be forced to remove it okay and then if if he
wanted a separate gate on his own property that would be a separate
permit process that's correct and he also already has a gate on his own
property but he could build you know another one even on his property okay
there was some photographs of the chain link fence that went into the slew is
that's still there? To our knowledge it is yes. Okay that's
unpermitted development and is part of this the remedy to remove that? That's
correct he would be required to remove it and restore the area with native
plants. Then going back to the trail that used to in 1994 as per the exhibits here
go all the way around the property but then it seems like it was then in the
permit process process that was done before allowed to extend pretty much out
to the point that correct it's correct yeah and I just want to take issue with
the description of that as going to nowhere sometimes nowhere is where you
want to be and I would say that that going to the top of a mountain the trail
ends it's not nowhere right and so this idea that just because a trail has a
the terminus, it's something to know where, that's not how it works, and when you look
at the public access in and around that estuarine system, it's actually very, very limited.
There's a little bit by the, there's like an Audubon place on the other side of the
over there and that even that is very very limited so you know the limits of
someone's access to that highly unique and valuable wetland system for in order
to observe and be in awe of that or count your birds or whatever it is
you're into is extremely limited and so I think this is actually very highly
valued access point and I strongly encourage us to not just maintain that
but you know make sure that it's preserved and and and that the access is
is something that's that's really important. The sort of the last photo you
guys you guys had are showed on there of the of the aerial and he said here look
It's even been cleared recently
the aerial that you have in the in the one in the
Exhibit the one right before that looks actually more like Phil
And so I'm I'm wondering about that and and I guess maybe it might be a question
Which is like there was some discussion around
Whether or not the contractor knew or didn't know about having a part needing a permit to build
the the pickleball part, but
Somebody's it appears to me it just from the photos dumping
Fill or some material on on what is the wetland buffer area?
and so I'm wondering is there
acknowledgement or
from
You know from the from the person we're talking to today about that or where you guys out on that?
Have you seen that so with respect to any fill that did occur or may have occurred in that area the?
restoration orders do require
Mr. Levy to prepare a site survey with
pre
Violation conditions and if there was Phil that occurred there there is a remediation
remedial grading plan that's required as part of the overall restoration plan and that would pick up on any
types of fill that may have occurred and if that did occur then
You would have to remove that fill. Okay, I guess maybe it's a question for mr. Levy. Mr. Levy have we're
Have you been aware of any fill being deposited into or on the?
Wetland buffer areas or the areas design are designated as wetland buffers and and
Are you aware of the of the you know, the the limitations
to development within those wetland buffer areas and so then are you then also then have you
been made aware of the
The activities that have been occurring there
Can you hear me? Yeah
Can you oh you can't hear me. I can totally hear you. Okay. Thank you so much
I want to be very clear about where the pickle ball sits in I'm not talking about the ball. I'm not talking just to be clear
Mr. Lady, I'm talking about the areas that were designated as
Wetland buffer that right that the area that are in that are in evidence to hear today
Look like they've been pretty significantly modified including
Phil which may have been even this year and so I'm just wondering are you aware of that?
Or what's your understanding of those actions within the wetland buffer areas?
And are you is it your understanding that those areas are you know limited to the development that's allowed to be to occur in them?
Commission Commission, I want to be very very clear there has never been any fill any change
Whatsoever in that area in the open we're referring to is the two open open set open space set back areas
There's been no change whatsoever. I want again
I think you need to look at the current photographs of what's what's happened down there
There's no fill whatsoever and you're making reference to the pickleball court that is within lot B
Which has which is a separate lot, which is well outside of the hope open space
didn't mean to distract with mentioning the pickleball court because I'm not
really okay I'm not really getting to that is it possible for staff to bring
up the aerial photograph from the exhibit to it I just really want to I
really want to see this and and and ask you specifically if this is within the
wetland setback area yes we have the presentation ready yeah it's on its
photograph or it's on page what page page it is on page one moment while we
find the page 40 of exhibit 2 oh we could pull up page 40 of exhibit 2 a we
could pull like the slides we just showed it would take a little more time
to pull up an exhibit um let's see here it's that spot but it's the aerial
photograph that is chronologically before that think it's and it's in the
exhibits let me try and bring it back up here let me find the area one more time
it's in if you could go to slide 51 I think that might oh no hold on I'll find
it yep I can't see the TV now 51 is the one you referenced just take it take a
Wait a minute. Hold on. We'll find out. It's fairly, I'm gonna say it's fairly graphic.
So you're gonna want to see it. No, that's not it. I didn't see a slide state, but it's
in the exhibits. So it is part of the record. And it is 40. It's page 40 of, you say it's
exhibit eight but let me see it says exhibit eight yes February 1st 2025 no
it is not that picture yeah I don't know if we'll be able to pull up the
exhibits on online okay for everyone's reference it is exhibit to page 40 so
we all have access to the same exhibits we can pull that up thank you thanks for
trying please proceed sorry just one bit of clarification it's a exhibit packet
too but it's exhibit 8 and then page 40 of that thank you so good is it packet
to yes thank you page 40 and people zoom in on in on that and I'm hoping that
staff is also looking at the same picture that I am Rob you guys looking
at the same thing. Oh yeah, that one. Yeah, yeah, that one. So I mean, I would love for
I would love for Mr. Levy to be able to see this and tell me that this isn't existing
in the wetland buffer, that this activity, which to me looks like dump truck loads of
something being dumped one after another. It does. This is I just tell you, like I do
I do a lot of construction, I'm doing a lot of wetland,
that just looks like, you know,
dump truck loads of material in the wetland buffer.
Am I missing something here?
Yeah, you are.
Yeah, okay.
Is that, then what is that?
I can't see, can you hear me?
I cannot see the photo.
And I once again reiterate,
there has never been any fill whatsoever
in any of the open space areas.
So I don't know about the picture.
I did not take the picture.
I don't know.
But again, if you refer to our photographs,
you will see of the current photographs of today,
they are in the same pristine area
that every other area is in, okay?
There's no fill, there's no change,
there's no nothing in there.
I don't know what's going on.
So there's been no change ever on this property in the past
that has been just completely without change.
Is that what I'm hearing from you, Mr. Levy?
It's never been modified.
What I'm saying is there's never been any fill,
any change to my knowledge on the property.
Well, staff, you can see the photograph, right,
that I'm referring to, all right.
We're trying to bring it up.
I can't see the photograph, so how can I comment?
I don't think that's fair.
Okay, let's take a pause here, Commissioner Wilson.
Sorry. Why don't we allow staff to
try to bring it up, but we'll come back to it.
We'll come back to it.
Just need about 30 seconds.
in about 30 seconds.
That's really my, I mean, to be,
everyone else is pretty hit and oh,
the other thing is, I just wanted to mention
that there is public, not public access,
but there are what we call informal trails
that seem to run through and onto this property
from, you can see from the aerial photographs,
both coming from and across the train tracks.
And in some ways, I mean, the argument
that we're concerned about people being harmed by trains
would actually be lessened by actually making a real access
as opposed to forcing people to scramble over those tracks
and across the way.
So from my perspective, even the HOA has a gate
that goes onto the property that we're talking about
from their pool area.
And so I just want to mention that having this gate be
open isn't going to create more danger.
It's actually, from my perspective,
creates more safety because you have really
more eyes on the situation.
And so I just, yeah.
But those are my points.
And thanks for bringing up that photo on the screen there.
although kind of small, so I don't know if Mr. Levy can see it,
but you can see it's fairly well disturbed.
I'm not going to go down this track anymore,
other than to say it's in the record
that it really looks to me like there
is a significant amount of fill been placed on the site.
Whether the fill's been removed since then
is a whole other subject.
But the idea, what I'm getting at
is it seems like there's a lot of earth-moving activity
or other kinds of activity, maybe it's not earth,
whatever that bill is, and there's been vegetation removal
and all kinds of activities that have occurred.
It sounds like Mr. Levy is claiming
he doesn't know about any of it.
There are photographs of people parking in that area
and trailers and all kinds of stuff,
which wouldn't occur if it was in its natural state.
I'm just gonna leave it at that, thanks.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
Let's go to Commissioner Lopez
Commissioner Lopez feel free to make your comments. We'll do a round of comments after your questions as well. Thank you
I'll be very brief because most of my questions I had about well sketched out here
They've all been brought up already. So great to hear that. My last one's gonna seem trivial for that reason. So my apologies
This leaving you mentioned that the pickleball court is constructed on a permeable surface is the surface itself
I would need to look into the construction techniques of that
we do have documentation from the contractor. I would have to get back to
you on that. It is a good question but I know for a fact it was controlled on our
permeable surface. Okay thank you just because obviously when you said it was on
a permeable surface to me that created a challenge right if you put something in
permeable over the top it's the language you used that made it seem like it was
tricky and I wanted to be clear on that. I believe it was but again I would want to check the
documentation in order to actually you know answer your question. Thank you I
appreciate that. So then I'll just share now my comments that I'm largely in
agreement with what the comments that I've heard so far personally I'd like to
see the gate defense in remove pushback to the private property opening up this
access I agree that the better move here would be to actually create safe access
for community rather than forcing folks as we could see in the informal trail to
scramble over the train tracks as was mentioned by Commissioner Wilson I think
this question about who owns the gate we've been clear in the documentation
that was presented read and re-declared through staff's statements that the
intent for this commission even back when was to create public access and so
I think our goal today needs to be met which is opening that back up and I
think this is the best way to get there so that's what I'll be supporting today
given that hurts so far. Thank you. Commissioner Lee and Commissioner
Escalante. Yeah I had a quick question for staff. Is the gate owners obligation to
comply with public access at all contingent on his judgment that the
easement is ADA compliant or safe or anything to do with safety or security.
It is not. There's no requirement. So the only obligation is to make sure that
public access is not impeded. That's correct. And if Mr. Levy is saying that
he does not own the gate and he doesn't really know who owns the gate and no one
has perfected an ownership claim to the gate. Could it then be determined that
it is refuse that has been left behind and the city or the Commission can just
remove it? He's saying he doesn't own it and it's not his. I think the easiest way
to remove this argument from the table would simply be if you want to order the
gate to be opened or removed right away you could direct us to simply send a
message to the Beach HOA representative asking them if they have any objection
to that and if they don't then we could proceed. Well I wouldn't necessarily want
to leave it open because if it's not their gate then we shouldn't give them
the opportunity to object. In which case I'm saying nobody owns the gate and so
maybe it's just trash that's been left behind. Based on our experience with the Beach
HOA we don't believe that they have any would assert any claim to ownership or
that they would have any objection so that's why I was suggesting that it
might just clear the path for that approach but I appreciate your point.
Yeah I'm not opposed to the removal of the gate or making that one of the
actions here but I did hear your point earlier about process and would want to
make sure that procedure is not at all impeded so if the 120 days is required
then I'm accepting of that but the comments of my fellow commissioners
resonates as well that it seems the best path to ease access would be the
removal because gate codes can be changed and time locks can be locked.
And I would just note that from our in our perspective the record is clear
that Mr. Levy applied and obtained a permit for this gate, paid for, and built
this gate and so we don't believe that it's anyone else's gate with his. Yes but
someone could also purchase something install it and then later relinquish
their rights to that property which it sounds like he is done because he's
claiming it's not him. I think part of the challenge too is who's responsible
for removing the gate and and I think in our view he owns the gate he should be
responsible for removing the gate and that includes paying for it and and we
don't necessarily want to leave that duty to the city or another entity so I
think that's part of why we're arguing here that he is the owner of the gate
should be responsible for moving it. Yes. But we also wouldn't want to leave it to
the point where we've determined that he's the owner and then he claims he
isn't responsible and then does not move forward with the action of removal.
Commissioner Escalante. Well thanks for all that. I don't have any questions
anymore. You guys covered everything so I'll just make my comment.
First of all you know I do really take issue with personal attacks on our
coastal staff and it's never a good idea to use that as an advocacy tactic. They
are not private sector attorneys instead they are dedicated, underpaid, and
overworked and extremely professional and competent public servants. The
implications of the propriety are offensive and I'm also alarmed by the
intimidation of the public and about the he said she said going around in
circles of denials, suffocations, and finger pointing it's also an effective
strategy. I think our staff and the public record and my fellow commissioners
as well as the members of the public have made a solid case that these
violations of the Coastal Act and that they are egregious. The impacts on the
public trust from their persisting and worsening privatization,
commercialization, unpermitted development and destruction of sensitive
habitat and public access easements are frankly immeasurable. The penalty
should be commensurate with the severity of these violations,
and that gate should be removed immediately.
I've been in the mood of quoting wise people this week,
and yesterday it was for Effie.
And when this case has come up, I'm
always thinking of what Gandhi said,
that Earth provides enough to satisfy every person's needs,
but not everybody's wants.
And I think this is the case of that.
support as actually moving the timeline of removal of the spends and making that
the only option available to them. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Scolante.
Commissioner Jackson. Thank You Madam Chair. I am constantly amazed at the
professionalism, willingness, and dedication of staff. The enforcement
component of the commission and I am constantly amazed that your your
willingness because you want to help get to yes you want to avoid where we are
today and eight years of this back and forth is is troubling the Commission has
a well-earned reputation and record of amicably resolving nearly all coastal
lacked violations and you've obviously spent years trying to reach a consensual
resolution with Mr. Levy. I'm quite frankly troubled by what I see as a
brazen disregard and the deliberate lack of cooperation which I feel is a
direct affront to the people of California and the very mission of this
Coastal Commission. Despite years of tireless good faith effort by our staff
who went above and beyond to correct and resolve these violations. The action
taken by Mr. Levy reflects willful defiance and an open contempt for the
Commission's authority and purpose. And the record in from what I've seen shows
little evidence of Mr. Levy's willingness to amicably resolve this
matter contrary to what has been claimed. Upholding the Coastal Act means standing
firm in the face of willful violations. Our mission as commissioners demand
nothing less. According to, I believe it both appropriate and necessary that the
Commission issue an immediate cease-and-desist order, a comprehensive
restoration order, and consistent with my fellow Commissioner's suggestions, the
immediate removal of all unpermitted development impediments. Furthermore, I
support the imposition of a hefty monetary penalty, one that is commensurate
with both the seriousness and the duration of these violations to ensure
accountability, deter future misconduct, and uphold the integrity of this Coastal
Act. The Commission's actions today are not only about restoring one's property
about reaffirming the principle that no one is above the law and that the
California coast belongs to everyone. Our credibility depends on even-handed
enforcement and an unwavering commitment to the values that define this agency.
Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Commissioner Jackson. Commissioner Nada.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments of my fellow commissioners. I too want to
just call out the diligence and patience of our staff and the reasonable and
measured approach that they are taking here, I think, is I value that, but I think you're
sensing the tone of the commissioners that don't have as much patience.
But I would say that one of the recommendations as I read it is if the gate is removed, and
I think I too support removing the gate rather than opening the gate because it's too easy
to close it is that it's still on the table that if Mr. Levy agrees to open to
remove the gate then there would not be a fine associated with the access
violation. It would still have the fine associated with the restoration. So I
want to see if is that an incentive for Mr. Levy to comply? Thank you. Vice
chair hard thanks I think everyone I completely concur with the excellent
comments of my fellow commissioners and I want to if everyone is prepared I I
can move forward with a motion I have a clarifying question sure it has to do
with the removal of the gate and the and and the the access is is is the access
public access limited to pedestrian access and I just want to I have a
little just slight concern about the opening of the of the roadway without
some control to vehicular access versus pedestrian access and so could you
clarify that and and maybe that might clarify a potential in the change of the
structure as opposed to the complete removal. Yes and there's no restrictions
And so anyone could use it with any mobility device,
be it a car or a wheelchair or whatever.
What I will say is that the city does hold the easement.
And also they have been concerned about these issues.
They've installed a number of things already to stop,
presumably Mr. Levy's guests from driving onto the beach.
Like they've got like a chain out there.
And so in addition, the open space easement
allows for public access improvements that have a CDP.
And so the city could easily, as the holder,
get a CDP for improvements to help manage access there
in a way that works for everyone.
Thank you.
And I would hope that the city and the HOA
could work together to put something together
that's amenable to our and the state's needs for access.
So thank you.
Commissioner Presiato.
Pardon me.
I forgot about the mic.
I wonder if, and I'm looking to vice chair Hart
to lead us in motions, but in all other places
that we insist on public access being highlighted
that there be signage placed.
And I don't know who would do that order
or who would be responsible given that
It's not Mr. Levy's easement, it's, who's easement?
Is it again?
The city of San Diego.
The city, somebody needs to be required
to create signage and public access signage.
And, you know, maybe on nearby roads
suggest that there is coastal access
as there is everywhere in the state of California.
And I do, I'm very supportive of the staff's examination
Don't hold me back unless
Carl's bed does that.
One last thing and this may be
petty on my part.
I don't believe any of us have
ever been there.
It was suggested by the party
that we had an opportunity to
by the by the party that we haven't been there so maybe we don't know what to do
so anyways I just wanted to point that out thank you um if I could ask our
staff mr. McClendon could you respond on the signage yeah so in section 7 as
part of the the access opening plan just point to section 7.5 which and I'll just
kind of paraphrase, it says that the respondent, Mr. Levy, may elect via this
plan to propose to install signs throughout the beach access easement to
help educate the public about the rights of public access that exist here, and
then any sign posted must be approved by the executive director or obtain a new
CDP and so we could make that more of an affirmative obligation also note that
as soon as access ways are open we have a we have also a good track record of
identifying them both via our website our access app and working with our
local government partners to ensure that these access ways are signed
appropriately. We also have a good relationship with Caltrans to put up the
little you know the brown public access feet along Highway 1 and as soon as
this is opened hopefully we'd look forward to doing that as well. Thank you
very much Commissioner Lopez. Yes I'll be very brief so as you craft the motion
the request would be to be clear about the intent of removal only because I've
had a local case where it was a removal of a gate and they just removed the gate
not all of the other supporting structures. So as we make that motion
please consider that. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner. Vice Chair Hart. Thanks so
much and I wanted to just ask staff one thing sort of propose one thing as sort
of an approach here which is to require removal of the gate by Mr. Levy's
representative as he's remains in New Zealand. So I think in my mind it would
be appropriate to include a requirement of removal of the gate and all of the
pertinent structures that maintain the gate to completely clear the gate in any
remnants of a gate within 30 days and if not coastal staff or I'm looking to you
for the correct language would remove it and and that cost would be added to the
fine that I'm going to be proposed as a result of the other violation. Is that
something that staff would feel would be appropriate or can you just repeat what
you're saying about how the how that would be incorporated into the fine we
would require mr. Levy to remove the gate within 30 days if the gate is not
removed and all pertinent structures if the gate is not removed during the 30
day period coastal staff would oversee the removal of the gate and the cost of
the removal would be added to the fine that attached to the violation of the
natural resource violation. Yeah we don't usually get involved directly in
manipulating the physical property as you know so we'd have to I would need a
few minutes to think about how that would work. If it would be a you know
contracted by or directed by the Commission I just want to make sure it's
removed. Our challenge is we don't again this is even the contracting piece going
through the state like it just it adds a layer. I like I appreciate what you're
trying to do is create another path in case Mr. Olivia refuses to move the gate.
So I might ask for a couple of minutes for us to confer and see if talk through
that idea and some others to figure out how to address the problem. I think you
see where we're all going here so let's take a break and come back at 125 in 10
minutes. Or is that more or less? Yeah, that sounds good to us. All right,
everybody thank you thank you we're back in session okay I'll turn it back to
Vice-chair Hart all right thank you chair all right I'm gonna have I want to
just make some observations before I go into the motion and my observations are
that it appears based on the comments of my colleagues there is a strong feeling
that the gate needs to be opened almost immediately and ultimately removed. I
understand that Mr. Levy did get a permit for this gate that he did build
the gate however he has obviously violated the terms of the permit over a
20-year I believe period where that gate has remained closed and therefore will be
subject to different criteria and recommendations as a result of this
hearing. So I'm going to turn to staff given that this is going to be the will
of the Commission to help me with the exact language. My understanding is that
it would be appropriate for the city to have a couple three days to be advised
of this new access point in order to prepare. So rather than require the gate
to be opened immediately or by tomorrow I'm going to ask staff if something three
days or something and along those lines would be appropriate to give the city
time to respond and then I don't just ask staff to just fill in a little bit
of the gap on the plan for potential removal of the gate within the 120 days
not sure who wants to respond to that one question did you want to have staff
contact the beach HOA to confirm that they have no objection to their removal
plan before that kicks in? Well, my understanding is staff has already
confirmed that with the HOA. I think we should advise them, my opinion, and I can't speak
for the Commission, but my opinion is they should be advised and the city should be advised
that this is the ruling of the Commission. And any other, Mr. McCall?
Yeah, so how, if I'm, if I'm hearing the question correctly, how this could be structured is
is we could add in a new 7.1, and this is in the orders page
4, to remove within three days, or excuse me, let me back up,
to open within three days the gate that
blocks the beach access easement.
And then the rest of 7.1, 7.2, and 7.2, actually,
there's a typo, there's two 7.2s.
The rest of that language would remain
because we feel that because there's pillars
and potentially electrical lines connecting the code box
and other things that we would still want a report
to be submitted to us for our review and approval
so we can ensure that everything within the easement area
is actually being removed.
We would strike 7.3.
And the second page is that on page four of the orders.
So let me back up.
There is a typo.
There's two 7.2s.
We would strike the second 7.2.
And we would strike 7.3.
And then 7.3a would say it shall include,
and then continue on through all of 7.3b and 7.3c.
We would then strike all of 7.4.
And that was the option to open it.
And then we would retain 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7.
the rest of 7.8 as well and we would be deleting any reference to the option
which we call the beach access opening plan so all access excuse me all
reference to that part of the plan would be removed. Thank you all right and with
those changes as you've just and we'll call that as amended or as I don't in
the motion you can tell me where to place those changes as I make the
motions yeah we would recommend that you make the motions listed in the staff
report originally and then when you get to the let's see it would be the I guess
even for the first motion you would make an amending motion?
If I'm hearing you correctly too, we would also be striking in 7.AA the last phrase
within 120 days because the option to pay is in 7A B.
be. Right, so to clarify and simplify the result of those changes which I will be
including in the motion one we see as I don't actually as amended by staff as
amended as described by staff and then you may have to go over those
descriptions one more time I would say as part of the motion just clarify but
the result will be the removal of I'm sorry the opening of the gate within
within three days and the plan for complete removal
of the gate within 120 days does not remove
within 120 days, then the fine isn't identified
would then be, Mr. Levy then would have the fine
to deal with it.
I would just clarify that the time period to remove
isn't 120 days just for the record that the time period
listed 7 8 feet and is so we would we would retain all of that language I just
wanted for the record to clarify that it's not 120 days to remove the timing
to remove is in 7 a B and what is it oh sorry it's hard because I have the
motions in front of me so I can't yeah it's it's it's a number of steps and I
can I can I could read them if that's if that's helpful I think what we should
I make a motion to a plan that we approve. Yeah, I'll make the motion you can say whatever you like with regard to the specifics
That of the amendment and then we'll move forward with the next motion so do the chair. Let's move forward
I move the commission issue cease and desist order number CCC dash to five
There CD dash. Oh three to join me vice chair heart. Yes
Just a heads up if indeed you are going to make an amending motion once you make the amending motion given the changes
I would recommend that you give the respondent another opportunity to to respond since the
Recommendation will have changed from what was in the staff record
Is are you asking that they give it to be given a chance now or after I make the motion?
We have and when you make an amending motion
Okay, the motion is going to be the amending motion so I can make the first motion then we can hear from
The respondent and then that's what I recommend. Okay
Thanks chair. All right. I move that the commission issue cease and desist order number CCC dash to five dash CD dash
03
to John C. Levy jr. And Jim Kelly and their individual capacities and or as trustees of the John C. Levy jr.
Revocable trust dated November 4th 2004 and or the Buena Vista revocable trust pursuant to the staff
recommendation as
amended
And I'm not sure if staff would like to add anything as part of the motion, but once you have
Completed your comments. I'd like to then through the chair provide an opportunity for the respondent to speak
Yeah, so I'll walk through it one more time
So
We would be striking
the second
7.2
Section that starts the beach access way opening plan shall include either we would strike that whole section
We would strike all of seven point three
With the exception of it shall include we would retain that language and then the rest of seven point three B and seven point
three C would remain
we would then strike all of seven point four and
any reference to the
Each excess way operation plan and then we would retain all
of seven point five seven point six
seven point seven and seven point eight
and seven point eight a
we would strike the last clause within 120 days and
that is
That is it. So if you strike the hundred it's go. Sorry. Thank you
And I would just add that that is our recommendation.
Thank you.
And should we have Vice Chair Hart
include some language to the effect
any other additional changes that
may be necessary to effectuate the outcome as described?
Yes.
OK.
Let's do that.
We have a motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second
by Commissioner Presiado.
And at this point, I'd like to turn the floor back
to Mr. Levy and his representatives, Ms. Lavin.
Thank you for the opportunity. We continue to still have the same objections to the cease and desist order and the related orders
One other thing we did want to note is to make sure that you communicate with the city of Carlsbad again
Our opinion that they see this matter differently
So I would request that you speak to them to make sure they understand the full implications of everything that's been discussed today
day since they weren't here today and I would probably say the same for the beach
away and thank you again for your time and opportunity I know this was a very
long day so thank you all thank you any further comments from the
representatives on zoom or mr. Levy okay thank you thank you miss yeah excuse me
can you hear me yes we can go ahead sir thank you yeah I really have no other
comments thank you thank you I have a clarifying question through the chair
Commissioner Wilson speaking of the city of Carlsbad and and the fines that
we're talking about here I'm just wondering do they would we could we give
instruction or what I want to know is can they avail of some of those fines
through the Commission in order to have some capital improvements to for that
specific space you know so that so that something's happening to improve the
access on their end because I would like to make sure that if there's resources
available that that they can avail of those the city would need to apply to
to the State Coastal Conservancy for a grant to use any or to have any of the
funds allocated out of the violation remediation account that they hold and
you know we would certainly support it because we you know this is obviously a
great public access improvement or could be a great access improvement but that
would be through the State Coastal Conservancy. Thank you for that
clarification, I encourage the city to apply. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you Madam Chair.
Just for my edification, did we clarify the fine component to your motion? Vice
Chair please. Through the chair. Thank you. Sure, so what I'm proposing as part of my
motion sir I have to go back and look at the exact fines. All right the fine that
was being you know the the fine that would apply if the gate were not opened
and then removed as staff has just indicated would be a million seventy
one thousand five hundred and sixty two dollars is that correct? The fine that
will be imposed as a result of the violations that have been described not
related to the gate is one million four hundred and twenty eight thousand seven
hundred and fifty and that'll be part of my series of motions. I appreciate that
clarification thank you. Mm-hmm okay so okay any further comments? Okay we have a
motion by Vice Chair Hart and a second by Commissioner Preciado I believe. Any
objections to unanimous yes vote being none the motion passes we'll move to
the second motion please thank you motion to is with regard to the
restoration order I move that the Commission issue restoration order
number CCC dash to five dash are zero dash zero to the John C Levy junior and
Jim Kelly and their individual capacities and or as trustees of the
John C. Levy Jr. revocable trust dated November 4th 2004 and or the Buena Vista
revocable trust pursuant to the staff recommendation and ask for a yes vote.
And does the restoration order would that also be subject to the amendment or
is that fully contained in the season desist? It's fully contained. That's
correct. So as as written. Second. Some motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by
Commissioner Wilson any objection to unanimous yes vote seeing no objections
the restoration order has been issued third motion please I move that the
commission issue administrative penalty number CCC dash to 5-a P dash 0 for
pursuant to section 3 0 8 2 1 of the Coastal Act to John C Levy jr. and Jim
Kelly and their individual capacities and or as trustees of the John C Levy
junior revocable trust dated November 4, 2004 and or the Buena Vista revocable
trust pursuant to the staff recommendation and ask for a yes vote.
Second. Some motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner Wilson. Any
objections to a unanimous yes vote? Seeing none, the resolution has been
adopted and I believe there's one final motion please. Correct. I move that the
Commission issue administrative penalty number CCC-25-AP3-02 pursuant
to section 308-1.3 of the Coastal Act, the John C. Levy Jr. and Jim Kelly in
their individual capacities and or as trustees of the John C. Levy Jr.
revocable trust dated November 4th 2004 and or the Buena Vista revocable trust
pursuant to the staff recommendation and ask for a yes vote.
second motion by vice-chair Hart a second by Commissioner Wilson any
objection to unanimous yes vote seeing no objections the resolution is so
adopted thank you very much to our staff thank you to mr. Levy and his team for
participating now we'll take our lunch break and I'll request that everyone is
back here at 2 30 p.m. please thank you okay welcome back hope everyone had a
good lunch and we'll continue on with the calendar and we are on item 8 the
deputy directors report for the South Coast District. Mr. Schwig. Thank you
Madam Chair. So our deputy directors report for South Coast Orange County in
this packet we are reporting the completion of the LCP amendment
certification for the City of Newport Beach's updates to its short-term
Reynolds program as well as other changes that were part of that sub-metal.
Here the executive directors determined the city's action is legally adequate to
complete certification process. We're also reporting out on seven waivers for
projects in Seal Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and San Clemente. We're not
no known opposition on those items so we're asking whether three or more
commissioners object to any of the waivers or the amendment in the report.
Thank you very much. Any ex partes? Any public speakers? We have two. They're
only available for questions. Great. Thank you very much. Do three or more
commissioners object to any item on the deputy directors report? Okay. Seeing no
objections, the commission can curse. Thank you. And now we will move on to
item 9b please. Great thank you and Vince Lee with our Long Beach office is
going to do that staff presentation so go ahead. All right good afternoon
commissioners this next item is 9b which is a coastal development permit
application to demolish an existing 1,440 square feet two-story duplex
merging existing five lots into one development parcel rehabilitate an
uses in historic building and construct two new two-story-over basement 33 feet
high structures that in total encompass a 28 unit hotel including six lower
cost units a roof deck and a 130 seat restaurant. A total of 2,400 square
cubic yards of grading is proposed and the applicant is SLC 200 LLC.
Slide please. The project site is located approximately 2,000 feet inland of the
public beach in a mixed-use district which includes commercial visitor
serving and residential development. The project site is comprised of five
adjoining lots that total a combined area of 21,400 square feet. Three lots
have furniture along Avenida Del Mar with the downtown mixed-use 3.0 zoning
designation and two lots are along Avenida Granada with the downtown mixed-use
3.3 zoning designation per the certified San Clemente land use plan. Two lots at
225 and 227 Avenue del Mar are vacant and have not been developed or graded.
The lot at 229 Avenue del Mar is developed with a two-story historic
structure that is currently utilized as a real estate office building occupied by
by Century 21.
The lot at 234 Avenida Granada is developed
with an existing parking lot,
which serves the Century 21 building
and is not available to the general public.
The lot at 232 Avenida Granada is developed
with an existing 1,440 square feet,
two-story duplex building with one-story garage.
Next slide, please.
The subject site is located
within the main commercial corridor, Avenida Del Mar,
that ultimately leads down to the public pier and the beach.
There is a mix of one to two-story residential
and commercial buildings along this corridor,
many exhibiting the Spanish
colonial revival-style architecture,
the cities known for,
and which the proposed project design follows.
Next slide.
The project at its core is a visitor-serving use
that should help to invigorate
this downtown pedestrian-oriented
visitor-serving commercial district.
In conformance with the coastal acts
and the LUP's lower cost
of night accommodation requirements,
the applicant proposes to provide six rooms
at the lower cost threshold onsite,
which is 27% of the number of proposed high cost rooms
that they propose.
Additionally, the proposed project would provide
no other no cost public access benefits,
including new landscape promenade and closure of a curve cut
to provide two new on-street public parking spaces.
The proposed number of lower cost rooms
in conjunction with these other public access benefits
is consistent with the commission's overarching goals
and intent in administering the Coastal Access
and Recurricular Policies,
namely ensuring that proposed visitors
serving on accommodation facilities in the Coastal Zone
include lower cost rooms and other low to no cost visitor
accommodating and public access amenities on site.
Staff recommends special condition two
to ensure that the designated rooms remain low cost
over time by memorializing the applicant's
proposed rate cap subject to annual rate increases
consistent with the California CPI.
Slide please.
The proposed development would demolish an existing
1,460 square feet duplex on one of the five lots
at 232 Avenue de Granada for the construction
of a new hotel and the restaurant.
Therefore, the project would result in a loss
of two residential units for the construction
of visitors serving commercial uses.
However, the city determined that the project
is consistent with state housing laws
because the existing duplex has never been income restricted
and is not a protected residential unit
within the meanings of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.
In addition, the applicant provided an analysis
which determined that the loss of two residential units
at the subject site will not affect the city's ability
to attribute its regional housing needs allocation goals
and does not violate housing laws
which seek to prevent in-let loss in residential density.
Commission staff consulted with the California Department
of Housing and Community Development
to confirm that the removal of the two on-site residential
units would be consistent with the state housing loss.
The HCD staff clarified that because the existing duplex
does not meet the criteria for affordable housing,
there is no concern with the land use change
from residential to visitor-serving commercial.
Therefore, the proposed project appears to be consistent
with the state housing laws which prohibit demolition
of protected residential units
and require local government to meet
its regional housing needs allocation obligation.
Staff would further note that the project represents
a development of a relatively higher COSLAC priority use,
mainly the COSLO visitor serving accommodation
adjacent to a popular visitor area.
Staff would note that after the staff report was published,
commission staff received one public comment
opposed to the project,
raising concerns about the project's insufficient parking,
increased and diverted traffic, excessive noise,
non-conforming structure height for the elevator towers,
and ultimately requesting approval of a smaller project.
Staff also received another comment today
addressing similar concerns.
Staff, commission staff published a staff report
them responding to this to these concerns but to summarize the applicant
provided a parking study which found the project's on-site parking supply of 36
parking spaces along with the implementation of the parking
management plan which includes staff parking policies bicycle program
metrolink subsidy subsidization and valid service plan for the proposed
project during all hours will be adequate in meeting the parking demand
estimates for the project.
Staff further recommends special condition three
to secure 12 offsite parking spaces
for employees of the hotel and the restaurant
as required by the city council
and require a public transit fare reimbursement program
for the hotel and restaurant employees
and a publicity program to distribute
the information to the employees.
The parking management plan also proposes
to properly train valet staff to minimize traffic
and congestion around the hotel premises.
With the concern about noise,
the city council action condition the project
to comply with the city's noise ordinance
and to require all exterior noise to terminate at 10 p.m.
and when amplified music is played after 10 p.m.,
within the interior of the restaurant,
all windows and doors must remain closed.
Staff believes that the proposed commercial use
is consistent with the mixed use zoning district
and that the project is consistent with the certified LUP,
which required that commercial projects
abutting residential neighborhoods be designed
and operated to protect residents
from the effects of noise, lights, others,
vibration traffic, parking, and other operational impacts.
Lastly, the city council approved
a minor conditional use permit to allow
the two proposed elevator towers
to exceed the maximum height of 33 feet
for the zoning district to 39 feet.
The council found that the location of the elevator towers
and the architectural features
are towards the center of the building
to reduce their apparent height
and supported the height exceptions
due to their architectural integration into the project.
Staff believes that the project site is not located
within the LUP designated public view corridors
and the height exceptions for the elevator towers
not have a significant visual resource impact on the area.
Next slide.
So in closing, staff recommends approval
of the proposed project with nine special conditions,
preserving and promoting the proposed lower cost
of night accommodation on site,
protecting water quality during and after construction,
prohibition of single-use plastics,
protection of nesting birds in the area during construction,
and protecting paleontological, archeological,
and tribal cultural resources during ground
to serving activities.
The motion to carry out the staff's recommendation
is on page five and this concludes staff presentation.
Great, thank you very much.
Are there any ex parte's to report?
I have one on Tuesday night,
that's October 7th, I think.
I thank you, October 7th, yes.
I spoke via phone very briefly at 8.30 p.m.
to Ann Blemker and Susan McCabe,
representatives of the applicant and they just informed me that they are in
support of staff recommendations and we briefly discussed whether this item was
moving to consent which I responded that I didn't know. That was the balance of
our conversation. Okay with that hearing no other ex partes we will open the
public hearing and I'll throw it over to Kristin Sloan. Okay so we have one
applicant that wishes to speak and then we have four speakers so we'll start
with Mike Sims he should be here your presentation. Good afternoon.
Yes they're bringing it up. How much time do you need sir? 10 minutes most likely 5 with
saving five for any rebuttal. Thank you. All right well thank you chair
commissioners and coastal staff we appreciate your thoughtful and work in
collaboration on this project. We're excited to bring a right-size visitor
serving boutique hotel that fits San Clemente's character and the Coastal Act.
This will be the first full-service hotel in San Clemente and an inclusion of
low-cost rooms I think is a great added bonus. For the past three years
we've had a robust public process, two design review
subcommittee meetings before we were offered to go to Planning Commission. We
We had two Planning Commission hearings and then off to City Council where we ended up
having also another full City Council hearing.
This project was permitted at the city level with no variances required.
We designed it within the existing codes of St. Clemente.
Each step produced real improvements.
We listened and refined to respect neighbors and strengthen the public process or public
access.
As you see, we are building a 28-room boutique hotel.
This will be my first hotel foray.
I'm in the restaurant business.
I will be the applicant, developer, and the operator as well.
It will have an onsite restaurant, outdoor seating,
designed around the restored historic resource.
Located in existing mixed use, pedestrian area off of Del Mar,
exactly where visitor serving uses thrive.
Six rooms will be designated as low cost, as staff mentioned,
using commission methodology.
This onsite access will matter.
small but meaningful public promenade, uh, I'm sorry, next slide.
Actually, I'm going to skip a couple. Next slide.
Uh, next slide.
And next slide. Thank you.
Uh, most of these images you've seen with staffs proposal.
Um, a small but meaningful public promenade linking Del Mar de Granada,
closing a curb cut to improve the walkability and adding public street
parking.
Um, next two slides, please.
As mentioned, it will be authentic Spanish colonial revival architecture,
respecting massing, stepped forms and high quality materials.
We refine heights and setbacks and screening to protect light, privacy and views,
these improvements born from public feedback.
Please, next slide.
As mentioned, with housing, we recognize we're a commercial use as well,
and we're also next to homes, and we will operate accordingly.
We are also residential in practice.
We have 28 guests who want quiet nights
so they can sleep well, rate us well, and hopefully return.
Resentives align with the neighborhoods.
Practical commitments such as indoor only amplified music
and limited hours of that music, noise dampening lifts,
and mechanicals, and all deliveries on Del Mar
with inset windows, along with a noise-masking fountain
and walling on the rooftop deck to minimize sound that
transfer to the neighbors in the rear. Next slide please. So some tangible
benefits as I mentioned include the low-cost room component on site, the
prominent and activated sidewalk patio and improve the pedestrian experience
along Del Mar from two vacant lots to I think a gorgeous facility. The more
on-street parking is also an added benefit. There's a current curb cut that
access at the parking lot to the rear from Avenia del Mar that will be closed
off as our access will be from the rear in adding those parking spaces to the
main street. And then next slide please. We have a valet managed on-site parking
with efficient circulation. We had a parking study done that was
peer-reviewed by the city that showed the demand is met without spillover. We'll
have off and we also in addition to that parking study we agreed to have 12
off-site parking spaces for our employees, plus a managed pickup and
drop-off zone. This should reduce, this will reduce circling and protects
neighborhood curb space. We also believe it will also have safer loading and
better street function along Del Mar. And last slide please. Staff's addendum
addresses a lot of the concerns raised in the public comments up until now. I
I fully support that amendment.
This project adds access, respects neighbors,
and celebrates San Clemente's character,
and we fully align with staff's recommendations
and conditions.
We respectfully request your approval.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, come on.
Okay, so we have George Alvarez, followed by Sherry Little,
followed by Matt West and Tom Carmichael.
should be here in person. Good afternoon commissioners, my name is
George Alvarez and I live at 230 Avenida Granada which is the property right
next door of the duplex that they are flying to demolish and also the back of
of the building facing Del Mar is facing my backyard.
So I am wrapped around by this, like an L shape,
by this massive, unfedible building
and such a small ad for five lot.
I live in this house since 1991, so it's about 34 years.
I've seen industry, the parking issues that we have
on downtown Del Mar, which have been increased
after the pandemic, City of San Clemente allowed restaurants
to build all these decks, covering, using parking spots.
So people, and Thursday, Friday, Saturday,
and sometimes Sunday, they're driving around
and around and around, trying to find places,
blocking my driveway, and it's a nightmare.
I don't think this project has been properly
studied for the area.
San Clemente is a sleepy town.
We are not Manhattan Beach or Redondo Beach
or Dana Point, because Dana Point has room to expand.
They need, one of the conditional approval
was 12 more parkings.
they need to provide that parking.
We don't know who's gonna supervise that.
And then the problem with cars,
with, I don't know how many ballot parking
they gonna have, is right in my front door.
And along the driveway,
if you go to page seven of their presentation,
you will see that the driveway goes along my property.
My windows, my bedroom windows are right there.
at two or three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning I'm gonna have to deal
with that. I request the city to extend the carport and build a wall okay but
they don't hear. I hope that you put some justice on this. Thank you. Thank you
next is Sherry Lidle. I'm happy to be here to speak to you today. I previously
submitted a letter to all to the staff and hopefully it was given all of you and
you will read it. Could you give us your name please? Sheree Lidle. I'm sorry I'm a
resident of San Clemente. I live on Avenida Granada. I am right in front of
the property. I am across the street and I am not part of the overlay or anything
to do with the industrial. I just wanted to say that I'm opposed to this
project for only two reasons one I want to speak to today and we haven't had
anything built like this and if it is approved and built in 100 years this is
a historical vote it's gonna change the whole sleepy town area that we have an
open up possibly to other developers coming in behind it to change that what
our city has wanted to keep and try to protect for so long but I really want to
talk about the parking as it pertains to PUB-23 parking requirements and staff
can update you later on what that verbiage is. I want to say that I believe
the parking study by the city and by the applicant is flawed. It does not take
into account basically that we have street cleaning every other week, Tuesday
from 9 to 1, Wednesday from 9 to 1. It doesn't take into account that we have
two-hour parking on Avenida del Mar and none of the workers that work day and
night are able to park there. They park on our streets for long periods of time
day and night and take up our parking. It does not account for all the days our
city uses and blocks off the entire streets for all of the major events
where the hub for our entire city. It does not take into account our farmers
market on Sunday every Sunday from 6 to 1. It does not take into account our art. I would
like that studied and I would like that brought in to be a proper representation of our sleepy
downtown that the whole city uses. Thank you.
Matt West followed by Tom Carmichael.
I am Matt West. I am actually going to hit on pretty much all of the same points but
But I want to also point out the fact that well, obviously, you know, what they're doing
is in code to where they're building this, but you have to remember on the other side
of Granada, that is 100% residential.
This is not a mixed-use neighborhood.
So when cars are queuing at check-in and check-out, this is something that hasn't happened before,
but all of you, and we're in a hotel right now, we all know that when you go during check-in
and check out time. It's not like a restaurant where you have reservations that just kind
of flow through. This is huge influxes of cars that are arriving at one time and leaving
at one time. That one time happens to be actually a lot of those times happen to be on weekends.
So I just wanted to call that to attention. The other thing is, you know, we, Cherie touched
this a little bit, San Clemente del Mar Street shuts down several times a year completely.
That's where festivals happen, big city events, it's kind of like the center point where everybody
come down to convene together.
Those days are going to be hugely impactful on the city and I truly believe that a proper
parking and traffic study needs to be done in San Clemente,
or San Clemente, the one as I understand it was taken
from a model done in Manhattan Beach,
which is a completely different town.
It's not an island.
We're more like the city of Avalon, right?
We're not like Manhattan Beach.
We're pretty much on an island down there.
We have Pendleton on one side and not much north of us.
So I just ask that you guys seriously consider
some kind of additional traffic and parking study
before this thing moves forward.
Thank you.
Carl Michael.
He turned it on.
My name is Tom Carmichael.
I live directly across from the entrance to the new hotel
and restaurant.
I think that the whole parking scene,
and what it skipped over a little bit,
is all of these 36 parking spots are lifts.
They're stacking cars.
They don't have the room for what they're trying to do.
They're going to stack them.
And from what I've looked at, each one of these parking
deals have beepers on them.
OSHA proof.
You have to have those go anytime they're in motion.
Living straight across the street, I feel like it's quiet.
It's very quiet at night.
And if they're doing any of that stuff at night,
it's going to be beep, beep, beep, beep.
it's gonna be consistent all the time. So that's my biggest issue but you like
they said we have a lot of times where they shut off Del Mar a hundred percent
the parking even on even on the day is the street sweeping you can't find the
parking space and I've watched the people that work at the restaurants say
forget it I'm leaving my car there I'll pay the 70 bucks I gotta go to work and
They go around them which leaves debris in our gutters, and where does it wind up the bottom of the hill?
I just think that we really need to look at it's a small town. I don't mind if it's a restaurant
I don't mind if it's a hotel, but I think they're cramming a lot into this little space and
There's enough room to sack for maybe five cars in the entrance of it, and if more than that come I
Think we're we're in trouble. And so
please just take a close look at what we're at and
If we get any help we get get help because we've lost a lot of spaces a lot of the
Have have decks out in front. Thank you for your time
Thank you back includes our speakers
Okay. Thank you very much. I believe the applicant had some time
If you wish to use it
Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate that. So I'll close the public hearing and return to staff
They have a response
Thank you. Just a moment. Amrita Spencer with our Long Beach office
She's our manager for this area and she'll be doing the staff response
Thank you
Staff just has a few quick comments with regard to parking
Staff would you know like to reiterate that the applicant did
conduct a parking study which concluded that the
Parking sub the on-site parking supply of 36 spaces is adequate for the project when considered along with the proposed
bicycle program Metrolinx subsidies and
valet service plan
Just a few notes about the valet service plan that incorporates
A long driveway loading to minimize congestion. They're parking, you know parking lifts for the on-site
36 spaces
a 24-7 attended valet
And I would also note that you know, the applicant is available to
provide any more
responses and information about that program
with regard to noise
Staff would note that the city does have an instituted noise ordinance for the area, which that's a 10 p.m. Curfew for
all major noises
so
staff determined that the noise ordinance would
You know address any concerns pertaining to noise
I think that
includes staff's comments for now,
but we are available to answer any additional questions.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, I'll return to the commission
for comments, questions, motion.
Vice Chair Hart.
I have a question with regard to the lower cost rooms.
So I was really happy to see that the commission
now has a page listing lower cost lodging
that's available on our website.
I think that's great where you can go
you can see and link to where people can find these rooms, because you know that's
always bugging us that you know how do people find them. So what I would ask is
could it be included in the permit both on there online you know when you go to
the hotel's website as well as in the hotel lobby that there's some kind of a
notice made that lower-cost rooms are being provided. I guess this goes to you
sir I'm not sure what it goes to just to indicate that there are low-cost rooms
you know and it could just to make it easy and obvious to people that this is
an option I'm not sure how we could do that staff's perspective that's thing
one that I wanted to talk about and then just thing number two is that the beeping
sound of the up and down of the car system the parking system I'm sure so
that would be violative of the Nordic noise ordinance if it was on at night
Could it be turned off or how does that work? I think questions about the
functioning of the the LIF system might be better directed to the applicant. We
can maybe we start there and then we can come back and address your other
question. Please. So thank you very much. Just also to
the sample many steps available for any comment or questions that you might have
for them as well. So regarding the LIFs it's a system that has a hydraulic motor
that's going to be enclosed in the elevator motor room as well so there's
no actual mechanicals that are outside of that of that room furthermore the
parking lifts are and the parking lot is above is right below 14 of our rooms so
the the there's basically hotel guests right above this so the lifts that we
have lined up are not extremely noisy of any sort so there'll be no beeping
There'll be it's it's all pressurized powered by a single compressor that's in
a different room that will be noise abated as well on top of one of the
conditions is that if there is for some reason violation of the noise ordinance
we would have to install further soundproofing until it's it's no longer
but we have tremendous incentives to make sure that our residential guests
above us are not disturbed as well. Anything further? Just a response to my
earlier request that on your website for the hotel as well as so in your
hotel in the lobby or somewhere as well as on the website it indicates the
availability of the six lower-cost rooms. Yes through the chair we do recommend
under condition to be a marketing and engagement plan so the applicant would
be required to promote and publicize the availability on the lower-cost rooms on their website.
And we've also outlined prior to issuance of a permit outreach that the applicant would
need to detail in such a marketing plan.
I would also note that marketing plan will come to staff for review.
So we'll be looking into all the elements of it, and we'll make sure that we get it
on our website.
And really, because again, that's a huge component, making sure that the folks that really need
these rooms the most know that they exist.
So that's where this condition comes from and something we're really going to be focusing
on improving in the long run.
Thank you.
That's very helpful.
Any other?
Commissioner Wilson.
Just a question on the housing part of this.
And so can you just give me a little bit more on that?
HCD says these units are not worth protecting.
Yeah, through the chair, staff did consult with the HCD staff regarding the conversion
of these existing duplex and due to the fact that the existing duplex is not an income
restricted unit you're not affordable units so and and the city was on track
in terms of meeting its regional housing needs allocation obligation in their
housing element so given all these HCD staff was okay with this conversion of
the residential to a certain commercial hook yesterday I got a little a little
hassle for a protest vote so this is what I'm gonna do today because I'll if
no one if nobody else votes no on this project because I want to say staff did
a great job I do think it's a good project but the loss of two units I
just want to say California's housing policy contains fundamental contradiction
we aggressively promote adding housing units through streamlined approvals and
subsidies arguing that every unit matters in bringing down cost. Yet HCD has
determined that losing these two units has no impact. So we have our
legislation SB 9, SB 79, the Housing Crisis Act. It prioritizes total housing
production. It only minorly really supports affordable housing. So based on
this based on a supply and demand construct. So the state overrides local
control oftentimes and I often agree with the policies really actually and
provides these you know these entitlements because it's too expensive
to build and we are desperately low twenty two and a half million units but
when existing housing is demolished no cost no mitigation no replacement
requirement just no impacts if they don't meet this narrow definition of
of income restricted.
So it's just an asymmetry in that discussion.
For me, it's just a very uncomfortable space to be.
So building housing deserves subsidies and all these things
because it's expensive and supply matters.
But demolishing it, in this case, has no cost or no impact.
So these are two real homes.
You can look at them on a thing already built,
already paid for.
There are people living in them.
They're not huge.
are you know there's maybe they don't meet that criteria but you can tell that
it's not fancy and people live in them so either every unit matters in the
housing crisis or it doesn't and so for me I agree with the staff's analysis on
this I just have a I just want to say that I just have a real concern about
the loss of these two units in the context what we keep talking about the
pressure on this organization around housing and and what that means and also
all of our local jurisdictions as well. So if nobody else votes no on this
because I will be at the end because of the way this we do this in alphabetical
order lucky me. There's only one instance in my life where being you know last on
the on the on the alphabetical order actually has any benefit but if no one
else does I will so that's that's all I got. Thank you. Don't follow Commissioner
Wilson off the cliff this way. If I say don't follow me off the cliff but you
won't have to because I go last. Okay Commissioner Preciado then Commissioner
Nada. Commissioner Wilson I I must apologize if I insisted too much that
your support for a Ficus tree was exciting.
Did we hear that the City of San Clemente is available to answer?
I'm hearing the public's testimony, I was interested about Avenida del Mar and how
how the city views this important new use that is coming to these spaces, and I was
somewhat interested in their perspective because the residents seem to have a different view.
So if the city could just comment on how this supports their vision for that area, if appropriate.
If appropriate thank you. Could we promote a representative from the city?
Please we do have one in person Andy Hall. Okay, and then we do have one on zoom Jonathan lightfoot. I
Believe mr. Lightfoot this appropriate person moving them in right now. Thank you Chris
If I could just expand my comments on so there's discussion of closing that Benita del Mar
of all of the civic activity, et cetera.
And so I don't have a conflict with the project itself,
but it just seems like the residents have a perspective
of that corner and maybe I just need to hear from the city.
And Jonathan Lightfoot is in as a panelist now.
You should be able to unmute.
Good afternoon, commission.
Thank you for taking the time to review this item
and for taking the time to hear our voices to stop.
Avenue del Mar is the historic downtown for San Clemente and the context the
development context in this area often includes commercial uses that permeate
through to either the two side streets I've needed Cabrillo to the north or
Avenue Granada to the south so up and down that road you commonly see a link
between commercial fronting on Del Mar with a minimal amount of parking on that
the walkable downtown area.
And linkages to the back sides of those properties
that provides parking or other types of access
and occasion additional commercial facilities.
The other public commenters
live on the other side of the street,
which does have a different zoning.
It's a residential medium zoning
on the other side of the street,
but where this hotel is located
or proposed to be located
is within our downtown mixed use area,
also within our LUPSA coastal visitor serving area.
So this, I think does have a good opportunity
to not just build vacant space on the street,
but provide a linkage from the 100 block to the 200 block.
Historically, there was a three to four story hotel
at the top of Avenue del Mar,
one of the first buildings in the city, 1927,
that was converted to housing many decades ago.
but we don't know what it is
So there's no visitor serving
property or hotel property on
this street at the time, at
this time. And so the city does
see that this would serve a
valuable opportunity for
visitors to come to the
downtown area. It's a short
walking distance to our local
answers your question, I'm certainly happy to respond to that.
It does and the only other question I have for the project developer is one of the residents
indicated that their driveway abut the driveway to the project is right next to the one of
the residents and I'm just wondering if there's any screaming or anything like that that could
help the project not impact that particular resident but I don't as I
visualized everything I was trying to see but I was just interested in that I
don't know if the the developer can comment if there's any screening or any
shrubbery that could be helpful sir please turn the mic on thank you we will
do it we'll have a wall that will separate the properties just as and it
will be landscaped as well.
The neighbor, Mr. Alvarez, has wanted to have a separation
between what our operations are,
so I think we feel that's the best way
to protect his client enjoyment
is having a part of our retaining wall
will be just elevated so that any noise
or anything of that nature
would protect his property as best as possible.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
prepared to make the motion. My husband graduated from San Clemente High so
maybe take this. So I it sounds like the developers have are listening to the
neighbors it's in the zone it's zoned for what the use is and I certainly if
there isn't a specific requirement for building this wall to protect the
neighbor is that in the in the conditions or should we add it to the
conditions we don't have it in the conditions I suppose we could add
something that required that requires some plan to be submitted to us about
how they'll be screening the neighboring property although I want to think that
through for just a second it sounds like the the project proponent is adding that
to the project but he's made a commitment that I'd like to see it in
conditions. Okay we will the final plans condition. Through the chair we could
address that by adding a final plans condition prior to issuance that would
require the wall to be present in the project plans before we sign off and
issue the CDP. It basically requires demonstration of what we just talked
about to staff before we sign up on the permit so I think it would achieve what
you're looking for okay so so then I can still do this recommendate the motion as
written because the recommendation we are we are officially revising our staff
recommendation to include a final plans condition that requires demonstration of
the walls described before issuance of the CDP and I'd like to jump in and just
confirm I saw the applicant nodding their agreement but can you confirm that
that is acceptable to you. On the mic please. That is acceptable. Thank you.
Commissioner Nada. All right so with that I move that the commission approve
Coastal Development Permit number 5-24-0966 pursuant to the staff
recommendation and I'm urging an aye vote. That's a motion by Commissioner
a second by commissioner Presiado.
May we please have a roll call vote.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lee.
Yes.
Lee, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Notoff.
Aye.
Not off, yes. Commissioner Preciado. Yes.
Preciado, yes. Commissioner Wilson. No.
Wilson, no. Chair Harmon. Yes.
Harmon, yes. The vote is 10, yes, 1, no.
Thank you. The motion passes. Thank you all.
Okay. Now the last item on the calendar today is item 10.
That does take us to item 10. Thank you.
which is the deputy director's report for our San Diego coast district.
We're reporting five waivers for projects in Oceanside,
Solano Beach, and San Diego,
and one CDP extension for project in Encinitas.
I do want to note that an addendum was posted this week,
removing a waiver from the report from the city of San Diego
regarding relocation of certain firings in Mission Beach.
While staff moved quickly to get this request in front of the Commission the city requested the item be delayed
While they work out some issues with their local approval process
That could result in some changes to the project. So that particular waiver will not be acted on today
Second there is correspondence in the report related to the city of Oceansides
pilot dune habitat creation project on several public beaches up coast of the municipal pier.
One of the commenters makes several suggestions related to signs at a community known as North Coast village
that is near one of the restoration locations.
However, North Coast village is not involved with this project and the suggestions are outside the scope of the city's proposal
project. There were also comments with suggestions about the type of sand that
ought to be used for the dunes. However, it's important to note that no sand is
being brought to the beach to build the dunes. Instead, the project is designed to
naturally recruit and capture windblown sand with the proposed wood shims, the
sand fencing, and the growth of dune vegetation. So other than that, there's no
on opposition and we're asking whether three or more commissioners object the
waivers or the extension in the report. Thank you very much Mr. Schwing. Are there
any ex partes? Any public speakers? Yes we have two that are in person Charlie
Bowen and Mitch Silverstein. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is
Charlie Bowen. I run communications for Save Oceanside Sand. We strongly urge
approval of the Coastal Development Permit Waiver for agenda item 10,
and Oceanside's Coastal Dunes Restoration Pilot Project.
Oceanside's beaches have narrowed for decades,
leaving our shoreline and infrastructure
increasingly at risk.
This project represents a forward-thinking,
nature-based solution,
restoring small vegetated dunes that absorb wave energy,
trap sand, and reduce flooding,
while creating habitat for coastal wildlife.
It becomes another tool
in Oceanside's Coastal Management Toolkit.
the main component of which is rebeech.
The pilot is supported by a US Fish and Wildlife Service Grant
with no cost to local taxpayers.
Acceptance of the grant was unanimously approved
by the Oceanside City Council.
The pilot also helps Oceanside meet the goals
of Senate Bill 272 requiring local governments
to plan for sea level rise.
By testing dune restoration now,
Oceanside is learning, adapting and positioning itself
for future state and federal investments
in larger scale coastal projects.
This is a low impact, high value project
that demonstrates how communities can move
from planning to action and how working with nature
can protect our coastline for generations to come.
Our work this year with the Oceanside Historical Society
revealed that coastal dunes played a major role
in Oceanside beach resiliency many generations ago.
We respectfully ask for your support
and approval of the waiver.
Thank you for your support of coastal communities
like Oceanside that are ready to be part of the solution.
Thanks for your time.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein again,
California Policy Senior Coordinator
for Surfighter Foundation.
I just want to echo what he said.
He's...
It's a lot better than anything I prepared.
I'm out of time.
I'm out of time.
Yeah, great job, Charlie.
100% agree with all of that.
And I was just reading me and a couple of SurFighter employees
to draft guidance for nature-based solutions
that I think will be before the commission at some point.
December.
Yeah, in December.
So I just wanted to speak on behalf of this project.
It's really cool to see.
I mean, of course, as SurFighter as a member of the public,
we always want to see a lot of public engagement
and public review.
But this is such a small project.
And it went through so many iterations locally
and so much engagement.
I mean, it almost got killed multiple times.
And I'm so glad to see it here.
It's about one acre of dune restoration
across three separate beaches.
So very small, as Mr. Schwing said,
no importation of sand, no reductions of access.
And so it's nice to see that this can be streamlined
here at the commission.
I mean, this is probably like two years maybe,
the city level, and only three months here
because Jamie Timberlake, the Coastal Zone Administrator,
she submitted this in July.
So my math isn't great.
about three months. So it's really cool to see this and get a waiver here at the
Commission and stream through and get Oceanside again on this path towards
nature-based solutions and being proactive instead of just reactive to
kind of retain sand on the beach and bring back much-needed natural habitat
in a very very urban beach. So just stoked to see it and glad to see it's a
coastal development permit waiver in this case as well. Thank you.
Thank you.
I complete that public speaking.
Awesome.
Thank you very much.
OK, do three or more commissioners
would object to any item in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
And before we move to closed session,
I'm going to just circle back to the trailed statewide items
from yesterday.
I think we have some minutes to approve.
Looks like the June meeting minutes.
So August, and August, excuse me.
So I'll entertain a motion, comments?
Okay, moved by Commissioner.
Moved by Commissioner Lopez.
I'll take a second.
Second.
Thank you.
Move by Commissioner Lopez.
Second by Vice Chair Hart.
Let's do a roll call vote on this please.
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.
Commissioner Lee?
Abstain.
Lee, abstain.
Commissioner Notoff?
Notoff.
Yes.
Commissioner Presiado?
Aye.
Yes.
Yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley.
Yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon yes.
I'm still missing someone.
Who am I missing?
Wilson.
Did I get you?
Okay.
The vote is unanimous.
Yes, again.
Okay.
The minutes are approved for sure.
Okay.
We'll see, did I get you?
Okay.
The vote is unanimous.
Yes, again.
Okay.
The minutes were approved, for sure.
Okay, very briefly, one last thing.
We had a Conservancy meeting this month, and I don't think Madeleine Cavalieri is available.
She attended in my stead, but I want to encourage everyone to look at the report.
A lot of great work was done.
And I also had the immense pleasure of participating in a field trip to view some Santa Barbara
County projects that have been funded by the Conservancy and just a huge amount of expertise
and good work that is happening and so much value statewide is being produced and it's
one of the things that really stood out to me in this field trip is though a lot of these
grants are for specific locations, the learnings are really teaching us a lot to have application
across the state and so my gratitude for the Conservancy for all they do and for
arranging that really really wonderful field trip. Okay Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you Madam Chair and I just have a quick report. I was invited I think
stemming from attending the biodiversity cop last year in Cali, Colombia with
California delegation which is was about a hundred person strong led by
resources I would say, and so they get the ambassador, Colombian ambassador has
reached out and wants to meet some of the top environmental officials in the
state. So tomorrow I have to be in San Francisco and we'll be with the chair of
the Energy Commission, we'll be with EPA Secretary Deanna Garcia and some of the
other staff from the governor's office on international issues. So I just wanted
to let you know I'll be talking at the Coastal Act and of course this
wonderful Commission and I'll be representing this proudly. Awesome, very
exciting. Okay, thank you so we will adjourn to closed session.