Good morning everyone so happy to be here with all of you for the November
session of the California Coastal Commission. I will call this meeting to
order and we'll begin with a roll call please.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Present.
Commissioner Eckerle.
Here.
Commissioner Escalante.
Here.
Commissioner Hart.
Present.
Commissioner Jackson.
Here.
Commissioner Rodoni.
Present.
Commissioner Larson here, Commissioner Lopez here, Commissioner not off here,
Commissioner Preciado, Commissioner Williams here, Commissioner Wilson here,
Chair Harmon here, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. And now we'll move
to the virtual meeting procedures please. Thank you. Good morning. This Coastal
Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through Zoom. This meeting is
also being webcast and can be viewed online at Cal-Span.org. If you have access to the
Internet and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak on an item, we
recommend you use the CalSpan website. Those who wish to address the Commission today can
do so in person, through the Zoom platform or by phone. The speaker request forms may
be found on the Commission's webpage. Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless
submittal are available 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. Request
to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted
after 9 a.m. on each day of the meeting. In order to provide the opportunity for
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 the phone.
Madam chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Great.
Thank you very much, Chris.
Now, that brings us to general public comment, please, or sorry, agenda changes, is actually
where we are.
Thank you, Madam chair.
Good morning to the commission and to everybody who's joining us today.
We did publish an agenda changes sheet earlier the week
and that list has not changed,
but I'll go through that now.
Starting with item 11A,
the City of Laguna Beach's LCP amendment regarding ADUs.
This is a time extension only, that's moved to consent.
Item 13B, which is application five, 24, 742.
This is the railroad project in San Clemente
that is moved to consent.
Item 15A, the city of Oceansides LCP amendment
on their downtown density, sixth housing cycle amendment,
time extension only, that's moved to consent.
Item 16B, the application 624, 859,
the Oceansides Loma-Alta Creek mouth maintenance,
That's moved to consent.
And last item, 16C, application 625, 425.
This is PMB Carmel Valley LLC,
and that is moved to consent.
And that concludes the agenda changes this morning.
Great, thank you very much, Mr. Schwing.
Okay, now we will move to general public comment, please.
All right, for members of the public,
I'll be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers
and invite you to speak when it is your turn.
Each speaker will be allowed two minutes
during general public comment
at the discretion of the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom,
we will be bringing you in as panelists.
As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload,
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 will 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 the speak.
There is a raise your hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by dialing star 9.
If you are participating by zoom, you should see a button on your zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand
now.
it is your time to speak we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera. You can
unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six. Today it looks like we have 16 speakers
for general public comment. We'll start with those in the room, Jennifer Savage and then
Steve Ray. And then we do have a presentation for Jennifer Savage.
I should turn the mic on.
Hello.
All right.
Thank you.
Jennifer Savage, California policy associate director for the Surf Rider Foundation.
I wanted to just talk quickly about California's marine protected area network.
Can I have the next slide, please?
So I know that many of you are familiar with California's marine protected area network,
but for anyone who needs a refresher or is somewhat new to it, in 2012 California implemented
world-class system of 124 marine protected areas through this very
comprehensive stakeholder-led public process. I was part of that process back
on the North Coast and these are places that are protected similar to how our
parks and our wilderness areas are protected but underwater. And so this is
oh next slide please. I wish I could have like one big map but it won't fit on the
screen so I have it in sections but just to give you an idea of how many different
places there are and where they're located. Here you can see the north coast
and the north central coast. Next slide please. And then we have the central
coast. And the next slide please. And then we have the south coast. So as you
can see there's a lot of these places. They are some of the most biodiverse
and interesting places along our coast. They are hotbeds of not only marine
biodiversity but also recreation, tourism. They're really important in incredible
areas. Next slide, please. And there are tons of resources and organizations
that are working to make information about these places widely accessible to
make to work on doing scientific monitoring. Next slide, please. You'll see
signs for them all over the place when you are at the coast telling you about
these really important places. Next slide, please. They are relevant to you
to your permitting authority for coastal development and your mandate to protect
coastal waters in the coastal act. Next slide please. And very exciting news that
they were just recognized as an international gold standard for marine
conservation. And I am hoping that commissioner might elaborate on that further in the
meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Steve Ray. And then after Steve we'll move to our
zoom participants starting with Jennifer Grestin, Peter Kaus, and Adam Leverence.
Well I wish we could still donate time. I'd give my time to Jennifer. I want to
hear more about what she's got to say. Well good morning Madam Chair,
commissioners, staff and members of the public. My name is Steve Ray. I'm a
coastal activist and citizen, I guess you might say environmentalist. I'm an
unpaid volunteer. I do this for now 43 years and people are always asking me
exactly what you do. And why are you at the Coast Commission all the time? I have
one answer for them, because I love the environment, our natural environment, and
I love the coast, and I want to do everything I can to save it, and
fortunately I have the time and still have enough voice left to do it. So as
long as my voice holds out, they're going to be seeing me. I did want to mention one
thing that I'm going to be talking more about with you in future sessions,
because you've got issues coming up in the future that relate to cumulative impacts.
Cumulative impacts are what when you take a whole bunch of projects that are being built in an area
whether it's a city or a county or the entire coast of California there are impacts from those
and many of those can be overcome with some mitigation or the fact that they're not that
serious and they can be let through. So when you have a bunch of them all up and down the state
they accumulate and they create much larger issues to be considered.
So I want to bring that issue over to you because I am going to be addressing it in future sessions
and I look forward to making more sense of what cumulative impacts are and how they are
joined together to form some of the things that we must consider and that you must make decisions on.
So, thank you very much and be talking to you soon.
All right, thank you.
Now moving on to our Zoom participants.
Our next three speakers are sharing your presentation.
We have Jennifer Creston, Peter Kaus, and Adam Leverens.
Jennifer Creston.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you. Good morning.
I'm Jennifer Creston, and I appreciate very much what you all do for us.
Please call up my slides.
This is my slide.
I shared this historical photo of Newport Harbor last month,
and there are various businesses, as you can see, small cottages and boats on moorings.
And the moorings continue to offer affordable coastal access,
but the quaint cottages are mostly gone, often replaced by multi-million dollar homes and mansions.
Next slide, please.
I showed these real estate listings last month, too, for $14 million, $14.5 million, $18 million, $19.5 million.
Next slide, please.
This listing was for $29 million.
Next slide, please.
It comes with a dock to birth vessels in public waters,
which you can see can accommodate a decent size boat.
What wine storage looks like in a home of that price
is also interesting.
Next slide, please.
The underlying image here is from the city's website.
The yellow arrow points to the subject properties dock
showed in the light blue rectangle.
And the annual fee for this dock is around $91.
The green arrow shows an adjacent mooring.
The city sublets these moorings when they're vacant.
Next slide, please.
And here's some of the math on those mooring sublet fees.
As you can see, they contribute far and above
what the owner of the $29 million home pays.
Some wealthy enough to own such homes
would prefer not to see boats on the public tide lands
outside their windows.
The harbor's tide lands, though,
belong to the citizens of California,
not the waterfront homeowners,
and neither they nor the city
have the right to exclude others from accessing these places, especially when those they seek to
exclude are paying far more towards Thailand's stewardship than they pay for their docks.
Next slide, please. There are many, many people who cannot afford the exclusive level of coastal
access that the privilege of having property in Newport Beach offers. This is where preservation
of the near 100-year-old mooring permit system comes into play. The local coastal program,
coastal land use plan even seeks to preserve them as an important source of low-cost public access
to the harbor and water and I would like the commission to step in and put the equity through
the CDC process. Thank you very much. All right, next Peter Kaz. Could this please
go back to slide six? Thank you. Good morning, my name is Peter Kay. I wanted to make clear
the fee level that people pay when the city rents out our morning tackle while it's vacant.
Nearly 900 for, 900 for 15 days, nearly 1800 per month. Over 21 000 annually. If anyone ever to,
were ever to stay that long. These monies go to the city and Thailand fund, not to the
morning pyramid homeowner. Please go to a slide on page eight. Thank you. On September 1st,
the owner of a $20 million dollar emailed the harbor master citing something he calls
a two-week but forever livable. The homeowner logged multiple complaints, number one through four,
a barking dog, a noisy generator and a proper visible and unkempt look of the day. These are
ordinances and codes in place to address all of these complaints. But the homeowner
choose to open up a conversation with the city attorney with the objective of ending the live
aboard practice entirely. This, even though the city live aboard permit system is highly refined
and is more regulated than virtually any other user of the title, even though the morning permit
holders pay higher fees than most of all others. Next slide please. The $20 million homeowner
writes about the demonstrated political will of Neopold Beach City Council for a total restriction
on liveaboard and notes that he is a starter conversation with harbor commissioners and seek
to include the city attorney and council. Next slide please. On September 2nd he emailed the
seven harbor commissioners, the harbor master, and the city attorney noting the cap of 51
live aboard primaries and seeking legal support from the city to eradicate this entire community.
All this during the severe housing affordability crisis from the guy with a $20 million home
who pays about $91 a year for his use of tight land in New York Police. Thank you.
Thank you, Adam Leverns and then following Adam will be Pauline Seals and Nathan Brenner.
Adam Leverns. Oh, good morning. Am I coming in? Yes, we can hear and see you. Okay,
could you go to the next slide please? As a result of the previous two speakers and the complaint
from the 29 million dollar homeowner, I interpret these things as being a result of that.
The Harbor Master in his update provided September 10th did an analysis on mooring sublets which is
when they ran out of vacant mooring permitted to someone to someone else and the city keeps
the money for that and as of the report he indicated there there were 14 sublets for offshore
moorings and two of those were living aboard he identifies the dates that those two individuals
started, one being 7-15-2025, the other 8-2-2025. So the first one, having been there for 113 days,
would have now paid over $6,600 in tidelands fees. Keep in mind this is in comparison to the $29
million homeowner paying $91 a year. The second sublet person would have paid over $5,600
in 95 days and again the homeowners complaining about these individuals which are highly regulated
and then on the bottom from the next harbor master update in October he said at the insistence
of a peninsula resident the visiting visiting meritor utilizing a series of sub permits was
relocated. Next slide please. And so what happens a 29 million dollar homeowner lodges some complaints
that can be easily addressed through existing codes and ordinances, but instead within a period
of a month, the Harbor Commission agendizes code changes and intends to reduce the sublet term down
to 30 days a year. This is another substantial reduction in coastal access. Steve Ray talked
about cumulative impacts. There are so many impacts that the city has implemented. I'm
the Coastal Commission to step in and preserve access for less affluent individuals before it's
too late. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Pauline Seals. Can you hear me? Hi, we can hear you.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I learned recently about this plan that the
Trump administration has to allow oil and gas drilling and deep sea mining off our coasts.
This is absolutely abhorrent, but a couple of things I want to bring up. Last Wednesday,
there was a press conference in Santa Cruz where eight or nine major government officials,
local officials, the mayor, our state representatives,
our congressperson, et cetera, a whole bunch of people
came and spoke strongly against this, including Dan Haifley,
who I particularly recommend because he
was the most knowledgeable about our sanctuary and its history.
What I want to mention in addition
is that the coast is a resource for everybody. It's much beloved by the people who live in
Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield, who visit the coast several times a year there in red
districts. This is not a partisan issue. The people of California want to preserve the coast.
I don't know what the Coastal Commission can do but I hope they will do their absolute utmost.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Next is Nathan Brenner followed by Carol Archibald
and then Eileen Bochen. Nathan Brenner. Good morning commissioners. I'm Nathan Brenner here
on behalf of the Sierra Club Seal Society. My colleague Carol Archibald and I will be speaking
on wildlife harassment and the critical need for better management of the La Jolla Cove in San Diego.
Tourists from all over the world come to La Jolla Cove to view our beloved sea lions,
and there is no sign of this trend slowing down. The sea lion pupking season begins in six months.
Accordingly we feel it is necessary to report to this commission regularly so you can understand
the crisis at La Jolla Cove looks like, and more importantly, to determine what steps can and must
be taken to better manage the area. We have a short video of the ongoing wildlife harassment.
Please start the video. Give us a moment to bring it up. The harassment of wildlife is
constant day and night, day after day. There are no rangers on the beach. This chaos must be abated
through proper management. The Sierra Club docents often serve as de facto crowd control
instead of being able to focus on educating the public. The Sierra Club docents are trained to
educate and foster empathy so that visitors to the area learn to respect the wildlife.
Here, a severely injured sea lion was awaiting rescue by SeaWorld when the crowd flushed the
the sea lions into the water, making the rescue impossible.
Please put up the presentation and the next slide,
and I will pass on to Carol Archibald.
All right, thank you.
And now Carol Archibald, and then after that
will be Eileen Bocan and Liz Lihanda.
Next slide, and then, yep.
And go ahead.
Carol, I see that you're in as a panelist.
You should be able to unmute.
Carol Archibald, there you go.
Okay, so Nathan has just talked a bit about the crisis
at the Cove and how doses kind of take over at times
to protect the sea lions and the people.
And our role has always been to educate the people
about the wildlife, that's our mission.
Over to the right, there is a slide showing
the Western Gate.
And when the sea lions are on the steps of the Western Gate
as they are on the bottom of the steps here,
and people are very close to them,
they could step on them and dig in.
Next slide, please.
While there have been some improvements in rangers
making announcements, there are still very few announcements
made at the cove.
Sea lion puffing season starts May 15.
There needs to be a plan in place for puffing season,
rangers patrolling every 30 minutes using bull horns.
Cones and tape put around newborns and injured sea lions
so people won't get close to them.
The Western Gate is what we just talked about.
It needs to be closed or taped
so that people don't get close again to the sea lions.
Signs placed on the beach telling people to stay back.
And these signs should be in universal languages
so everyone understands not to get closed
within the 20 seat.
This is done all along the California coast,
just not in La Jolla.
Next slide, please.
We've asked for these safeguards since 2023,
but the city has not implemented them.
The timeline for a working plan for the COVID is needed now.
Please make this happen to keep the public safe.
And so, no more sea lions die from starvation
caused by the human scent
and mothers abandoning their pups.
I thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Eileen Boken, followed by Leslie Honda
and then George Hilkima.
Eileen, I see that you're in on a phone.
You should be able to unmute now.
Eileen Boken Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods,
speaking on my own behalf.
San Francisco's former Planning Director, Rich Hillis,
once commented to the North Central Coast District
Management that the department believed
Coastal Commission requirements were bureaucratic
and a waste of time.
However, the new director of citywide planning,
Rachel Tanner, has stated from the dais
that San Francisco's Planning Department
no longer believes this.
That being said, the provisions for the coastal zone
in San Francisco's proposed up zoning plan,
call this change of heart into question.
The up zoning plan proposes extreme changes
to the city's local coastal program
that could even be seen as cynical.
Proposed local legislation misquotes the state
public resources code 30604G,
attempting to obscure the requirement
to preserve existing low to moderate income housing
in the coastal zone.
Residents here in and nearby the coastal zone
in the sunset and parkside neighborhoods
believe that this is an attempt to turn Ocean Beach
into Miami Beach.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Leslie Honda, followed by George Hilkima
and then Chely Hilkima.
Leslie Honda, give us a second as we bring your presentation
up. Go ahead, Leslie.
Honorable commissioners and the general public, my name is Leslie Honda, lead ornithologist
for the San Diego Bird Alliance. Thank you to Surf Rider for your timely presentation
about marine protected areas, and we support the comments from the Sierra Club Seal Society
today. I'd like to raise concerns about the city of San Diego resuming spraying the bio
cact directly over the Montlohio State Marine Reserve in an attempt to treat the odors on
bluff at La Jolla. In the absence of the oversight from the San Diego Water Resources Control Board,
I strongly urge the Coastal Commission to step in and take action, as chemical exposure and
surfactant from the spray are harmful to wildlife in the ecologically sensitive marine area
that the state actively set aside to conserve as a marine protected area. We are concerned with the
lack of oversight of the current practices of the city of San Diego and the lack of public
disclosure of the amount of chemicals released into the environment. At the end of August the
city sprayed right before it rained with the marine reserve vulnerable to runoff from the spray.
To remind you the previous Biocack material safety data sheet specified do not use in waterways
and this is the second time the city of San Diego has sprayed before it rained. Next slide please.
Last week during monitoring, formerly endangered California brown pelican were roosting in the area
the city of San Diego treats with the spray with the majority of them first year birds.
As California brown pelican have a 30 survival rate past the first year, the species faces
challenges with resource variability for climate change from the ocean like other marine wildlife.
Human impacts on the species for practices that degrade habitat should be eliminated.
If these marine species are to be here in La Jolla in the future, the time to plan for
marine conservation is now. I strongly urge the Commission to take action as we should
be making things easier for marine wildlife, not more difficult. Thank you for your time and
consideration. Thank you. Next is George Hilkema, followed by Chely Hilkema and then James Royer.
George, go ahead. My name is George Hilkema. I'm a mooring permit holder in Newport
Harbor and I've been a board member of the Newport Moring Association for 35 years. The city of
Newport Beach has threatened to revoke moring permit. Moring transferability again, it is
singed us out given that the city has always and will always allow transferability of permits for
homeowner stocks and permits given to marina owners. These efforts were made in the past to
address the city's issue with transferability. I served on the mooring master plan subcommittee
to address concerns of the Orange County grand jury. Mooring boundary lines were reestablished,
derelict boats were removed, and the transfer process was improved to stop the buying and
selling of moorings for profit. Our good work was disregarded by then City Manager Dave Kist.
permit fees were raised and transferability was ended. After much outcry, new council members
asked the Arbor Commission to reevaluate mooring fees and transferability. I served on yet another
subcommittee and in 2017 fees were lowered and mooring transferability was restored.
An important fact about the long history of mooring permit transferability is that the
The process has been condoned, regulated, and participated in by the City.
Governments staff told us how to get permits, and many of us paid tens of thousands of dollars
for them.
The process was so legitimized that we were led to believe that we'd recoup what we had
paid.
If the City ends mooring permit transferability, it will ruin our ability to recoup some of
the money, and if it raises our mooring rates in amounts that are unaffordable for most,
will make selling our boat nearly impossible.
This discrimination will surely hurt us in our retirement.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, Chaeli Hilkima.
Hi there.
My name is Chaeli Hilkima.
I want to thank you for your good work.
There's a negative narrative
about Newport Harbor mooring permit holders
and in part it insinuates that we make huge profits
when we transfer our mooring permits.
Though untrue, it has been perpetuated
by past and present members
of the Newport Beach Harbor Commission,
and it finds its way into the public realm
during Harbor Commission meetings, city council meetings
and through sources like the Newport Harbor Foundation
where well-connected past city policymakers
sit as board members and share their opinions
on its website and at pricey luncheons.
The telling of the tale is used to denigrate us,
which in my opinion must be a profitable tactic
for those who wanna move forward with some unknown to us,
future plan for Newport Harbor.
Recently, a current foundation board member, Skip Kenny,
spread his derogatory opinions in a local newsletter
to the editor about a presentation given
by Newport Moring Association President Ann Skenton,
who was invited to speak
at the September 10th Harbor Commission meeting.
I was present.
She politely shared some of the history of moorings
in Newport Harbor, along with some current concerns
of mooring permit holders.
She expressed her goals to advocate for fair policies
for all mooring committees as equal Tidelands users
and move toward a more constructive dialogue
with the Harbor commissioners.
But Mr. Kenny suggests that she was impertinent
because she failed to show, quote,
an appreciation for those who serve voluntarily
and instead spent time enumerating
the long lists of grievances.
In Kenny's views, Ms. Stanton's accurate description
of broken promises, shifting policies, and surprise changes
endured by morning permit holders was incorrect.
After Anne spoke, commissioners were invited to respond.
I'm seeing my time's running out.
I was thinking, do they really expect us to be grateful
for their efforts to raise our mooring fees three
to 500% and then mooring transferability again.
But I'm speaking here because of an outburst
by commissioner Gary Williams.
Please look at the video.
There's a link at the NMA website.
It was unconscionable.
Thank you for your help, didn't get through it.
Thank you.
Next is James Royer followed by Timothy Morrison
and then Chris Goldblatt, James Royer.
Good morning. My name is James Royer. I'm a 12-year resident of San Diego and a member
of the San Diego Bird Alliance Conservation Committee volunteer. I visit the Matlahual
State Marine Reserve multiple times per week and like many others have a deep appreciation
for the uniquely dense ecological diversity found in this small area of the coast. I was
disturbed to learn of the city's attempts to reduce the odors along the bluffs of La
Ahoya Cove. The disturbance of nesting birds, resting sea lions, and the impacts to all
aquatic life beneath the bluffs are factors that the city has not considered closely enough.
The city is taking the chemical manufacturers label at face value without consulting expertise
on short and long-term impacts to wildlife. As a regular scuba diver and surfer, I frequently
observe the stressors impacting the plants, animals, and our sensitive allergies including
giant kelp. And bio-cac should not be one of them. Even with best management practices,
wind drift and runoff from these steep bluffs can carry chemicals directly into sensitive bird
nesting, sea lion puffing, and popular snorkeling areas. There's been no public disclosure of
monitoring data, residue testing, or cumulative impact assessment. I respectfully urge the
commission to deny the city's authorization to continue the spraying process. Alternative
solutions that utilize non-harmful, non-intrusive methods of managing the odor must be considered
so that the city can continue to tout the integrity of this beautiful marine reserve area. Thank you
for your time. Thank you. Next is Timothy Morrison followed by Chris Goldblatt.
Are we on?
Yes.
Good morning.
Okay, good morning.
My name is Tim Morrison
and I'm representing the owner of 7-Eleven Sandpoint Road,
which is a six acre parcel
extending into the wetland salt marsh behind Sandpoint Road.
I'm an architect that's been working on plans
for new residences 7-Eleven Sandpoint for over seven years.
And obviously the changes of all the sea level rise
and the different criteria associated
has been part of that delay.
The owners of 7-Eleven Sandpoint Road
have invested interest in the wetlands,
because their blot extends several acres into the wetlands.
And they have concerns about a proposed development
at project it's 501 Sand White Road,
which is at the end of the road
at the opening of the estuary to the sea.
Based upon the report submitted by Jonah Engel,
the homeowners do not see how development will comply
with conclusions made in the report.
The 501 property appears to be primarily as dune habitat
protected from development based on the conclusion in this report.
Any approval development on this property that does not meet the 100 foot
wetland setback established as a criteria for building on Sandpoint Road has been
applied to many buildings on Sandpoint Road, including the 711 property.
And any building that does not comply that would be in violation of this
established criteria.
The owners of 711 have concerns that the strict building standards applied to 711
property and others, and is being ignored for an approval of 501, where it appears that
they're inclined to approve a 20-foot setback from the wetlands, and is ignoring the previously
established guidelines, which went from 50 feet to 100 feet.
And I don't see how 20 feet will make it for this.
It seems like this is a very sensitive habitat that needs to be protected for the birds and
the life of the estuary.
Thank you.
Thank you.
and then our last speaker is Chris Goldblatt.
You're still muted.
Morning, Madam Chair and commissioners.
My name is Chris Goldblatt.
I'm the chief executive of the Fish Reef Project.
California and Baja's Mexico
is only viable biogenic reef maker.
We fill the niche for the lack
of a state-funded reefing program.
And California is the only state in the union
without a state-funded reefing program.
So we're vital for that.
And I'm speaking today on PG&E's CDP number 9250300.
Excuse me, Mr. Goldblum?
Yeah.
Go ahead.
No, please.
Just, we are hearing that item tomorrow, and so it's not appropriate to get public comment
on it today.
Please sign up tomorrow and you can provide your comment then.
Thank you.
Okay.
I'll speak about other things if it's okay.
So I, just speaking to the general benefits of biogenic reefs, they have proven through
a pilot project off of Galleta where we currently have our sea cave reef units. They're flourishing
with giant kelp. All the different fish and marine mammals are feeding there. It's vital
for the lobster fishery and the sea caves have proven to be a primary and vital tool
for large-scale rapid giant kelp restoration and it's also a good natural way to defend the beach
without rock revetments. That's very important, especially for Galena Beach. So we hope moving
ahead that the public and the Coastal Commission will embrace the work that the Fish Reef Project
has done over the last 15 years to bring viable large-scale kelp restoration and biogenic
artificial reefing to California. I just want to reiterate that we fill the gap for a lack of a
state-funded reefing program and we do so with our own resources through independent private donors
with very little public monies available to us. So if there's anybody out there that likes to support
large-scale kelp restoration please reach out to us and we look forward to partnering with
with all interested parties.
Please have a look at our website at fishreef.org.
That's F-I-S-H-R-E-E-F.org.
And of course, reefs are a viable form of mitigation,
in lieu fee mitigation for all sorts of marine impacts.
Thank you.
We have no more speakers, Madam Chair.
Great, thank you, Chris.
And thank you very much to the public
for giving your testimony.
I'll bring it back to the commission
and see if there are any comments or questions.
Commissioner Eckerly.
Thank you, Chair.
I first want to thank Jen Savage for being here today
to talk about our Marine Protected Area Network.
If I may just share briefly about my experience
a couple of weeks ago, with the generosity
of philanthropic funds, I was able to attend
the International Union for Conservation of Nature's World
Conservation Congress.
If those of you are not familiar with the IUCN,
They are a global environmental network.
There's over 1,400 members around the world,
a network of 18,000 scientists.
Everyone aligned on helping protect nature around the globe.
So the IUCN meets every four years.
This Congress was in Abu Dhabi, and I
had the privilege of attending on behalf of California
to receive an award for our Marine Protected Area Network.
So the IUCN, you may know of them through their red list,
which is a list of endangered or threatened species.
They have also created a green list
to celebrate the best examples of protected and conserved
areas around the world.
And so after seven years of working with the IUCN partners
and an expert panel of Californians,
including Jen Savage, to tailor IUCN's standards
for a network.
We received an award and recognition on the green list.
We are the first nature network in the world to be included.
And this is such a huge honor for us
to be recognized as the International Gold Standard
for Marine Conservation.
So I was really proud to be there representing California.
The governor also announced California's intent
to join IUCN as a member.
So we will be joining with other national and subnational
governments, indigenous peoples, and local communities
to help drive conservation globally now and into the future.
So really excited to share that update.
I also just wanted to address the comments from Chris Goldblatt
around kelp and highlight that the state is really committed
to addressing the catastrophic loss of kelp across California.
OPC has invested over $10 million
in projects to advance research,
monitoring pilot restoration.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife
in collaboration with the Ocean Protection Council
is working on, is leading the effort
to develop a kelp restoration and management plan.
And that climate bond that was just passed
by the voters of California includes significant funding
to advance kelp restoration.
The budget this year includes $19 million to OPC
for that work.
So we are deeply committed and engaged and then look forward to the ongoing successes
there.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner Eckerly for that report and just that incredible work on behalf of
all of us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
We have a couple of other commissioners.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you, Chair.
Also great work.
Commissioner Eckerly.
Appreciate it.
I want to just briefly speak, as I have been doing pretty much every month at the, what
to what was called crisis at the Cove in La Jolla.
And I don't think they're being hyperbolic on that.
I really think this is a dangerous issue.
Continue to say that.
Things like having a park ranger present, tape, cones,
more announcements, signage shouldn't be that difficult.
I'm again going to,
because we're down in San Diego County next month,
going to request specifically from the mayor's office
that they show up in person
to give us a laid out of what their plan is,
what has been tried, what has failed.
if they have a plan at all and I'll just say that you know I've met with Council President
Joe LaCava several times on this and I know that him and his constituents do not want to
see a closure here. My experience talking to the Mayor's office I'm not sure that they share
that viewpoint because and I can see that with the lack of meaningful movement or improvement here.
I also don't want to see a closure but I think something needs to be done sooner than later so
I'm going to make that request and I think some of my other commissioners would probably agree
With that the other offer for myself is I'll be willing to take any kind of commissioners of staff out to the Cove next month
When we're down there not only to take a look firsthand at the sea line issues
But also some of the spraying issues that were mentioned by the Lerta bird alliance
So I appreciate their showing up and appreciate time to talk on this. Thank you. Thank you commissioner vice chair heart
Thanks so much just a couple things
First of all like I agree and I think it would be great both to do a site visit
I went down and visited that area last time was there which was it now it's been a couple years and obviously nothing
Has been done. I really appreciate you commission really for everything you're doing. It's just disheartening
that the situation continues to exist and
Ultimately might lead to closure of the area if it continues
I mean if someone is injured there, which it looks like somebody already was in the video that just happened
But I just think it it's a really difficult situation
I wanted to ask staff, I'm sorry I lost the pronunciation, but the, the Matley, you all,
Matley Fool, again, the Michelle Mallen comes through.
Could you talk about what's going on there with spraying and the impacts on pelicans
and other species in that area?
So this is the first we've heard about recent spraying in this area, it's been an ongoing
issue that we have been trying to coordinate with the city on and we
clearly need to continue to try to do that. So just to say that we're
just hearing about it right now. At least the recent spring. Thanks and Dr.
Hucklebridge on the sea lion issue. I mean what is California Fish and
Wildlife? How are they engaged on this? If you know. So this we haven't really
engage as much with CDFW on this. This is more an issue that we've tried to
engage nymphs because it's marine mammals and those are under the
protection of the it's the Marine Mammal Protection Act and then and nymphs is
the agency that implements that and it it's been a struggle frankly to get
engagement with that agency and and for a long time on this issue.
Thank you. Thank you Vice Chair. Commissioner Presciado. Thank you Madam
Chair, I'm very interested in seeing if we can update the Commission at our next meeting in
Imperial Beach on this matter of the seals, the ability of the public to continue to be part of
experiencing the cove, and also an opportunity to interact with the city of San Diego. So I'm
I'm not exactly sure how the Commission could organize something like that, but I think that we, at least since I joined in May, this has been an ongoing conversation and I appreciate Commissioner O'Malley's full engagement on this topic.
But I'm very interested in trying to understand this. I know the city of San Diego has engagement with the topic.
I just think there may be a need for us to find a new way
of sharing the concerns of the public,
the concerns of the commission,
and to do so might give people hope
that this part of the coast can be,
find a way to share the space between the wildlife
and the human footprint that continues
to be a concern and an issue.
But I think it's time for us to see some action.
And I joined my colleague, Commissioner O'Malley,
in hoping to see some strong action sooner
rather than later.
Secondly, I wanted to just comment briefly
I appreciate staff's effort to update us at the Imperial Beach meeting that's coming up next year
on what is going on in Imperial Beach with regard to the sewage contamination. And I've been very
appreciative of interacting with the staff as they prepare to give us an update at that meeting.
So in a similar way, I'm hoping that there might be key personnel that
can work with the Commission to prepare for some sort of update on the on the La Jolla Cove
matter with regard to the sea lions. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Thank you to all the speakers. Thank you to our our folks who continue to raise the sea
lion crises issue. You know, a few of us are celebrating our six month anniversaries.
our appointments to this August, and the thing that has been consistent and it's obviously not about us,
but from our very first meeting following our May appointments was this issue with the sea lines
and every month since then this has been a constant issue and clearly nothing is happening and
In my humble estimation, it defies logic.
It appears that the city, for whatever reason,
is folding its hands, turning a blind eye.
And I wasn't gonna say anything, but I will pile on,
because I think piling on is necessary.
Because at what point is the city going to do something?
Are they gonna wait till they're sued?
Are they gonna wait for a serious injury
or something even worse?
So I'm hoping, hoping, bringing it eternally, that next
month when we're in San Diego, I definitely want to take up
on the offer to do the tour.
But I hope that we have some actual action, not plans to do,
not hope, because hoping is not a strategy.
And when you've got people walking over sea lions that
on the stairs, and there are no cones, no tape, no nothing, I mean, that's a problem
when you've got people, and I'm not sure how recent these videos are, but I trust the folks
that are updating us on a monthly basis that these are recent to what we've seen in the
past so inactivity indifference is is not what we should be hearing right now so I
look forward to next month and I hope that we actually have some resolution
before pup season and maybe we can start the year off right another constant has
been the moorings in Newport Beach and do you have an update on that dr. Kate I
I know there are discussions taking place in our great capital city.
I don't have an update yet we're in the process of meeting with state land staff to talk through
their draft report and kind of work through next steps before they take that for adoption
in front of their commission so I should have an update maybe next month but not yet.
Thank you doctor. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you. Commissioner not off then Commissioner Lopez.
Okay, thank you. I wanted to put in a word for the importance of consistency
and keeping at it. Next year is going to be the 50th anniversary of the Coastal
Act and the steady hand of the Coastal Commission and the public in California.
I think we see the positive results every day, but I also wanted to lift up
Ms. Seale's comments about the threats of offshore oil drilling that has been
something that was first proposed off the coast of California I believe in the
1970s all along the coast and there's been a very broad bipartisan opposition
to that to protect the coastal dependent economy of California's coast up and
the state and there's renewed threats that we the virulence of which we have
not seen for a long time and I think it's going to be incumbent on the
Coastal Commission working closely with Governor Newsom's office and the entire
state administration too and working with local jurisdictions to form an
effective united front on that one. And then finally on the point of consistency. It was
I think it was in 1998 that myself and a colleague first heard about marine protected areas through
the Goldman Prize. And Dr. Bill Ballantine was creating marine protected areas in New
Zealand at the time and he was awarded the Goldman Prize which is kind of the
environmental equivalent of the Nobel and so we thought that would be an
important thing to kind of organize the California protection of the marine air
main resources and so went to the legislature and worked with the
legislature to get a law put in place in 1999 and so now 25 years later this
comprehensive network of marine protected areas is recognized at the
international level it's really kind of a beautiful thing so thank you to the
you know it requires just dogged work every day both with the public and with
the state administration and our local partners but those are just a couple of
examples of the work matters but it's never done but we do get there sometimes
So I love it. Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. Yeah, I'll just pile on in the form of consistency with
The one I'm celebrating my anniversary down there with six months, right?
Both on the sea lions and the moorings
I think both of those is just frustrating to see those numbers when we talk about equity and to see the numbers and
To the tune of many $1 a year versus right the 66 a day and the numbers that are being presented
It's incredible to think that that if that continues and I get that it may not be in our jurisdiction
but using points that we have to be able to elevate our voice just to have a concern about the inequities of that I think would be important given the positions we take so I just wanted to put those out there and personally I would like to see that in the hoya cove closed until there's a plan put in place that we can side off on I don't know if that's possible but I think that's a stronger approach than waiting and hoping as it is not a good strategy as said by Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you.
And I definitely want to align myself with all the comments.
Congratulate OPC, Commissioner Eckerly,
and Natural Resources, and of course the state,
and the advocates for that amazing award.
That's just wonderful.
I want to see the award.
It really is quite remarkable.
And I'm going to take a picture with you.
And second, on the La Jolla, as I think the only member left
of the old guard, this issue with the sea lions or the seals
has been a nightmare for the eight years
that I've been sitting here during this conversation.
It's sort of perplexing that it continues
to get worse and worse, I think, because just more people.
So whatever it takes, I agree with Commissioner Lopez.
I think it's time to draw some significant lines on the sand
and make some improvement in this condition.
So thank you.
Thank you very much.
And I will just join my voice in the chorus
as it pertains to La Jolla Cove.
Incredibly concerning in an ongoing way.
So I share in that.
OK, thank you very much.
With all of that, we will close public comment
and move on to item six, the executive director's report.
Dr. Hucklebridge.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, commissioners.
My published executive director report
can be found on the commission's website,
but as usual, I'll spend a few minutes
going over several of the items.
So first up, on October 20th,
a commission staff from the South Coast Office
participated in an in-person coastal resilience workshop
hosted by L.A. Beaches and Harbor in which they presented findings from the L.A. County's
regional coastal strategic adaptation plan.
The goals of this workshop were to form a regional coalition, to agree on a shoreline
monitoring program plan, to identify common shoreline management challenges and opportunities
to solve issues collectively in that plan.
Two more workshops will take place before the draft plan becomes available at the end
of 2026 and we will continue to be engaged. Next, Coastal Commission, State
Lands Commission, Coastal Conservancy and State Parks are hosting three public
workshops later this month to gather suggestions from the public regarding
public access, regarding a public access program for Hollister Ranch located in
Santa Barbara County. Hollister Ranch is a 14,000 acre private gated community on
on the Gaviota coast, which includes 8.5 miles of shoreline
and sandy beaches.
In 2019, the governor signed legislation
requiring state agencies to develop a program
to provide public access to state tidelands at Hollister.
The public is encouraged, and we'll
be discussing that public access plan at these workshops.
And the public is encouraged to attend one of the three
workshops to help shape future coastal access options.
In-person public workshops will be
held on November 12th in Builton and November 13th in Gelida and an online
workshop will be held via Zoom on November 17th. The public is welcomed
and encouraged to attend one of these three sessions as they will all cover
the same material. Next I would like to report on a series of meetings and
conferences that staff were able to participate in over the last
month. First as part of their participation in the Caltrans Environmental
Training Academy hosted by Caltrans District 7.
Commissioned staff from the transportation program
participated in a site tour of the construction of the Annenberg
Wildlife Crossing over Highway 101 in Agora Hills
in Los Angeles County. Many of you may remember
that several commissioners and staff had the opportunity to tour this site
the year before last when we were meeting in Calabasas.
Much progress has been made since then and currently the crossing is being
planted with Native plans with an anticipated opening date in late 2026.
The Caltrans Environmental Training Academy offers training on Caltrans processes, plan
and engineering review, and a wide variety of environmental statutes applicable to transportation
planning.
And staff's participation is part of an effort to increase interagency training for commission
and Caltrans staff.
So thanks to Caltrans for that opportunity to tour the Wildlife Crossing, and there's
Some great pictures included in my online report.
Second, Coastal Commission staff were
invited to join a California Association of Resource
Conservation Districts meeting for the Central Coast region
in San Luis Obispo on October 23.
The Commission's statewide planning manager, Aaron Praylor,
described the agency's work on wildfire resilience planning
and project approval in the coastal zone.
Next, several Coastal staff members
were able to participate in two important conferences in the past
month. The first was the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association's
National Coastal Conference in Long Beach. The Commission's coastal engineer
Jeremy Smith participated in a plenary panel along with staff from our sister
agency at BCDC and partners in Hawaii's coastal program on the biggest
challenges facing coastal management programs. Staff in attendance heard about
the latest in nature-based adaptation strategies, beach resilience, and
financing of sea level rise adaptation projects. We were happy to see a large
portion of the projects that were presented at the conference included
work at least in part funded by the Commission's LCP grant program. The
second conference was the annual Smart Coast Policy Summit. I participated and
presented at this conference along with Brittany Cosolino and Kelsey Duklo from
our statewide planning unit. In my talk I reflected on the 50th anniversary of
coastal of the California Coastal Act discussing the agency's past successes
and looking ahead to the challenges and opportunities of the future. Brittany and
Kelsey discuss current agency efforts on sea level rise adaptation planning
including next steps on implementing SB 272 and work on a NOAA funded beach
resilience project of special merit. A number of other speakers throughout the
day provided perspectives on the state of sea level rise planning and other
issues facing coastal communities and again this included several local
government stakeholders with projects funded at least in part by the Coastal
Commission's LCP grant program. Before I close I wanted to remind everyone public
and Commission that the Commission's draft strategic plan is out for is
currently out for public comment. I presented on it last month and the
public comment period is open for the next five days and will close on
November 10th. We will be bringing back a final version for potential adoption
next month at our December hearing in Imperial Beach. So Madam Chair with that
I will conclude my executive directors report and I'm happy to answer any
questions. Thank you Dr. Huckelbridge. Are there any public comments on the
executive directors report? There are no speakers for this item. Great, thank you
Chris. Any comments or questions from the Commission? Okay, seeing none thank you
very much Dr. Huckelbridge. We're gonna move to item 6B please, Commission
correspondence and I think Vice Chair Hart to you. Thank you. Thanks so much
Chair. I just wanted to let everyone know that a few of us went to see a movie
that is really relevant to the work of this Commission and I just wanted to
let everyone know about it. By a reporter that often covers the
Commission and wrote an excellent book about the Commission Rosanna Shia and the
name of the movie is Out of Plain Sight and it's a feature-length documentary
covering the dumping off of the San Clemente Coast of what she was key in
discovering. I believe it's over half a million barrels of what at the time
was thought to be DDT and since it has been discovered to be low-level
radioactive waste, the DDT was dumped directly from the boats without any
barrels during this period of time off the coast and the movie is just so
important because it really identifies impacts on everyone, of course, from the smallest
creature in the ocean all the way up to what the impacts are on humans.
But as relevant to this discussion today, one of the main, you know, principal impacts
is on sea lions in that area.
It's often easy to think about sea lions, oh, they're everywhere, there's tons of them,
there's no risk.
But with situations like this off the California coast that will remain un-remediated, there
really is nothing that can be done given the magnitude of this, the huge
impact on sea lions and other wildlife. So I would recommend everyone just take a
look at this. I don't want to be a movie critic or advocate here, but it's just so
relevant to the work we do. So thank you for humoring me on this. Sure. Thank you
Vice Chair Hart and that's called Out of Plain Sight. Okay, thank you. All right,
With that, we will move on to item 60.
Yes, that's right, 60 is our public education program annual update and I will turn it over
to Annie Frankel and the rest of the public education team.
All right, so we do have slides and our team is coming up, but get started as soon as you
can pull that up.
So good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
I'm Annie Kohut-Frankl, Public Education Program Manager.
I'm glad to be here along with some of our other staff members
from your public ed unit to share with you
highlights of our work in 2025.
So please do see the written staff report for more details
on all of our programs.
Next slide, please.
The Public Education Program is established
in the Coastal Act, which highlights
the importance of an educated and informed citizenry.
This section goes on to set forth the parameters
and components of the commission's education program.
The public education unit is responsible
for many long running programs such as Coastal Cleanup Day,
the King Tides Project, Voting Clean and Green,
Whale Tail Grants, and several others
that you will hear about today.
We work closely with the environmental justice,
public access, enforcement, mapping units,
as well as district staff and our communications team
to increase public awareness of commissioned actions
and opportunities to participate in the important work
of the commission and sister agencies.
Now I'll pass the mic to Eben Schwartz, who will begin sharing
this year's highlights.
Thank you.
Annie and good morning, commissioners.
Next slide, please.
I'd like to start with our cleanup programs.
We have several different cleanup programs that encourage
coastal stewardship among as broad an audience as possible.
Our year round Adopt a Beach program invites groups to conduct three cleanups each year at their selected beach.
And then each September, we host California Coastal Cleanup Day,
which is the largest annual volunteer event, not just in our state, but in the entire country.
Next slide, please.
On Saturday, September 20th, our cleanup program partners hosted over 775 cleanup sites around the state,
with more than 35,000 volunteers turning out on that day alone,
which included yet another great turnout from the boating community.
For the first time ever, local cleanups took place in all 58 California counties.
Shout out to these folks in Trinity County for bringing this home.
This really brought home the message that we are all connected to the coast,
no matter where we live.
We worked with our pro bono ad agency Barrett Hoffer to turn Coastal Cleanup
Day into the world's largest scavenger hunt.
Dubbed the trasher hunt, volunteers across the state
searched for special items of trash hidden by organizers
at multiple sites.
The volunteers could then redeem those items for prizes,
including tickets to theme parks and baseball games,
sporting equipment, and even an e-bike,
among many other prizes.
We also continued to encourage self-guided cleanups
throughout the month, and thousands more volunteers
participated on their own.
Though on Coastal Cleanup Day and throughout the month of September, volunteers cleaned
not just beaches, but rivers, creeks, and streams across California, collecting data
on everything they picked up, and more details on that are available in our annual report.
As always, there were some unusual finds, like this emotional support pickle, found
along Santa Rosa Creek in Sonoma County.
Next slide please.
By the end of September, over 37,000 volunteers have participated and with almost 1,400 cleanups
around the state, California was once again the single largest participant in the international
coastal cleanup.
Next slide.
We're already busily preparing for next year's cleanup so please mark your calendars now
for Saturday, September 19th, 2026.
Next slide.
Now I'd like to turn to the Kids Ocean Day clean-up program, which is one of our many
whale tail grant funded programs.
Next slide.
Kids Ocean Day is an opportunity for students in San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles,
San Francisco, Humboldt and Kern counties to learn about the coast and how we can all
help protect it.
Next slide.
For many of these students, this program is their very first opportunity to visit the
beach and they have an awful lot of fun.
Next slide.
The program begins with a school assembly where students learn about the ocean, marine
life, and how trash in our neighborhoods can travel to the coast.
Next slide.
Then the students go and enjoy a day at the beach and participate in a beach cleanup.
Next slide.
At the end of the cleanup, the students sit in formation to create a work of aerial art,
sending a conservation message to the world.
seen from above, these students on the beach look like this. Next slide. The theme this year was
restore, which is expressed differently in each city and conveyed the need for collective action
to care for our coast. That theme was especially resonant in Los Angeles this year, but unfortunately
the field trip had to be canceled due to ongoing health and safety concerns at the beach due to
the palisades and Eden fires. Nevertheless, there are over a thousand people in this image from
South Mission Beach in San Diego, and almost 4,000 students and adults took part in Kids
Ocean Day in 2025.
Now I'll turn this over to my colleague Vivian Matuk.
Good morning, commissioners.
Next slide, please.
The Voting Clean and Green program is a statewide voter education and technical assistance program
that is implemented in partnership with the California State Parks, and we reach on an
on an all-basis, approximately over 10,000 recreational voters and water enthusiasts.
Next slide, please.
One of the programs' key educational effort is our Dockwalker program.
Dockwalkers are environmental educators trained by our program and our program partners, including
the Bay Foundation down in L.A. County to conduct face-to-face voter education about
clean and safe voting practices.
This year alone we conducted 14 virtual and in-person dock walker trainings and we were
able to work with over 200 partner dock walkers across the state.
Once these partner dock walkers are trained, they go out and meet boaters wherever they
are.
As you can see in this slide, they talk about clean boating practices and distribute our
main outreach tool.
Our California voter kit which is a comprehensive packet of clean and safe boating information
including three pollution prevention tools such as oil absorbent pillows, a
sheet, and also a field bed. This year we were able to distribute over 6,000
boater kits across the state. Next slide please. These map shows where boaters
live who have learned about clean boating practices across the state from
dock walkers and staff. As you can see it's a very geographically diverse map
that illustrates the boating community from all over the state cares about our
waterways, ocean, coast and also understand the importance of implementing
clean voting practices and as you can see we were able to reach out to voters
even in Oregon and Nevada. Next slide please. Before I move on, sorry, I forgot
to mention that I'm super excited to report this year we're celebrating the
25th anniversary of this program and throughout this year we have been able
to reach out to over a hundred and thirty thousand voters across the state.
Staff also participated in three clean voting practices and also two vote shows which provide
a perfect opportunity to share clean voting practices with voters.
Next slide, please.
In terms of technical assistance, we work with the Office of Spill Prevention and Response
and conducted three hybrid workshops about voting, about spilt response communication
for voting facilities.
And we also partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the State Lands Commission, the Division
of Boating and Waterways, and also the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, conducting
a two-aquatic invasive species prevention workshop for boats hold water and fresh water,
even including information about our new invader, the golden mussel.
Next slide, please.
This year, we also released seven new episodes of our Dockside podcast, and I hope you have
heard some of our episodes this year.
Some of the topics included, for example,
the first bilingual Spanish episode
about outdoor recreation for all.
And also, we had a great interview
with a three-time Guinness World Record holder
for having crossed both the Atlantic and the Pacific
solo by kayak.
So far, we have released 34 episodes.
And we work on this project with the boating safety unit
with parks.
Next slide, please.
Another component of our program is the California Fishing
Line Recycling Program.
This year, we installed 20 new stations at fishing piers,
harbors, parks, marinas.
So far, we have 530 stations across the state.
And thanks to this program, we have
been able to collect and properly recycle
over 3,900 pounds of fishing line.
Next, it's like this.
Stretch out, you will stretch from San Francisco
to Punta Arenas, Chile.
Next slide, please.
Again, this year and later on, in November,
we're going to be working with 10 jurisdictions
in the California Product Stewardship Council,
offering free expiry marine collection events.
As you may know, marine flares are considered hazardous waste,
low explosives, and they contain hazardous components
that pose risk to human health and the aquatic environment.
So offering these services is very important.
Last year alone, we conducted,
we worked with eight jurisdictions,
were able to collect over 8,000, almost 9,000 flares,
and we worked with 530 voters across the state.
Now let me turn the presentation
over to my colleague, Jessie Callee.
Thank you, Vivian, and good morning, commissioners.
The whale tail grant, oh, I'm sorry, next slide, please.
So the whale tail grants further the mission
of the Coastal Commission by connecting people
the coast and its watersheds through education, stewardship, and outdoor experiences. We focus
on engaging communities that face barriers accessing coastal opportunities. Next slide,
please. The program is supported by sales of the Whaletail license plate and donations to
the Protect Our Coast and Oceans Fund listed on the California tax return. In 2025, it was also
supported by the last of a one-time general fund allocation from the 2021 state budget.
Over the last 27 years, the Whaletail Grant has distributed $25.5 million to 1,074 projects
across the state.
Next slide, please.
In the most recent competitive grant cycle, we received 299 proposals, the highest number
of proposals ever submitted.
In February, the Commission awarded $1.7 million in grant funds to 53 projects, with 28 organizations
being first-time Whaletail Grant recipients.
anticipate these projects will engage over 14,000 direct participants in 28 counties shaded in blue
on the map plus two projects with larger regional focus. Next slide please. The majority of this
year's grantees were non-profits. As a small grant program we work to be accessible and welcoming to
a wide range of entities. Of the 44 non-profit grantees, half of them have annual budgets of
under $1 million.
And this quote really speaks to the goals of the Whale Tail Grant in supporting organizations
to remove barriers to experience joy and safety in the ocean.
We invite grant applicants to complete an anonymous survey after they submit applications
so that we can incorporate constructive feedback to improve each year.
97% of respondents agreed that the application questions were clear and easy to understand
And 98% agreed that the submission process was clear and easy to do.
Next slide, please.
This summer, we invited last year's grantees to provide anonymous feedback midway
through their grant experience.
The responses were extremely positive, such as this quote,
government grants can be intimidating for small grassroots organizations.
You all have perfected the process to include every organization both big and small.
Next slide, please.
The next competitive grant round is currently open and we're very excited to partner with
the Ocean Protection Council, hi Jen, who is providing $2 million in funding from California
Climate Investments.
We're especially excited to have a tribal set aside for the first time, where approximately
half of the total grant funds will be dedicated for projects led by, in partnership with,
and or directly engaging California Native American tribes and tribal communities.
The application deadline is coming up December 15th, and the application walkthrough webinar
for prospective applicants is tomorrow with over 300 registered, showing the growing need
for grants to support coastal education and access.
We're thankful for OPC's support this grant round, and it will be critical to identify
ways to increase funds for future grant cycles to continue supporting the important work
of these local organizations.
Next slide, please.
Ed staff maintain a beach wheelchair page on our website with a map of where
people can borrow chairs for free helping to increase accessibility to our
coast. Many chairs were purchased through the
whale tail grants. If you know of a chair that's not included on the page or an
organization that would like to host a chair, please let us know. And now I'll
pass it back to Annie. Thank you. Next slide please. So on behalf of our
colleagues Lauren Dung and Luna Taylor who couldn't be here today, I'll share
some of the public contests that were organized this year. This summer we
announced the winners of our climate storytelling contest for middle and
high school students and we were honored by the level of reflection from
students throughout California who chose to create a podcast, a photo essay, or a
narrative essay that answered the prompt what are your feelings toward climate
change? How can those feelings be turned into action? Winners were chosen from
each medium and they can be viewed on the contest webpage. Today we'd like to
share a very brief clip of the winning podcast to provide a preview of how important storytelling is.
Next slide please. I have moments where I feel like I'm not doing enough. Me too. But change is
a journey, not a competition. And every step, even the small ones, counts. What's important is that
we keep moving forward. So if you're out there and you're feeling overwhelmed or guilty or even numb,
we get it. But don't let it stop you and let it fool you instead. Let it guide you towards something
better. So the next contest is accepting entries until the end of May, so please help us spread
the word. Next slide please. Also earlier this year we held the annual California Coastal Art
and Poetry Contest for kindergarten through 12th grade students and you're seeing a small selection
of the recognized 2025 artwork. The winners and honorable mentions were featured on our website
and social media. And they were also part of a traveling exhibit at multiple locations
throughout the state. And this is also a poetry contest. The poems were published in Chapman
University's Poetry Journal. And as part of that, the poets are invited to record themselves
reading their poetry. As you advance the next slide, you may need to turn up the volume,
please. So next slide, please.
coastal wonders. The lighthouse stands large and tall, watching over waves big and small.
The mighty Pacific sings all through the day, through the voices of seagulls and seals at
play. The tide pools hold a lot of surprises. The fishes, crabs, and octopi, and the…
We may have lost it. It's just as cute the rest of it
That was Aswat Narayana Ganesh one of our third grade honorable mentions
So this contest deadline the next contest deadline is coming up soon, January 29th. Next slide, please
Scises
Yeah
So the Coencil Commission is the lead for California's king tides project with public education and mapping units
staff supporting. King tides are annual extreme tides which are predicted based on the cycles
of the earth the moon and the sun. Next slide please. These high tides give us an idea of what
the shoreline will look like on an average day within a few decades. The king tides project is
a community science project that asks the public to take photos of these tides to help us visualize
and plan for future sea level rise. Next slide please. These photos are publicly available on
our website and are very widely used by many public agencies and private stakeholders.
Next slide.
During the most recent season, partner organizations led dozens of local community kingtides events
throughout the state and the project was featured in over 50 articles and TV segments.
Next slide.
We have a dedicated community of participants, many who return to the same spot each year
to document the changes they see and share what they observe with their friends and neighbors.
Next slide.
So you can find your local high tide times and learn how to upload your photos on our
website.
Please join us to photograph the upcoming King tides.
Next slide, please.
So you've just heard about just some of the many projects accomplished by this unit in
2025.
I don't know what's happening.
Our work is funded by several sources.
This year we granted out the last of a one-time general fund allocation we received in 2021
during the historic budget surplus that's the last item on this chart. Over
the last four years this generous appropriation by the legislature allowed
us to award the largest grant rounds in the history of the Whaletail grant. That
funding is now fully spent. Next slide please. Our primary source of ongoing
revenue is the Whaletail license plate. In addition to the Whaletail grants, the
plate has provided our core program funding since 1998 and is central to our
stability and success. Our program receives about one quarter of the revenue generated
from license plate sales, which is a smaller proportion than sponsors of many of the other
specialty plates received. The remainder of whale tail license plate revenue goes to the
environmental license plate fund. This year our program received about $1 million in whale
tail plate funds. Next slide please. So unfortunately in recent years revenue from the plate has
been declining and at this point we are projecting future budget deficits based on past trends.
So an urgent priority for the public education program is to secure increased and new funding
sources. An example of this is our recent partnership with ocean protection council
on the next competitive grant round. Next slide please. So funding is also provided
through voluntary contributions to the Protect our Coast and Ocean Fund on the California
Income Tax Form. And that fund can also receive donations by check. 100% of these funds go
to support whale tail grants. So far this year we've raised just over $200,000, but
since LA's filing deadline was October 15th, we do expect the final 2025 donation amount
to increase. Next slide please. Sponsorships, direct donations, and sales of promotional
items and art prints provide a nominal revenue stream that helps offset coastal clean-up
day expenses and is also used to support contest prizes.
If anyone watching would like to support our programs by purchasing coastal clean-up day
or coastal access clothing as modeled by Commissioner Jackson or prints of art or photography from
our contest, you can find that on our website.
Next slide, please.
And finally, we invite everyone to join us on these social media platforms.
A huge thank you to everyone who supports the coast and Coastal Commission public education
programs.
That concludes our presentation.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Is there any public comment on this item?
We have no public comment.
Okay.
I'll return to the commissioners.
Commissioner Lopez.
I'm just curious.
I know we said what there's declining revenue on the plate and how long has that plate been
the design and is there the opportunity to redesign it have a competition to
renew interest in it and help elevate its profile throughout the state and
maybe get some additional artists engaged and come up with something that
folks want to see on their car. I think 2012 if I'm not mistaken has been that
design so it's certainly something to consider there is quite a process to go
through for that we did the current design was part of what's done after a
contest process so so thank you for that it does it certainly does generate more
interest when you have something new for sure thank you any further comes okay
Commissioner Jackson then commissioner welcome oh thank you madam chair I just
want to pause to thank you all for what you do it's incredible work as you
highlighted the Coastal Act isn't just about protecting our shoreline it's
about inspiring Californians to care for it and the kind of public education that
you all do doesn't make headlines but it changes hearts and it lasts and we saw
that with the smiles of some of those children during your presentation so
thank you for keeping that spirit alive thank you for everything you all do and
and to dovetail on what Commissioner Lopez talked about
with the Whale Tail Grant Program.
So if I understand it, we get a quarter
of the revenue sales for that plate.
And where does that Whale Tail plate rank
in terms of specialty plates sold in the state?
And you mentioned different plates receive more money
than what we receive.
And so if you can sort of talk about that disparity,
and then if there's anything that we can do moving forward.
The whale tail plate was one of the first special plate
designs, so that was the funding distribution that
was designed at that time.
We would, of course, like that to change.
The whale tail plate is the second biggest revenue creator
in the special plates.
I believe we're usually the third highest selling
because some of the plates cost less than ours do
which is also not something we're in control
of how much the plate costs.
So what can you do?
I think we were looking for creative ways.
We do have a marketing contract that we engage
with a contractor who helps us market the plate.
We're working with the DMV to try to increase
the visibility of special plates in partnership
with the other special plates.
Until a few years ago, we created a paper insert
that went into every mailer, every registration renewal
that a California vehicle owner received.
DMV moved to digital, so we lost that opportunity.
so we're looking for ways to build that back in,
let people know this is a beautiful product
and it does really important work
as do the other special plates.
They are all funding really valuable work in California.
I'm glad you mentioned at the time,
that was a good deal.
Things have changed.
Different plates are generating different amounts
receiving different amounts so who ultimately is the decision maker when it
comes to that revenue percentage and because at the end of the day we we'd
like to get more than a quarter is what I'm assuming I'm not 100% sure who the
final decision maker is and we would love to talk to you further about that
yeah whether it's legislation I'm it you know maybe oh Sarah's coming and she
may know Sarah knows everything maybe it's something we can do to celebrate
the 50th anniversary yes that'd be a great brilliant tie that into the 50th
anniversary celebration with new percentage yeah thank you thank you for
the support and thank you for the suggestion Commissioner Jackson any
Any changes to the allocation percentages from the whale tail plate would require a
legislative change.
So that would be either a bill or it could be established through the budget if the legislature
and the administration, you know, wanted to make that a priority.
And I did just want to take a moment, Commissioner Lopez, to respond to your question about a
new image for the plate.
The law has since changed in the last few years in terms of the process for creating
plate images.
And so the only images that are allowed on plates now are just a little basically bigger
than a postage stamp image in the corner of the plate.
They don't allow for full plate images anymore.
So if we were to give up the full plate whale tail image, we wouldn't be able to replace
it with a different full plate image.
It would just be a little, you know, drawing in the corner, which probably would generate
less interest than more.
But the image that's on there now was created by a big public contest because our original
plate image was drawn by the artist known as Weiland.
And he let us use that pro bono for many, many years and then decided it was copyrighted
and he wanted the state to pay him every year for the use of the image.
And so we thanked him for his previous contributions but politely declined his offer and instead
hosted a statewide contest and we got a lot of images and it was a big deal.
That was one of the things Commissioner Jackson said we don't get a lot of press.
We did get a lot of press on that one.
And this was the image that was selected and it did contribute to a spike in the sales,
all of the publicity around the time.
So it's a great idea.
We'd love to follow up on it, but unfortunately I think it would send things in the wrong
direction.
Thank you very much, Ms. Christy.
Okay, Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, I was gonna say this is a legislative change that requires that and all of us who know legislators might, you know, want to talk to some of them about it.
I want to thank the staff for all the work and this as I associate myself with
Commissioner Jackson on just the the goodwill and the and the and the energy
that it put out there you know my kids have been a part of those beach the
sculptures or whatever you want to call it with those things and over the years
is they're older now.
But in any case, those efforts really connect schools and kids
and people to everything.
And I want to also thank the staff in terms of the cleanups
and connecting the sources for the garbage and the debris
that they find.
Specifically, we know that cigarette butts are the number
one thing that people find on the beaches, which
I want to segue to thank you to Santa Cruz County for doing their Band the Butts program.
I think that's very important.
Those of us who are in local government understand that right now there's a lot of updates to
our tobacco retail ordinances that are occurring.
That is a good time to segue into your Band the Butts programs.
That's where it gets implemented, so I just wanted to put that out there for local government
people out there that this is the time to work with your local environmental groups
to at least start talking about that.
What we do know is that cigarette butts are the number one thing we find on our beaches.
They're non-biodegradable, and they actually are more unhealthy than cigarettes without
the filters.
The filters themselves actually cause more lung damage than they prevent.
The mechanism for that is that because people inhale more strongly, that the smoke goes
more deeply, and it actually causes more damage.
So you not only help the health of the people by abandoning this faulty and misleading technology,
but you also help the environment.
So I just want to thank Santa Cruz County for moving forward with that, and I'm hoping
that local jurisdictions start to talk about that, including mine.
And that was all I had for that segue.
Thanks for letting me go down that rabbit hole.
Always.
Commissioner Lopez.
I just want to share, we weren't being rude.
We got attacked by spiders up here during your presentation.
So our apologies.
There was a distracting moment.
We apologize.
These were spotted.
So thank you.
It took some of us a while to calm down from that.
That's nature.
So we appreciate you interacting with it.
Thank you.
All right, seeing no further comments,
I'll just, oh, Commissioner Eckerly, please.
Yeah, I just want to pile on to the thanks for all of the staff
work over the many years and reiterate that the support that
my council approved to contribute to the whale tail
program, that is so much in part to the incredible work,
the institutional knowledge, the capacity at the commission.
And so I'm just really grateful to be
able to partner and let you do your good work.
I also just wanted to share that in the plastic space,
we are investing in the development
of a statewide monitoring plan
to really understand both microplastics and macroplastics
and the work and the data that's coming out
of the Coastal Cleanup Days is helping to inform that.
So thanks again to the commission staff
and to everyone who is contributing to that important data.
Thank you and I just want to associate myself with the comments of all our colleagues and
just I always love this item but Commissioner Jackson said it so well.
I think about my own young kids who are quite literally born on this commission and it has
been part of their DNA.
But in an ongoing way and for all of the children in the state of California to be able to participate
in our work in this really tangible way and build their own relationship with the coast
through these programs, through art, and through poetry.
It's just such a holistic approach
to building love for our oceans and coasts.
And as a parent, as a member of this commission,
resident of the state of California,
I'm just so grateful.
And I love it every time it comes before us.
And finally, I maybe less emotionally,
but no less importantly, wanted to specifically call out
the Marine Flare collection work that's being done.
I know in Santa Barbara, this was hugely important.
It was a big topic of conversation for us.
I think it sometimes goes under the radar a little bit
when we have this incredible art that we think about
that's so cute and amazing, but this was a big deal.
And I'm very proud of the city of Santa Barbara
to have worked with you and hope to see this continue
and expand because it's really, really important.
With that, our gratitude and we'll close that item.
And I'm gonna suggest we take a quick bio break.
if everyone could be back in 10 minutes,
so just a few minutes before 11, please.
Items E and F for the moment and move to item 6G,
changes to commission regulations.
Thank you.
Good morning, chair and commissioners.
This next item is a proposal to extend the length of time
for an affordable housing project to break ground
or vest its coastal development permit.
The current timeframe for vesting,
which applies across the board to all types of development,
is two years from the issuance of the CDP
with the option for annual one-year extensions
if construction has not yet begun.
This reg change would extend those timeframes
for 100% affordable housing projects
to five years from permit approval
with the option to request two-year extensions if needed.
Robin Mayer from our legal team
will get into the details in a minute.
But first we wanted to give you a little context
on why and how this is before you today.
This idea was proposed by affordable housing developers and advocates as part of a broader conversation about how to increase affordable housing in the coastal zone without sacrificing coastal protections.
As you know, this is a high priority for the Commission, so when they explained how challenging their funding process is and proposed this as a way to increase certainty in that process, we immediately agreed and suggested that it could be accomplished through a simple reg change.
But, importantly, regulations can only provide specificity for how to implement existing
law.
The Coastal Act section that will be furthered by this reg change is Section 30604F, which
directs the Commission to encourage housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate
income.
The proposed change is a tangible expression of that general mandate.
But that mandate used to be much stronger.
And for the benefit of new commissioners and the public, I'd like to briefly touch on
that history.
The 1976 Coastal Act originally contained a much stronger policy that treated affordable
housing as a coastal resource under Chapter 3, and charged the commission with, quote,
protecting and providing for it.
This gave the commission the same level of legal authority over affordable housing as
as we currently have over public access, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and other coastal resources
and priority uses.
In the first five years of the program, the Commission prevented the demolition of over
1,100 existing affordable units, required the construction of about 5,000 new deed-restricted
units, and collected $2 million in in lieu fees.
Unfortunately, the legislature repealed this policy in 1981 and we've been unable to participate
in a meaningful way in the affordable housing space ever since.
Nevertheless, we're listening closely to affordable housing developers and advocates
to find ways to encourage and streamline affordable coastal housing.
The Commission's work on SB 484 last session is just one example of how we're thinking creatively
about ways to improve our process without weakening Coastal Act policies.
This proposed reg change is another, and we're continuing to talk internally and with affordable
housing and NGO stakeholders about smart ways to further our mutual goal of increasing affordable
housing in the coastal zone.
Now I'm going to turn it over to Robin Mayer.
Thank you, Sarah.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
proposing changes to the Commission regulations in Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations. The purpose of the amendments that Sarah
touched on is to promote the development of a affordable housing by expanding the
current periods for vesting permits and for extensions. The notice of the
proposed rulemaking was published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on
September 19th, 2025. Publication began a 45-day public comment period which
ended this past Monday. Simultaneous with publication, all materials were posted on
the Commission's rulemaking page, including the notice, the text, and the rationale for
each change known as the initial statement of reasons. These same materials are also
supplied as exhibits to the staff report. The proposed amendments affect sections 13156
subdivision G and 1 3 1 6 9 subdivision a the amendments to section 1 3 1 5 6
expand the time for 100% affordable housing projects to vest from two years
to five years the amendments to section 1 3 1 6 9 expand the time for the
extension of permits basically extending the vesting period for 100% affordable
housing projects from one year to two years the proposal makes other minor
are clarifying changes in the same regulations. Two comments were received during the formal
comment period, comments are posted on the correspondence section for this item and an
addendum has been distributed under the Addendum tab that responds to the comments. A late
comment came this morning from the Venice Community Housing Group that expressed support
for the staff recommendation.
Under rulemaking law, substantive changes to the proposed amendments, the text, required
additional round of noticing with additional comment period.
That process of it happens with delay adoption by perhaps a few months.
Assuming adoption by the commission, legal staff will submit the administrative record
and other materials to the Office of Administrative Law, OAL.
The final rulemaking package including any changes to the text and to the final statement
the reasons will be posted to the Commission's rulemaking webpage. OAL will review the proposed
changes according to six standards, including the standards of necessity and clarity. Following
review by OAL, the amended regulations, if and as approved, will be filed with the Secretary
of State and published in the California Code of Regulations. Staff anticipates that the
regulation changes will be effective by April 1, 2026. Staff recommends adoption of the
proposed amendments to Commission regulations. The motion is on page 3 of
the staff report and I'm available to answer any questions. Great. Thank you
very much. Are there any public comments on this item? Yes, we have six speakers
lined up. I will start with those in the room. And Natalie Spivak by Tysha Watts
and then Susan Jordan. Got it. Thank you. Good morning commissioners. My name is
Natalie Spivak and I'm the senior policy manager at Housing California, a
The statewide nonprofit organization focused on producing and preserving affordable housing,
ending homelessness and protecting renters.
I want to start by thanking Coastal Commission leadership, in particular, Director Hucklebridge,
Sarah Christie and Sean Drake for their dedication and partnership over the last year to making
it easier to build affordable housing in the coastal zone.
The proposed regulatory change before you is just one example of the Commission's proactive
and self-imposed work to make sure that low-income people
can afford to live in our state's coastal communities.
We wholeheartedly support the regulation amendments,
which would lengthen the time
for Coastal Commission approvals
of 100% affordable housing projects to vest and be extended.
We worked closely with our nonprofit developer members
to validate the need for this change.
After an affordable housing project
receives its land use entitlements,
it has to cobble together various state, local,
and funding sources before it can begin construction.
This is a lengthy process in which developers
have to apply to various funding programs,
many of which are offered only once a year.
These programs are extremely competitive
with funding for some programs oversubscribed
at a rate of 10 to one.
This process can easily take three to five years
after the Coastal Commission approves the project.
And if there's any uncertainty as to whether or not
a coastal development permit will be extended,
state housing agencies can deem a project
ineligible for funding
because the entitlement must remain in place
through construction closing,
which is typically six months
after the final funding award is received.
Because it's nearly impossible to secure financing
and reach construction closing within two years,
issuing CDPs with an initial five-year duration
will resolve uncertainty and better align
with the affordable housing development process.
Thank you, and we urge you
to accept this important regulatory change.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Taisha Watts.
I'm the policy director for the California Housing Partnership, California's resources
on sustainable housing finance.
Our mission is to increase and preserve the supply of affordable and climate-resilient
homes for Californians with low incomes.
First, I want to thank the commission and staff, especially for your leadership in addressing
barriers to affordable housing and the coastal zone.
The California Housing Partnership is proud to have worked alongside commission staff
on this important regulatory change, and we strongly support its adoption.
From proposed amendments to extend the vesting period for 100% affordable housing from two
years to five and the extension period from one year to two reflects a deep understanding
of how affordable housing is actually built.
Assembling finance for affordable housing is complex and time consuming, often taken
three to five years as developers compete for multiple state and federal funding programs.
These programs are highly competitive and typically open once per year with demand outpacing available
funds by ratios 10 to one.
Because of this, the two year vesting period under the current regulation creates an impractical
and costly cycle of extensions and re-applications.
Developers can't even apply for critical funding until a coastal development permit
is issued and all special conditions are met.
By the time financing is assembled, the permit is often at risk of expiring.
Because of this, the two year vesting period under the current regulation creates an impractical,
costly cycle.
On state and federal funding competitions, readiness is a key score and criterion.
A project with an expiring coastal development permit can lose competitiveness entirely,
meaning that even well planned developments can fall apart due to timing alone.
These proposed changes will give developers a realistic window to complete financing and
move construction without unnecessary administrative delays.
Thank you again for your leadership, collaboration, commitment to ensuring that low income California
and thrive in our coastal communities.
We look forward to continue to partner with y'all
and making this vision a reality.
Thank you.
And Susan Jordan, and then after Susan,
will be Becky Denison, Linda Lux, Casey Olsen.
Susan Jordan, director of the California
Coastal Protection Network.
For several years, there are a number of environmental
and environmental justice groups,
including CCPN's Surfrider Azul and EAC Marin
have been working to develop strategies
to advance affordable housing in the coastal zone.
Just over a year ago, we were very lucky
that the Resources Legacy Fund hosted a series
of formal meetings that brought together both our groups
with the affordable housing activists and developers,
two of which just testified in front of you,
and including the next speaker, Becky Denison,
who at the time was with the Venestell Project.
The goal was to develop common ground and strategies
to increase affordable housing in the coastal zone.
Early on, the affordable housing members
made it clear to us that it would be extremely helpful if the terms for
coastal development permits were extended to provide them with greater
flexibility as they navigated the often complex funding deadlines they face.
After a quick call of which then it turned over to the those folks and staff,
staff immediately jumped into this into action and worked with these groups to
craft a solution that works for all parties. That solution as you've heard
which is the recommended regulatory change before you
which extends the permit from two years to five years
and the extension from one year to two years.
I should mention that making a regulatory change,
I mean, this was one way we felt
that we could move this forward and support it
that would not require legislation
which hits many roadblocks during its way
through the legislature and is, we thought,
little bit risky and actually not needed in this particular case but that said
there's a lot of work that goes into changing your regulations and your staff
really deserves a commendation for sticking with it. You don't see
regulatory changes very often but this is an extremely important one and I
think it's going to have a real life change in how things change. Thank you.
Thank you.
We did get an additional sign up, so we have four left, Becky Denison, Linda Lux, Casey
Olson, and then Adam Leverins.
Becky Denison, go ahead.
Good morning.
I'm Becky Denison with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.
We've worked on the Coastal Commission policy issues for more than 20 years representing
low income communities and a variety of coastal access issues.
I also, as Susan mentioned, worked at Venice Community Housing for many years prior to
this role we completed three projects in the coastal zone during my time there,
but this occurred after a 20-year period with no 100% affordable housing development in that
community. I was also part of the working group that was mentioned and we are really
encouraged to see our work lead to informing this important regulatory change. The proposed
changes are critical for the Coastal Commission in facilitating more affordable housing development,
which I know is a goal for many of you. The financing system, as has been mentioned,
for affordable housing is incredibly complex and often requires multiple applications over many
years. Delays are common despite the best efforts of affordable housing developers.
Having the certainty of a time frame that allows for these unique challenges is critical to
increasing affordable housing in the coastal zone. Otherwise, the potential or perceived risks of
developing in the coastal zone will continue to discourage developers from pursuing these
important sites. We know that most housing in coastal communities has become completely out
of reach for low and moderate income people and so by creating regulations like these that account
for the time needed to move affordable housing from concept to construction, we can begin to
change that. We hope that you will agree and vote to approve this item and Legal Aid would be happy
to work with staff and others and our colleagues in the working group to ensure that implementation
of the new regulation achieves its goals. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Linda Lux. Casey
Olson, Adam Leverance. Linda Lux. Dear Commissioners, yes, hello. We can hear you.
Oh, you can. Okay. This community housing very much appreciates the work that has been done on
this item and the staff recommendation. As an affordable housing developer committed to
expanding access to housing opportunities, we strongly support this proposal. There's a
critical need for more affordable housing, particularly within the coastal zone, where
high land and development costs have long limited opportunities for lower and moderate income
households. The proposed change will help remove barriers and create a more feasible path to
to delivering much needed affordable homes in this area.
We urge your support to advance policies
that make inclusive coastal communities possible.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next, Casey Olson or Casey Denson.
You have a couple of names, I think,
and then Adam Leverns.
Casey, go ahead.
Thank you, commissioners.
My name is Casey Olson and I am the Legal and Policy Fellow
with the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin or EAC.
Our mission is to protect and sustain unique lands,
waters, and biodiversity of West Marin.
We support the staff's recommendation
to adopt the proposed amendments to commission regulations
for the extension of 100% affordable housing permits
from two years to five years,
as this would make affordable housing projects
more feasible and efficient without eroding protections
for coastal resources.
We are based in Marin County,
which like many places in California
faces an affordable housing crisis.
Many of our beloved community members who work here
cannot even afford to live here,
and many who do are being priced out.
As an environmental organization that is also invested
in the wellbeing of our communities,
we are excited to see meaningful and collaborative efforts
from the commission to advance affordable housing projects.
And we are deeply appreciative of the work
the commission has done and continue to do so
on this important issue.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And then Adam Leverns.
Hello again, am I coming in?
Yes, we can hear and see you.
Okay, I'm really encouraged by this.
The first time I spoke before this commission was in April of last year and I shared the
anguish of the commission of having the scope and authority over affordable housing in the
coastal zone having been limited.
I don't know if I have my video on, but behind me used to be a manufactured home park with
about 55 units.
The city acquired that and turned it into a very nice park, but that came at the loss
of 55 units of affordable housing, which even when they were here there was still coastal
access in process right now.
The city purchased like a hundred-year-old triplex affordable housing due to its age
right on the coast or right on the beach, actually, and they're going to bulldoze it
and make a parking lot.
And the staff materials I've seen at the city level for that make it sound like if they
wait out a long enough time period, they don't have to replace the affordable housing they're
destroying with additional affordable housing.
I don't know if that's the intent, but it's such a crisis, particularly in Newport Beach.
And as you've heard in all for nearly two years, is affordable housing here in the form
of the mooring permits?
And I contend that Coastal does have authority to do something about that now.
State lands seems to be buying into the city's plan to eliminate this form of highly regulated
housing.
And affordable housing is a crisis all over the Western US, anywhere desirable.
People have the means now to move to those places.
And I'm sure everybody is aware of the problem.
I really hope this is the way Coastal can get its hands back into this issue.
Thank you.
Thank you.
There are no more speakers.
Great.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will return to the commission and I'll begin with Commissioner Escalante,
please.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I'll be quick, first, congratulations to staff for getting to this point, really
commendable work, and especially I really appreciate the collaboration with the advocates and with
the affordable housing developers and in particular I think that
establishing those relationships, deep relationships, long-lasting will be very beneficial to
our mutual goals of developing more affordable housing in the coastal zone for sure. So this is
hopefully just the first big step in that, but I do look forward to
building on that and and for sure I think that you know this will be next
year will be a good opportunity to you know roll out you know an education
campaign in the legislature to highlight some of this you know movements that
we've you know made towards this and also express our intention to do more to
hopefully reverse what was done with the memo act and bring the authority to the
Commission of providing more affordable housing in the in the coastal zone so
this is just an invitation for you for you guys to continue building that
relationship with us of course in the Commission and staff very talented
people and look forward to hopefully you know having some meetings next year to
talk about some of this progress that we've made and I don't know if we can
like have a little two-sheeter or some like a two sheet paper or a short white
paper or something that we can walk around with and kind of show where we've
been and where we're at with with housing in the Coastal Commission to you
know pick away at some of the some of the you know reputation issues that we
have and build momentum forward to getting the things done that we want to
achieve. So thanks everybody very excited to vote for this. Thank you. Vice Chair
Hart. Thanks so much. I really want to second my appreciation for you, Robin,
Sarah, and everyone that worked on this. I know how hard it is to get these kind
of regulations changed and this is just so impactful. I just want to express my
appreciation and of course to you Dr. Hucklebridge for leading this effort. I
want to call out just really briefly the addendum in response to a letter that
was received and I'm not sure everyone saw this but I think it's really
important to call out because in the letter of a housing advocate for a person
who advocates for all all housing for all levels of income asked why the
the regulation amendments to lengthen the vesting and extension periods are for affordable
housing projects only and not for other types of housing projects.
I think it's very important to everyone to understand that affordable housing projects
need this kind of change in the rule because unlike privately funded for-profit developments,
these projects face particular challenges when seeking finances, namely the funding
process involves multiple sources that cannot be secured until after permit
approval is in hand and that's why we are focused on a hundred percent
affordable housing projects I really appreciate the the addendum calling that
out in response to letters thank you thank you commissioner presiado
relearning how to use zoom apparently um I think one of the most important
One of the things that I've been able to learn as a member of local government is the time
frames are not what one would expect, even with the pressures of building affordable
housing.
I celebrate our path forward with adopting these new regulations.
I think they're more consistent with what I've become familiar with in terms of how
long it takes or how long it may take to see developments actually occur after permitting
and financing and all the doldrums that are associated with development. I really appreciate
the opportunity to see these changes take effect and hope to continue to create tools
that will enable additional housing access that is authentically affordable to the communities
we all serve. And I don't know if there's another list or a list in the background of other tools
or strategies or tactics we can embrace, but I think this is important work and I
hope all of you who have been working on this on the staff and on the Commission
can feel progress being made. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Wilson. Thanks, I
actually wrote something down so that it wouldn't subject
everyone to my normal screed, so I know, I know.
Get used to it.
No, maybe, maybe not.
OK, I just want to say that the Coastal Commission has
a long and consistent record of supporting
affordable multi-family and workforce housing
in our coastal communities.
And it's certainly an arc that, since I've
been on this commission we've been working on very hard. These homes are
essential to the social fabric of our coast. They provide the opportunities for
people who work in coastal businesses, serve our visitors, and help sustain the
vitality and diversity of our coastal towns and really quite frankly the
authenticity of those towns. In my mind affordable housing is critical
infrastructure. This proposal focuses specifically on 100% affordable housing
projects because as staff has explained these developments face unique
challenges and they often rely on multiple funding sources as mentioned
and cannot that cannot be secured until after the coastal development
permit is issued. These extensions provide a realistic and an accountable
time frame or timeline that supports project success. It's also important to
note that this isn't something we can simply revise on the spot. Any change to
our regulatory language will require restarting the rule making process so
it's important that we get this you know codified and and so that we can move
forward that I also want to note and as I understand it this change is not
necessarily exclusionary under our existing process the Commission already
has an ability to work with developers to extend the vesting period for
applicants who request it so multifamily and other housing developers can
continue to seek extensions, investing periods, when their project circumstances
warrant it. It's not exclusionary. As much as I bump up against this personally, we
must stay grounded in our statutory authority. Regulations must implement the
Coastal Act and not extend beyond it. That's where we're at. So this change is
is still directly tied to section 30604f,
which directs the commission to encourage
affordable housing consistent with the coastal resources
protections that we're obligated to do.
So bottom line, affordable housing builders
have told us they need this practical step
to remove specific barrier to developing affordable housing
in the coastal zone.
And it reflects the commission's continued commitment
to ensuring that our coastal communities remain
inclusive, livable and economically sustainable for all.
I'm willing to make the motion
if that's the time to do that.
Thank you. I'll come back to you.
Thanks.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, thank you.
I just want to thank staff for this pragmatic approach
to really solve a big issue.
I've built a lot of housing in my time
as a supervisor in Monterey County.
And I know that one of the key phrases I hear from community
is ver para criere, right, is seed of belief.
Because we say the project's coming
and then it doesn't happen because it takes so long
to braid the funding streams as we've talked about
to make it happen.
After two, three years, they say, ah, you just lied.
You're like every other politician.
Well, many of those projects have now been built.
And then, of course, those folks are the first ones
to come up and say, but how do I get in?
Right?
And I'm excited to share that with the AEH,
we are opening the doors to one of those facilities
in the next few weeks in Greenfield.
100 brand new units, all low income.
Not cheap.
Even though it is affordable, it is not cheap.
$77 million to build that facility.
And as you think about what that cost is inland,
and you put the coastal factor on that,
putting together that kind of money
just to build 100 units in a place, real impact.
Real impact, but also real cost.
It takes time to get buy-in,
to get people to understand that vision
and to become a partner in that space and time.
And so I agree that this is the right approach.
It gives us a runway necessary
to bring partners on board with different projects
and to move the needle on something we're committed to so thank you to staff for working on this and
having an approach that's pragmatic and is really going to bring change and shows that we're a
partner at the table in a meaningful way it means a lot to me. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner
Redoni. Yeah thank you Chair. I really want to applaud staff and the community for asking for
this to be brought forward in particular our environmental groups who recognize the importance
of this. You know, affordable housing is really difficult to build. 100% affordable
housing is even more difficult. You add the coastal zone overlay onto that makes it even
more difficult. So having this slight change is a big deal for most of our affordable
housing developers who need the additional time to make their project work and find the
necessary funding. I really applaud this and I'm happy to support this today.
you. With that I'll turn it over to Commissioner Wilson. Thanks and before I
make this motion I want to emphasize this is about the development of
affordable housing. I really feel like and we heard a little bit today from
folks who also talk about preserving affordable housing in the coastal zone
and I have to say that is a nut that's hard for us to crack and anyone who
watches projects move through this organization can see that in an
aggregated sense we are losing affordable housing in the in in in the
coastal zone through all kinds of projects and developments so I just I'm
hoping that we can work together to do do that as well or address that as well
with that I move that the Commission adopt the proposed amendments to the
Commission regulations in accordance with staff recommendation and I recommend
a yes vote. Second. Okay we have a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by
Commissioner Escalante they're asking for a yes vote and we 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 Radoni. Yes. Radoni yes. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez yes.
Commissioner Nodoff. Aye. Nodoff yes. Commissioner Presiado. Yes. Presiado yes.
Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon yes. The vote is
unanimous. Thank you. The motion passes. Thank you very much for your good work.
Okay with that we will move back in time to item 6E please. Thank you 6E is the
interagency agreements for our CZMA grant award and I'll turn it over to
Meghan Hall on Zoom for the staff presentation. Good morning, good morning
Chair Harmon and commissioners. Item 6E seeks the Commission's authorization to
enter into two interagency agreements passed through portions of California's
annual Coastal Zone Management Award Dollars to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
or BCDC, and the State Coastal Conservancy to implement the state's federally approved
Coastal Management Program. This is a routine item that comes before you each year.
As you know, California's Coastal Management Program is administered by three state agencies,
the Coastal Commission, BCDC, and the Coastal Conservancy. The Commission is the primary
recipient of all federal funds and then we pass the other two agencies shares to them by means
of an interagency agreement. For the fiscal year 25 to 26 coastal zone management grant cycle,
California will receive $3,137,000. Of this, BCDC will receive $390,950.
The Coastal Conservancy will receive $393,000. And the commission will retain the remaining
$2,352,750. The three executive directors agreed upon this distribution of funds.
The majority of our federal funds will support our core program activities
for regulation, planning, and enforcement. A subset of these funds, about $386,000,
is directed towards projects that seek to enhance our program in the areas of coastal hazards,
sustainable development, wildfire resilience, public access vulnerability, and marine debris
reduction. Today I seek your approval of the two interagency agreements. There are two motions of
approval that can be found starting on page one of the staff report. This concludes my remarks
and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Are there any public comments on this
item? There are no public comments. Thank you, Chris. I'll return to the Commission for comments,
questions or the motion please I'm ready to make a motion but where did you
where is the page one of the staff report please oh there it is okay I
move that the Commission authorize the executive director to enter into an
interagency agreement to pass through three hundred and ninety thousand nine
hundred and fifty dollars of federal funds to the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission for the purpose of implementing the
California Coastal Management Program for fiscal year 2025-26 and recommend a
yes vote. Second. The motion by Commissioner Notoff a second by
Commissioner O'Malley and they're asking for a yes vote and we have a roll call
please. Commissioner Escalante? Yes. Escalante yes. Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart
Yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson yes. Commissioner Rodoni. Yes. Rodoni yes. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez yes. Commissioner Nada. Aye. Nada yes. Commissioner Presiado. Yes.
Yes.
Prestiato.
Yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson.
Yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley.
Yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon.
Yes.
The vote is unanimous.
The motion carries.
Thank you.
Now to the second motion.
The second motion is, I move that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to enter
into an interagency agreement to pass through $393,300 of federal funds to the State Coastal
Conservancy for the purpose of implementing of the California Coastal
Management Program for fiscal year 2025-26 and request a yes vote.
Second.
Motion by Commissioner Knottoff a second by Commissioner O'Malley they're asking
for a yes vote.
Will we have a roll call please?
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson yes.
Commissioner Rodoni.
Yes.
Rodoni yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes, yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner not off.
Aye.
Not off.
Yes.
Commissioner Preciado.
Yes.
Preciado.
Yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson.
Yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley.
Yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante.
Yes.
You have a seconder, seconder, seconder, seconder.
Yes, the vote is unanimous.
Great, thank you.
The motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Hall.
Okay, now we will move on to item 6F, the plastic pollution reduction guidelines, please.
Yes, thank you.
This next item is consideration of the plastic pollution reduction guidance, and I will turn
it over to Eben Schwartz for the staff presentation.
Thank you.
And good morning, again, commissioners.
We have slides for this item please.
It is rare that I get to speak with you all even once,
much less twice in one meeting,
so I know you're all feeling like,
how can we miss you if you won't go away?
But I am quite excited to be here to present
the Commission's new guidance on preventing
plastic pollution in
coastal development permits and local coastal programs.
The Coastal Commission, as you know, has a long history of addressing plastic pollution
in the coastal zone starting with Coastal Cleanup Day.
Since 1985, over 2 million volunteers have participated in one of our cleanup programs
and for many years, this was one of the only mitigation measures taken to address the flood
of plastic pollution that's reaching our coast.
The Commission has taken formal actions to address plastic pollution in the past, but
typically on an ad hoc basis in which an enforcement action was warranted or there
was a willing permit applicant or where there were measures imposed as special
conditions in a permit. Next slide. It has long been a goal of the Commission
to formalize plastic pollution reduction measures in its regulatory and planning
processes as stated in the Commission's 2021 to 2025 strategic plan. In addition
And several policies in the Coastal Act address issues relevant to the environmental and social
impacts of plastic pollution resulting from development.
And so commissioned staff with input from the Commission, the public and stakeholders
decided to use our annual NOAA Coastal Zone Enhancement Grant funding to formally incorporate
plastic pollution reduction measures into our work.
Essentially, we created a new lens through which planning staff at both the Commission
and local governments could analyze proposed projects.
We wanted to design the guidance to be as easy to use as possible and to help project
applicants design projects that reduce plastic pollution.
Staff developed an internal task force to complete this work over the past three years
and we're very thankful for their help in seeing this project through.
Next slide.
The guidance is organized in two main sections.
The body of the guidance lays out the environmental, economic, and social impacts of plastic pollution
and relevant Coastal Act policies, and general strategies for addressing plastic pollution
in both CDPs and local coastal programs.
The second section of the guidance, the appendix, provides an in-depth discussion of several
types of development that frequently raise plastic pollution concerns and includes examples
of recent Commission permitting actions for each development type whenever available.
We began by developing an inventory of past Commission actions that addressed plastic
pollution.
We're happy to find that the Commission has actually done quite a lot to address this
issue in the past.
Our plastics task force also conducted significant amounts of literature research to help justify
the basis for Commission actions and provide sound scientific basis for special conditions.
There are over 150 citations within the document, so the guidance is well researched and backed
by the latest science.
Next slide.
The draft of the guidance went out for 30 days of public review
on August 15.
And we also worked with the Ocean Protection Council's
Plastic Pollution Steering Committee
to distribute the draft among partner state agencies.
Some suggested language to strengthen, oh, sorry.
We received four public comments, which were largely
supportive of our efforts.
Some suggested language to strengthen
certain sections of the guidance, especially
within the tobacco products category,
Typically, as Commissioner Wilson pointed out, our most collected item during cleanups,
illustrated by these volunteers and their bucket of cigarette filters.
We also received suggestions about efforts to ensure that the process for incorporating
reduction measures is as inclusive as possible, especially in those communities most impacted
by pollution.
And these changes were incorporated wherever possible.
And now I'd like to turn the presentation over to Dr. Vanessa Metz.
Dr. Metz, who is a senior environmental scientist in the Commission's water quality program,
wrote the majority of this guidance document.
Good morning, commissioners.
In this guidance, we discussed six key considerations to keep in mind when evaluating potential
impacts of plastic pollution from development projects.
Next slide, please.
Plastic pollution impacts ecosystems throughout the coastal zone.
which are smaller than a pencil eraser, are of particular concern as they are readily ingested
and inhaled, leading to adverse impacts from both the plastic itself and toxic chemicals that may
leach from the plastic. For example, microplastics in the brain of honeybees impair their learning and
memory, disrupting their foraging and pollination effectiveness. Proposed uses of plastic should
be identified, but they may not always be readily apparent. For example, this poured-in-place rubber
rubber or playground may be called recycled rubber but it's made entirely from synthetic
rubbers which are plastics, including a base layer of shredded recycled tires.
The impacts of plastics used during construction phase of projects should also be evaluated
as well as long-term uses. For example, plastic netting is commonly used in construction phase
erosion and sediment control products such as fiber rolls and it can also trap wildlife.
Next slide, please.
The likelihood that materials used during development projects will shed plastics into
the environment should also be evaluated.
For example, artificial turf fields, shown here, have thin plastic blades and usually
a granular fill, often made of ground tire rubber.
Both these materials shed a lot of plastic pollution into the environment.
The upper photo shows tire rubber microplastics
shed from this artificial turf field
entering the storm drain system,
which discourages into coastal waters without any treatment.
The toxicity of plastics proposed for development projects
should also be evaluated.
Plastics often contain many hazardous chemicals
that can leak into water or into organisms.
Tires and recycled tire rubber used to make products
such as playgrounds, are of particular concern
as they contain many toxic chemical additives.
For example, the chemical 6PPDQ that leeches from car tires
has been found to be responsible for pre-spawn mortality
of up to 90% of adult coho salmon
in Puget Sound streams over the last 25 years.
Stormwater runoff transports tire wear particles
and their chemicals from roadways into waterways.
Plastic pollution source control and treatment best management practices, BMPs, should also
be evaluated.
For example, the vinyl ramp on this dock pile has degraded and released plastic pieces into
the water.
Monitoring and replacement could prevent this.
Also, a treatment BMP, such as this rain garden, can often remove microplastics and their chemicals
from stormwater runoff.
Next slide please.
In the appendix, we dive into more detail for several types of development that often
raise plastic pollution concerns, which fall into these ten categories, trash and waste
management, commercial and industrial development, including hotels, food services, aquaculture
and plastic manufacturing, overwater and in-water structures, including docks, piers, piles
and heat piles, the construction phase of projects, and public works and facilities,
municipal wastewater treatment plants, roadways, and dragging. This photo is of a beak outfall pipe
to dispose of drag sediment from a harbor. Over three tons of mostly plastic debris were also
deposited and were later removed. Next slide please. Other development categories include
long-term erosion control for slopes and shorelines such as keo cells, permeable pavement such as
reinforced turf, agriculture such as plastic film to cover row crops shown here, and municipal
sewage slugs used as a fertilizer, recreation and special events such as playgrounds, artificial
turf and fireworks, and landscaping such as this geotextile plastic weed cloth.
Next slide please.
For each development type in the appendix we discussed common uses for plastics to be
on the lookout for, non-plastic alternatives to consider, such as this playground made
of natural cork, plastic products that have lower toxicity and are less likely to shed
plastics, and also plastic pollution source control and treatment control BMPs to consider.
Finally, we also included summaries of recent commission permit and LCP actions that addressed
Plastic pollution for each development type if available
with a link to the staff report
and the special condition number
to make it easy to find the permit requirements.
Now we'll turn the presentation back over to Eben Schwartz.
Thank you, Dr. Metz.
Next slide, please.
Though our plastics team has attempted
to make the guidance document as comprehensive as possible
given our current state of knowledge,
but research into plastic pollution is still relatively new
And the state of knowledge has been growing exponentially over these past two decades.
Similarly, the portfolio of actions that the Commission could take
to achieve further reductions continues to grow along with our understanding
about where best to intervene.
For these reasons, we intend that this guidance will be a living document, and our plan is
to continue to track Commission actions for plastic pollution prevention measures
and incorporate new actions into the guidance whenever possible.
We'll also add additional development types to the appendix
as our knowledge and time allows,
and we'll bring any significant changes back to you
for approval.
Finally, we want to encourage planners,
both within the commission and local governments,
to think creatively about ways in which plastic pollution can
be reduced if not eliminated.
As the first half of the guidance document
shows clearly, plastic pollution is a real and growing threat
to our coastal environment.
It's incumbent upon all of us to do whatever we can
to prevent this flow of plastic to our coast
so that hopefully one day we can let our Coastal Cleanup Day
volunteers work themselves out of a job.
Next slide, please.
Thank you very much.
And the text of the motion for approval
can be found on page two of your staff report.
Thank you very much.
Are there any public comments for this item?
Yes, we have three people signed up.
First is Jennifer Savage in person.
Hello again, Chair Harmon, commissioners,
Jennifer Savage, Surfrider Foundation.
On behalf of our statewide network
of volunteer activist chapters,
student clubs and business supporters,
we support advancing these guidelines
for addressing plastic pollution
in coastal development permits and local coastal programs.
We also submitted several recommendations in advance
to strengthen the draft so that it will drive
real enforceable change, and we thank your staff for considering them.
Specifically, we appreciate the replacing of avoidance with prevention.
We must not just avoid plastics, but prevent pollution at the source.
And the stronger language acknowledging the full lifecycle harm of plastic on
California's environment, communities, and wildlife from extraction to disposal.
In section nine, we support requiring local jurisdictions to integrate prevention
their local coastal programs and appreciate the effort to ensure accountability through timelines,
monitoring, and measurable goals. We also appreciate in the food service and hospitality
the references to SurFighter's ocean friendly restaurants and ocean friendly hotels programs
as compliance benchmarks. These proven models provide clear criteria for eliminating single
use plastics, requiring reusables, and installing resill systems. In closing, we thank the Commission
for its leadership in tackling plastic pollution and for decades of partnership through California
Coastal Cleanup Day. SurFighter looks forward to supporting you in finalizing and implementing this
vital policy. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Lisa Gilfillan. Thank you so much. Good afternoon
commissioners and all of you in the room. I'm Lisa Gilfillan and I'm the California field
representative with Oceana. I'm assuming you've heard of the organization but just to give you
some background. Oceana seeks to phase out the production and use of unnecessary single-use
plastics and move to non-toxic reusables and refillable products and packaging.
Elimination of these single-use plastics is critical for coastal and human health.
And we truly appreciate that the coastal commission's put in this effort to build
on this past work and to address the plastic pollution issue by preparing this guidance.
Fully admitting that we are late to giving these comments, we weren't there for the original
public comment window of opportunity. So maybe this can go on Evan's rolling list of suggestions
for future versions of this, but we just wanted to call out a few key things. We support the efforts
and in finalizing the guidance, we hope that you can continue to prioritize source reductions
over efforts related to the waste stream. So to that end, we have a few specific recommendations.
We like the general strategies for addressing plastic pollution
and that you've started with the use of non-plastic materials.
But as the Commission points out in its summary of plastic use alternatives,
many of those alternatives, although they're still better than plastic,
many times they fail to meet their promises if the exact disposal instructions are not followed.
So for this reason, we believe that Commission should start its general strategies with a
category to avoid some of these products entirely with a focus instead on reuse systems
for any relevant development. The Commission can provide examples of this,
as it does with its example of avoiding plastic takeout food wear. One example should be carrying
only reusable service wear on site. Although the commission encourages restaurants to participate
in Surf Rider's ocean friendly restaurants program in Appendix A, that guidance would be even
stronger by including some of that ocean friendly restaurant requirements directly into the guidance.
Additionally, I now am at eight seconds just recommending that water bottle refill stations
could be clearly called out as well. So thank you for your time really appreciate this document.
Thank you. And then we had one other speaker Chloe Haravicini. We're not able to find them
on Zoom. Chloe if you are on Zoom please raise your hand. Chloe is my colleague and she was
covering for me while I was in another meeting so you can pass on Chloe. Okay thank you. Sounds
great. No more speakers. Great thank you very much. I'll turn it back. Are there any closing comments?
Just to say I just want to appreciate both Eben and Vanessa for their
incredible work. I think it's been, you know, sitting in these commission
hearings you've seen elements of this in different permits and LCP policies but
it's it has been such an opportunity really to bring that all together into
this guidance document. I'm really excited, appreciate the recommend or the
suggestions that we heard today. We'll take those into consideration moving
forward and just really look forward to the vote. Thank you. All right I'll
to the Commission Commissioner Escalante. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you
staff for bringing this to us. I'm thinking of former Commissioner
Amazada and a few others Commissioner Robert Duranga who were such staunch
advocates of staying on top of this issue. I thought that was a very thorough
analysis of why we need this guidance and I think Commissioner Hart knows
understands that you know we might her and I might be some of the most hated
people in the state by the plastics industry so you know dedicated at least
a good part of my environmental career to fight this type of pollution throughout
its entire lifecycle and I can tell you that the way things start moving or at
least powers that be, you know, they're trying to sort of shift more of the
fossil fuels into the production of plastics and as a solution to flooding
the zone with so much plastic, single-use plastic, the solution is to
chemically recycle, incinerate, burn, create enormous environmental justice
issues in the communities that live around that aside from just general
environmental problems. So I appreciate this under that context where everything else is
trying to push us towards that direction despite significant fights and the advocacy from groups
like Surfrider and Oceana. So thank you for this and I would be happy to move this when
we're ready.
Thank you. Commissioner O'Malley. Yeah, thanks. I'll be brief. I just want to give my heartfelt
thanks to staff Evan and Vanessa for working on this. This is, I haven't seen a document
like this. I love how comprehensive it is and it's all in one place. I'm digging that.
I think that, by the way, also kudos to my fellow commissioners Estolante and Hart for
being the most hated people in the state by the plastic industry. Congratulations. So
Water by work in the past has been on stormwater permits, and I know that the municipal stormwater
permits statewide are now actually being amended to achieve the State Water Board's goal of
no trash in our waters, but the way I looked at that is it's kind of dealing with plastics
once they're in the environment and in their stormwater systems already, so that's problematic.
I see this as a good companion to that statewide policy in addressing plastic use before it's
in the environment, which is really where we need to focus.
And so, with that, I kind of would, you know, I think,
I'm welcome that the staff was,
considering support as prevention language,
because I do think it's truly important,
whereas some of the MS4, they don't really address
that as much as they should, and the fact
that we have this ability to make these decisions based
on the prevention, I think is genius.
So, thanks so much for really all your work on this.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
All right.
Back to my unprepared stream of consciousness comment.
You guys love it.
So I just want to emphasize, I'm going
to take just a small sliver because of an interest that
impacts my community in terms of marine plastics.
And during certain times of the year,
we actually get a certain kind of marine plastic
where it'll be more common in areas than cigarette butts,
and that is shotgun wads.
And if people don't know what a shotgun wad is,
is when people shoot a shotgun in their environment, hunting
or otherwise.
People imagine the shotgun has a shell,
and the stuff comes out the front.
But what holds in the shot is what's called the wad.
And typically, that wad was paper for many years.
And then sometime in the last few decades,
it's turned into plastic.
And so that plastic shoots out the end of the shotgun
every time a shotgun is shot.
it's practically un-retrievable.
And it's about the amount of plastic as a shopping bag.
And it looks like a squid.
And it typically floats because it's plastic.
And so on many of the beaches in my community,
in certain times of the year, it can be one of the main pieces
of plastic people find.
It's also in the top 10 pieces of plastic
that people find in Marin and San Mateo and San Francisco
County beaches during certain times of the year as well,
probably having to do with hunting activities in the valley.
So what I'm just saying is what I'm emphasizing
is that there are alternatives to this.
There are biodegradable alternatives to this.
Because there really isn't a practical way
to retrieve that piece of plastic.
It just shoots out the end of a gun, and it can't be found.
Unlike the shell, which can be found just right next to you
when you pick it up off the ground.
So there is a way forward for this.
And I just wanted to emphasize that this
is a particular piece of plastic pollution
that we deal with in some more rural areas.
But nonetheless, the overwhelming amount
of plastic pollution that we see and is
discussed in this document, I support this strategy.
I just wanted to highlight there is a piece of this
that I've been approached by an advocate on this issue
and she wants to bring a presentation to the board
and I think we'll probably see that in the next few months.
So thanks.
Very interesting.
I support this document, I think.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much, I just wanna appreciate
Commissioner Escalante and the other commissioners
that have spoken on this issue.
Commissioner Escalante and I, along with another individual,
were the proponents of an initiative on the plastics issue,
which ultimately was put aside in favor of legislation,
which I think has had sort of a medium,
I guess, at best level of results.
I'm looking at Jen Savage from Surfrider.
I would appreciate you two for all your work on that.
But you know, the thing about plastics here,
it just goes hand in hand with what I talked about earlier
in terms of the dumping.
Once humans are stupid enough, frankly,
to do the kinds of things that humans have done,
whether it's dumping DDT into the oceans
or filling up barrels with radioactive material,
you can't take it back.
And with microplastics, you can't take it back.
I mean, they're in the brain of bees.
And they're in the brains of our children, of our everywhere.
I don't need to talk to this group about that.
And that's why I'm so happy to see these efforts
prevention and we have to continue this fight. I know we get pushback on for
example you know on alternative to grass fields you know going back to grass we
we've had that and that has various problems but I just the plastics issue
is just so critically important. I want to express my gratitude to the
commissioners that all work on that as well as to our staff and to our NGO
partners. Thank you so much for your work on this and thank you for this
guidance. Thank you. I fully align myself with those comments and those of the
other commissioners. Commissioner Escalante. Thank you, Chair. I move that the
Commission adopt the guy. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Commissioner
Jackson. I just speak up louder. I appreciate all the hard work from from
staff. You know, I'm as the new guy up here, one of the new guys. And from a
coastal city that has some pretty strict regulations about plastics, I've
always scratched my head and wondered why California, who has led on so many
environmental issues throughout its history, has not led when it comes to, you
know, single use plastics.
And I would certainly like to join my colleagues on being on
the list of most hated by the plastic industry.
And I think every California should strive for that.
I mean, if you walk anywhere, I mean, I love Costco.
I go to Costco, and people have a party.
What do they do?
They buy that big box of plastic ware.
Well, right next to that is a big box of wooden cutlery.
They've got the Styrofoam clamshells.
They also have the compostable clamshells.
You go to Chipotle in my city.
We have compostable bowls with the aluminum foil lids,
wood fork spoons, paper bags.
You go to the city next door, plastic bags, Styrofoam,
clamshells, and single-use plastic knives, forks, and
spoons.
So I certainly appreciate what we try to do within our
authority, but unless we get help at the top, and as
California goes, so does the nation, and
oftentimes the world.
And this is certainly an opportunity, I think, for
California to lead, as they did sort of with
the plastic bag ban.
But my kid went to Penn Express the other day.
And he comes home with a plastic bag.
And I was livid.
And he had single-use plastic.
And I said, you've got to refuse the plastic.
Never take the plastic.
Right?
And I understand from the business perspective.
And this isn't something that can happen overnight.
But I'm in a phased out approach with, it would be great
if we could do it before the Olympics.
Or if we could do it by the start of the next decade
or something.
But until we get the folks at the top to show leadership
and to join the most hated list by the plastic industry,
we're going to be talking about this 5, 10, 15 years from now.
And every time we go through the beach cleanup
or you see the stormwater waste that comes out
after we get rain, anybody that sees that
has got to be scratching their head going,
what can we do about this?
So for whatever it's worth, I was
going to ask the question, why hasn't California
done anything more?
But we all know the answer to that.
So it'd be rhetorical at best.
So it's a stream of consciousness.
I'm joining with my friend from Humboldt County.
Because at the end of the day, it's
going to require leadership from our great capital here
if we're really going to put a dent in this issue.
And in my humble opinion, the single-use plastic
is the easiest to start with.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Commissioner Escalante.
I'm happy to tell you a lot about it later over a beer.
Maybe writing a book will also be part of the story
at some point.
But I probably moved to that the commission adopt the guide.
Okay, I'm doing this without glasses. I
moved that the Commission adopt the guidance for addressing plastic pollution and coastal development permits and local coastal programs
pursuant to the staff recommendations staff recommends a yes vote
Second a motion by Commissioner Escalante a second by Vice-chair Hart. They're asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll call, please?
Commissioner Jackson Jackson. Yes
Commissioner Rodoni yes Rodoni yes commissioner Lopez. Yes, Lopez. Yes
Commissioner not. Oh, I not off. Yes, Commissioner presciento
Yes, presciento. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes, Wilson. Yes, commissioner O'Malley. Yes
O'Malley. Yes, Commissioner Escalante. Yes, Escalante. Yes
Commissioner Hart. Yes, Hart. Yes
Chair Herman yes Herman yes the vote is unanimous great. Thank you very much and thank you again to our staff for this excellent work
Okay, I'm gonna recommend that we get through the consent calendars before we break for lunch. All right
That's right. We actually have one more item under the statewide items before we do consent calendar
So we have the Caltrans asset management and syllabus adaptation planning presentation. So that is happening apologies. Yes
So I will turn over to Peter Allen to introduce our guest.
Thank you, thank you.
And I had some quick slides, Chris.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, commissioners.
Or good afternoon, rather.
W6H is an informational briefing by Caltrans
on their asset management program.
And in a moment, you will hear from Mike Johnson,
the head of asset management at Caltrans.
But I thought I could start with a quick introduction.
You, of course, see us coming to you regularly
with regular CDP applications for Caltrans projects,
but actually a lot of our work now
is behind the scenes and planning activity.
And we thought given the location here in Sacramento,
this was a good opportunity to highlight
that broader work that we're doing.
Overall, I think our philosophy is to try
and leverage our partnership to shift
from being a sort of a reactive body
waiting for applications to come in
to a proactive partner trying to influence
and frame out the future projects
that eventually will come before you as applications.
And a good example of this is our work
around the State Highway System Management Plan, SHSMP,
which is currently nearing completion
for its two-year update.
Next slide, please.
In the 2023 SHSMP, Caltrans invested,
and for the first time an historic 1.6 billion
into sea level rise adaptation,
a real model for the nation, I think.
This investment became the basis for a climate adaptation
and resilience SHOP program,
and you're going to hear more about SHOP in a moment,
but it's essentially the main funding program
for transportation projects in the state.
Commissioned staff worked extensively with Caltrans staff
over multiple years to help develop the program
and work together as we guide the program
to be centered around investments in long-term strategies
that prioritize nature-based solutions and manage retreat,
as you can see emphasized in the language on this slide.
And working together, we used the projected vulnerabilities
shown in the image on the left.
Next slide please.
We use those vulnerabilities to identify some 17
of highest priority projects along our coast
for climate adaptation shop,
the Climate Adaptation Shop Program.
And these projects are now in all various states
of adaptation planning,
and eventually hopefully funding for implementation,
and hopefully one day projects
that will be before you for approval.
And you're seeing here just one example
on Bolinas Lagoon in Marin County,
but the program extends across the length
of the entire state.
Next slide please.
You're also gonna hear more in a minute,
the 2025 SHSMP, the new one is being finalized
and it continues these historic investments
in climate change and sea level rise adaptation.
But at the same time, as we know,
the state is facing increasing budget constraints
and many of our priority projects
are losing expected federal funds that were cut
or suspended by the current administration.
And you're going to see in the Caltrans presentation
upcoming how because of these constraints,
the Climate Shuff Program is currently reshuffling
and sorting some of our projects
into different tiers for prioritization.
But you're also going to hear about the growing costs
of simply responding to the ever increasing emergencies
along our coast.
That is exemplified by the images shown at right here.
These costs now run over $1 billion a year for Caltrans.
And in other words, we're spending so much money
on emergency repairs that there's less money left over
to do what we need to do,
which has addressed the problem upfront with these projects,
thereby limiting the repair bill,
saving money in the long run,
and all while best protecting
and enhancing our precious coastal resources.
Next slide, please.
And against all of this is the looming backdrop
of the enormous challenge before us.
These are the draft projections for costs
from the 2025 SHSMP based on a simple analysis
of sea level rise risk along our state highway system.
And it's our belief that these numbers
are underestimate the problem.
So all of this is to highlight as an introduction
to the presentation ahead.
The biggest challenge before both our agencies
is how to address sea level rise
for so much of our critical transportation infrastructure
on the coast and to do so in a constrained
budgetary situation.
When we all know the enormous rising costs
of emergency repairs will only continue to grow
if we don't proactively address the problems.
So for one, we need to creatively work on solutions
to streamline and reduce the costs
of bringing these climate adaptation projects before you,
including around things I think like mitigation.
But we also all need to continue
to strongly advocate together for state investments
in this resiliency and adaptation work
so that we continue to better protect
our safe coastal access network
while preserving the coast that we all love.
And so with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Mike Johnson,
ahead of Caltrans Asset Management for his presentation. Thanks.
Good morning, Commission, and I apologize for standing between you and lunch. I do have
a presentation if we could queue it up, but as Peter mentioned, my name is Michael Johnson.
I'm the state asset management engineer for Caltrans, and in my role, I'm responsible
for implementing asset management and guiding the development of our state highway operation
Protection Program, which is our largest funding program for rehabilitation on the State Highway
System. Next slide, please. Just a quick intro to the State Highway System. We have, in California,
the most heavily used transportation system in the United States. That may surprise some people,
but realistically, there are more vehicles traveling per mile on California roadways
than any other transportation system in the country, and it's not even close. We're about
four times the next closest state. So our system is very heavily used and that
system comprises about 52,000 lane miles of pavement, one with one lane width wide
by a mile, about 13,000 bridges, over 200,000 culverts, 500 plus buildings, and
over 20,000 signal and traffic management systems, and that's just
Scratching the surface of what we have to manage next slide
we manage all of this through a series of
Work and the main products of our work are up here
It starts on the very left with the California transportation asset management plan
This plan is required under federal regulation to cover the national highway system
which is a portion of of what Caltrans is responsible for and a portion of
important local roads. That comprises this national highway system look. That plan is
being drafted. In fact, later next month we'll be presenting the draft of the 2026 plan for the
state. But for us to manage the state highway system we have to do a much more detailed analysis
and that is our state highway system management plan as Peter noted. The purpose of that plan
is to do two things. One, it defines the need that's out there, unconstrained by available
budget. And the second thing that it does is it defines an investment plan which shows
where the available funding we have is going to be placed. Once we develop that plan, it
ultimately leads to a set of projects. And at any given time in Caltrans, we have the
the next 10 years worth of projects to find.
Those, what are we gonna do with the taxpayers money
going forward 10 years?
And it is publicly available at any point in time.
It's updated every quarter on the websites there,
but it's projectbook.dot.ca.gov.
It's all GIS enabled.
If you wanna look at projects in your neighborhood,
you can find them, you can search through them.
And in fact, you can download the entire set of projects
into Excel if you wish to do that.
So very transparent presentation
of where the taxpayer's money is going
for transportation projects.
Of that 10 year set of work, the first four years of it
is what we take to our transportation commission
for funding authorization.
And so I'm going to pivot from this
to some of the programs that are
within the state highway operation protection program
that are very germane or I believe are germane
to this commission.
Next slide.
So within our plan,
we have 32 different performance objectives
that we are trying to achieve simultaneously.
We have about four and a half billion dollars a year
to try to do that.
So a big part of my job is figuring out
where does the four and a half billion dollars a year go
given all of the various constraints that we have.
Of the programs that may be of significant interest
to this commission, we have mission reduction efforts,
which primarily are zero-emission vehicle charging facilities
and zero-emission modes of transportation,
primarily bicycle and pedestrian.
And we are now entering into an area
where we will be doing more
to try to facilitate use of transit.
Caltrans doesn't own or operate a transit service,
But we have an opportunity to facilitate that,
and we will be doing that as we go forward.
Peter kind of mentioned a little bit about damage,
and I'll talk a little bit more about that,
but that's one of our programs.
We have to fund all of the emergencies that happen,
whether they're vehicles running into things
or things like earthquakes and fires and floods.
We have stood up, as was mentioned,
a climate adaptation and resiliency program,
And I'll talk a little bit about the motivation for that.
And then we have ongoing, fairly mature programs now
in fish passage mitigation to facilitate
the migration of fish up to spawn
up in our coastal rivers and streams.
And we are expanding under new legislation,
our wildlife crossing programs.
And you've probably seen a number of those
or aware of some of those.
There are more in the works.
And I mentioned active transportation already.
Next slide.
One of the federal requirements that we have
when we produce our transportation asset management plan
is to review transportation infrastructure
that has been damaged in the past
and specifically look for infrastructure
that's been repeatedly damaged.
And that is defined by any asset or any location
that has received emergency funding in the prior 10 years,
two or more times.
And so the map that I have showing there is,
the map that is in our draft transportation asset
management plan that we're gonna daylight next month.
But all those little dots and lines,
those are locations along the state
that have seen damage more than once in a 10 year period.
And you could see that there's a significant number
them along the coast and particularly along the Big Sur coast and frankly the
Marin and Sonoma coast. Next slide. So that leads to damage one of our big
programs. In fact this is the second largest program that we have in our in
our plan. It represents between 20 and 25 percent of every available
transportation dollar collected in both state and federal gas tax. We'll say that
again 20 to 25 percent of every dollar collected in state and federal gas tax
is now going to repair damage to the transportation system. We have three
consecutive years in excess of a billion dollars. The year before last we were at
1.6 billion which is a tremendous expenditure to fix damage. A lot of the
damage is on the coast I won't say all of it is but there is a considerable
amount. We are seeing slides, many slides that are bearing our highways. Other slides
that are taking the material underneath our highways and sending it down to the ocean
typically. And then many wildfires. And we're seeing a lot of coastal wildfires as well
as inland wildfires. So we don't really have a whole lot of choice when things like this
happen particularly in areas like the Big Sur coast which everyone's probably
very familiar with these cut off communities they have no way in and out
or if they do have a way in and out it's it's quite a significant detour to get
around to where they need to be and in some cases we're cutting people off from
schools from jobs from emergency services and other things so when we have
damage like this it becomes essentially a top priority for us in terms of our
funding to try to restore the system. This is all reactionary. The damages
happen we're going out to clean it up and try to restore service. At the same
time this is not really a sustainable level of funding. We cannot continue to
put this much money of our transportation dollars to fixing
damage. And so we want to get out in front of it and go on the offensive and that is where our
climate adaptation resiliency program comes in. Next slide. So as Peter mentioned in 2023 we put
out our plan. We were fresh from a robust investment from the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act which was passed which provided specific money for climate adaptation and
resiliency. We put additional money out of our own transportation resources on
top of what we got from the federal government and we identified a number of
projects. We did a call for projects internally to Caltrans. We had over a
hundred different candidates come forward for climate adaptation projects.
Times have changed two years, expenses have gone up at the cost of doing our
transportation work has gone up, at the same time the transportation funding
available has gone down, and so the combination of those two things and
three years of significant damage has caused us to have to rethink what we're
doing in some of the climate adaptation and resiliency. In effect, we're not
backing away from it, but we are having to prioritize it. And so this slide is
showing some of what we call our tier one projects. These are projects that are
high on our list to get to and fund and all of these projects typically have some form
of planning that is happening right now to try to come up with solutions.
This work is primarily sea level rise and storm surge related and coastal erosion related.
There are other interior areas that are climate driven as well like wildfire that tends to
affect more internal areas, heavily forested areas, but we do have a lot of
coastal areas that see a lot of wildfires as well. Next slide. And so we
have these projects up and down the state. We are working on them. The costs
associated with adaptation and resiliency just for these projects alone
is probably in the multiple tens of billions of dollars. There is no
dedicated funding to make this work happen and it was never envisioned when
gas tax were passed that it would be the tax on fuel that was paying for this
adaptation cost and I think this is one area that you know Caltrans and the
reason I'm here today is to try to solicit partners and to get as many
people talking to the appropriate legislative members or others about the
need, and this tremendous need that we have in order to take care of the system and at
the same time provide access and take care of the coastline.
Next slide.
So one of the things that we've been doing is meeting regularly with Peter and his team
and Caltrans and Scott and our team to really improve the dialogue between our two agencies
and look for things that we can do.
And there are opportunities.
So one thing I just wanted to highlight that's underway,
there is a group that's looking at bridge rail,
and this is a problem in the sense
that every time we go to do bridge rail work in Caltrans
and it is critical to our mission,
which is the safety of the traveling public.
So we need to make sure there are rails on these bridges
primarily that are going to make sure
that if someone hits them,
they're going to be redirected back on the roadway
and not the alternative.
When we do bridge rail projects,
we are literally every single time starting over again.
It's somewhat like Groundhog Day.
What's acceptable?
And we're constantly balancing the Caltrans need
and our safety mission with the Coastal Commission need
for aesthetics from the roadways.
And I guess I've just, you know,
there is a team working on it,
but I wanna just reemphasize the need to get to a set of
or a suite of rails that are acceptable to the commission
and acceptable to Caltrans that can simply be picked
and are available for any location
in the state of California.
Next slide.
I wanted to highlight a couple of successes.
We have had great partnership with the commission
in the past.
Certainly Gleason Beach and Sonoma Coast is a success.
This was a highway realignment.
We retreated inland and elevated
so that we're now at 100 year sea level rise level.
And at the same time, we abandoned the roadway
that was closer and provided better coastal access
at Gleason Beach.
So really a win-win.
The project that's next to it
is probably less familiar to folks,
but it is nonetheless significant.
This is a very small bridge.
I say small bridge, about 180 feet,
that spans over Panther Creek in Humboldt County.
This bridge is significant for a couple reasons.
One, because when there was a need to replace the bridge,
we took all of the supports
that were previously there out of the waterway.
And the waterway is significant
because this is a feeder
and a significant salmon rookery.
The bridge that we put in
is the first of its kind built in California.
It clear spans the entire waterway.
And what is also significant is that it was both galvanized
steel and then painted on top of the galvanization
in an attempt to avoid having to do any work on the coating
system for 100 years.
And the whole point of all of this work
was to not get into that salmon rookery
for the foreseeable life of this bridge.
Next slide.
Other success going down in the central coast and San Luis Obispo, Pidgeos Blancas, again,
a very good collaboration, you know, retreat from a coastal route, we retreated inland.
We removed a significant portion of highway in the process, opening up more coastline
and at the same time improving the lagoon and wetlands on the other side.
Next slide.
Here's another one that may have snuck up on folks.
This is a big creek along the Big Sur coast.
This is one of the quintessential coastline projects.
These open spandrel arches, as we call them, that are kind of synonymous with the central
California coast.
This particular bridge, we went to great lengths to preserve without having to do a replacement.
And the way we did that is through a technique that has maybe been the first in the nation
to be used, and I won't go into all the technicals, but it essentially sucks the salt back out
of the concrete that's accumulated over many, many years in sitting in the coastal fog.
And from that, and we can advance maybe one or two, we took what was a very deteriorated
bridge in the center slide where you could see the internal steel is all
corroded that's being caused by moisture and salt and when when steel rust it
expands seven times its volume and it blows the concrete apart. The photo on
the very right is after we extracted the salts and restored the concrete in
effect giving this bridge a little bit longer lease on life it doesn't it
doesn't mean it's inevitable I mean it's it's infinite because we can only do
this process once. But this may have been something that you may not have been aware
of that Caltrans did in an attempt to preserve these bridges as they are. Next slide. Some
future projects. And I think these will all be coming before you at some point for a coastal
development permit. We have been battling last chance grade. This is US 101 in Humboldt
County for my entire career. And I've been with Caltrans almost 35 years and
it's been a non-stop battle. The coast is eroding, the material under US 101
keeps sliding into the Pacific Ocean and we keep losing sections of US 101 and
this is cutting off tribes, it's cutting off communities from resources, it's been
very problematic. Our short-term solution has been to make walls and that
photo in the middle is actually a 60-foot hall retaining wall and each one
of those little things that looks like buttons is a cable that goes back into
the rock and sucks that wall to the mountain. I'm being very non-technical
here but that's what happens and that's what we're doing to keep US 101 going
but that is not the long-term solution.
I don't know why, maybe advance one more.
Our long-term solution here is to actually build a tunnel that looks like this
that will actually go underneath the historic redwood forest.
It's retreating inland, and hopefully we get to a place
where US 101 is stable for the long-term.
The price tag on this project, $1.5 to $2 billion.
Next slide.
Another project that will be coming before you shortly is the replacement on the Albion
River Bridge.
This project is significant for many reasons, but the ones that are probably most significant
to the Coastal Commission is just by looking at the photos, we're going to open up the
beach and open up the coastline visually.
We're taking the supports out of the waterway and we're providing bicomped access across
the bridge itself including areas where you can sit and overlook the ocean and and the river.
Next slide. Another project that will be coming to you is the replacement of the Lime Kiln Creek
Bridge. This is down in the in the Santa Barbara area. The bridge is right at a state park and
it's right on the beach and this is one we've been collaborating quite a bit on the Coastal
Commission, trying to reduce the supports, opening up the access. This is an extremely
technically challenging location because right on the far side of this photo you have a mountain
that is not very stable. And what is helping to make it stable is a revetment wall that's
down at the sea level that's keeping it from eroding. And so we've been working very closely
with the Coastal Commission to try to come up with a solution that will result in a highway
that is reliable and at the same time help improve access a little bit here.
Next slide.
So this is an informational item.
My first time presenting before the Commission and, you know, hopefully there is better collaboration
and more opportunity.
I know we have, you know, our team here with Scott that liaisons all the time.
But from my standpoint, when it comes to our projects, the sooner we can hear feedback
from the commission, the commission staff, the better.
Because it's easier to make course corrections early on, it's very difficult to do once we've
invested years and millions of dollars in design and planning.
So I would encourage early review of project concepts and keep the collaboration, particularly
when it comes to these resiliency projects
on the sea level rise,
these are ones where we'd like to, you know,
have the commission staff right up front
before we start figuring out solutions
or even proposing solutions to have those conversations.
And because of the fiscal constraints and other things,
we are gonna need to look for how we can be as efficient
as we can possibly be.
And I think between Caltrans and the commission, you know,
The more we can limit back and forth passing plans
and then going back, it would save a lot of time
and save a lot of money.
And then I mentioned standardizing things
like bridge rails.
I'm not saying it's one size fits all.
I'm saying there may be a suite of them
that you can pick from that could then be context sensitive.
You have to realize that a bridge rail,
an acceptable crash-worthy bridge rail takes years
millions of dollars to get approved. Millions and millions of dollars. So you
know this is something that we need to take you know in and work on
deliberately with the endgame that okay once we got them these are the options
along the coast. And then you know finally I mentioned we have ten years
worth of projects laid out right now and you know are there opportunities to
start having conversations about portfolio you know looking ahead looking
at the portfolio, whether it's one county, you know, one coastal commission region, you
know, we're not exactly sure how we could structure that, but to look at trying to get
out in front of it rather than one project at a time, you know, we're doing, you know,
if you look at our online dashboard that I pointed out, there's over 2,000 projects.
So if we're having to, you know, to interact every single project one at a time versus
this is what we're doing, take a look, what are your concerns,
let's have that feedback, that could improve efficiency greatly.
And then, you know, I mentioned the fiscal tightening and, you know,
we have mutual goals and Caltrans wants to help, you know, meet our goals obviously
and also meet those of the commission and we're having to do that in tighter and tighter budget.
So, appreciate your time and hopefully your stomachs aren't growling too much,
But that's really what I had for you today.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir.
We really appreciate it.
Are there any public comments?
No speakers.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
I will turn it back to the Commission.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Allen for the presentations today.
Just want to echo what they say just as far as a big shift that we're trying to take to
from being a more of a reactive emergency approach
to being more proactive,
I'm looking at corridors and working together
through our partnership to find solutions
to these really challenging problems
that we're facing throughout the state.
Let's see, I think what we're seeing here also
is just actual action that is a result from policy
at the state level.
And, you know, these are the boots on the ground and we're working together to to push forward, you know, addressing climate resiliency and whatnot. So I think I mean, I don't I know we're all hungry, probably.
So I don't want to say too much here, but I do appreciate the everybody's time today.
And and we are we are all working really closely together between Caltrans and the Coastal Commission.
And we look forward to that continuing. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Eckerly.
Thank you, chair. I really appreciated that presentation. It's quite sobering to see those those photographs
I just had a question about the I I am grateful and appreciate the ongoing coordination between
Caltrans and the Commission on the Commission and at the staff level. I'm curious about
how much work is happening in the integration of the needs of Caltrans and the development of
Local coastal programs and the planning needs and I bring that up because the well
There's an opportunity but also the ocean Protection Council has funding through our SP one grant program where we're
actively investing in see all right adaptation
Plans and in some extent implementation projects across the state and so if there's an opportunity
To leverage those efforts to help fill some of these
Funding gaps that we know are are bigger than we're ever going to be able to fill
I'm just wondering how much of that is already happening if there are steps that we can take to to further improve those
leveraged opportunities
Yeah, the idea of
Collaborating using those LCP related grants to supplement or enhance the transportation work
They're already doing around resiliency is something that we've had for a while and I've tried to build on a couple occasions
sort of a collaborative venture between a local government,
us and Caltrans to realize that,
but we haven't actually been successful in that one yet,
but going forward, I think that those are opportunities
are there that we're gonna keep looking for.
And then just in general,
we are also trying to build more collaboration
in between ourselves, Caltrans and local governments
when they're doing their LCP updates,
especially now when a lot of these LCP updates
are addressing sea level rise.
And we all know transportation network
is very integrated with the local development,
so it's very difficult to plan for one without the other.
So we can't just address resiliency
for highway and a vacuum.
We need to also be working with local government.
So those are both things that are ways
that we're trying to grow our program
and our work together, so yeah.
I would just add too, thanks, Pete.
And I just wanna thank Ms. Johnson for coming.
It was a pleasure to have you here.
And again, I think these are the types of discussions
and partnerships that we're trying to push forward.
We have a great partnership with Caltrans generally,
and we're looking for ways to grow it.
And this is a great example.
Another one is through LCP planning
and making sure that we are moving towards
resilient infrastructure, transportation infrastructure
in at the same time as we're thinking about communities.
And how, because as Peter mentioned, they're integrated.
You can't think about one without the other.
So thanks for, it was a great question
and something that we are continually working on.
And we have some of our Caltrans partners here today.
This is the work that we're trying to push forward.
So thank you.
If I might.
Please, just one quick response.
I'm happy to help connect those dots in our program
and try to elevate when we see proposals coming through asking
questions about whether they have integrated or even spoken
to anyone at Caltrans about this.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you.
Yeah, I just wanted to raise that I appreciate
the conversation, the desire to get upstream.
Obviously, we know that that line-kiln piece,
as well as Paul's slide and the other slides
along the Big Sur Coast are all within Monterey County,
places that I'm very lucky to visit often,
but feel right now that economic pressure
around that lack of access and the rail conversation.
Very directly, a conversation that is hard one to have
because the community sees these bridges
like characters and personalities,
and so any change to them is an emotional and visceral reaction that happens as soon as you
propose it and so I appreciate the desire to try to get upstream and try to create a template but
also acknowledge that in a lot of our communities there's going to be pushback on that concept and
so I just want to be honest about that up front knowing the experience we've gone through in
Monterey County with replacing the rails understanding that the target is safer bridges
but knowing that the community has a very strong desire to maintain a certain aesthetic
So trying to blend the two and it can be a very real challenge.
But acknowledging those pieces as part of this presentation, looking forward,
I think that the collaboration around acknowledging how we pull back in certain communities
is also going to create winners and losers, right?
And it always happens as you kind of shift where a roadway goes.
And so just want to offer my help in anything you need from me as a Monterey County representative,
but also as a coastal commissioner to help keep that conversation going.
I think it's important.
I know that a lot of those conversations have already been sort of touched on within my
communities and folks are very worried, but I think calling them out helps move the needle
further.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Yeah, I too wanted to, I also live on the central coast and certainly we've heard a
lot about Big Sur bridge replacement concerns.
And then just recently when we were up in Mendocino,
same type of emotional attachment to Bridgen Albion.
So if there's, you know, and I've talked to Scott
about this and I think, first I want to say
it's great to have Scott here, he's a great resource.
And, you know, I've talked to him about how can we,
how can we get safety down in Big Serve,
but respect the design as much as possible.
And that and safety at Point Lobos is also an ongoing concern.
So, I think that having that collaboration and trying to get up front, you know,
in the early parts of the process is important, but I would just kind of put a plea in as,
like, if there are ways to replacing kind as much as possible.
That was very, I didn't know what you'd done at Big Creek.
That's really interesting how you were able to do that.
So, yeah, I think a lot of it is we often, on the Commission,
a lot of things are a matter of design,
not whether you do it, but how you do it.
And I think that's the critical lens
that the Commission hopes to bring to that
with our collaboration with you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Thanks, I think we've talked about this a little bit before.
I mean, so on the North Coast,
we have a place called the Lost Coast.
And the Lost Coast is there.
There were attempts to build roads.
And it just didn't happen.
And we are very attached to our anthropogenic things
that we build, roads and dams and other things like that.
And sometimes that infrastructure, I don't know.
I'm sure you guys must be having the conversation
about when just the burden of maintaining the thing just
becomes too much.
The question needs to be asked sometimes if there wasn't a road here to begin with, would
you build a road?
That should inform how you move forward from that decision point, really, because you have
an arc in relation to that, and especially when you're talking about sea level rise.
As supervisor Lopez was saying, some of those conversations can be very painful discussions
because they impact communities, for sure.
But it is real.
Our resources are not infinite, and sea level rise is real, and geology is real, and geomorphology
is real.
And so we have to make some tough decisions, and we've done so with dams.
There were communities that were impacted by the removal of dams, and because those
those things couldn't sustain themselves anymore.
And likewise, I think we need to be really thinking
about these other types of infrastructure
and are they really infinite,
and do we have the capacity to do that?
And it's not just the technology,
it's also programmatic as well.
And we may need to reorient how we access places
or when we access places.
And likewise, we have these conversations on Humboldt Bay.
It's like, if Caltrans will invest many, many millions
of dollars to build a causeway, for instance,
for four lanes, to limit, to create it
so that we can always access something
even when we have sea level rise,
which may cause the road to be closed
twice a year for four hours, for instance.
So the question is, is that infrastructure cost
worth the balance between making a programmatic change
in our community about whether or not
we can access things all the time.
Because many communities use ferries
to get from one place to another.
They actually can schedule.
Under COVID, we changed all kinds of functions
and how we accessed and got around.
So what I'm getting at is we are under this trajectory
that is a very rear view perspective on this technology.
And I think we're gonna have to get real
about that moving forward.
And I appreciate these conversations
and I appreciate Caltrans being open
to those discussions, thanks.
Thank you, Commissioner Escalante.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Johnson and Caltrans
and Commissioner Williams always for the collaborative,
the collaboration.
You know, I'm from, I'm from LA
but I, so my relationship with Caltrans is complicated.
haven't grown up in LA because Caltrans shows up
and then everybody's mad.
And now that I've been living in Del Norte County,
we have developed a whole different appreciation
for Caltrans.
And Caltrans are our heroes.
My son wants to work for Caltrans at this point
because they literally keep us connected and keep me moving.
And I see how hard that fight is.
It's a daily battle.
I've actually been up and down, you know, the highway of the last couple of weeks and
seen how much work you guys are doing getting us ready for the atmospheric weather.
So obviously this relationship is incredibly important to continue fostering.
The challenges will only just get bigger, but I'm very excited to see you guys moving
in this direction or a more comprehensive look at transportation options.
the fact that we are so dependent on the highways
and transportation is one of the reasons
why we're having so many climate issues.
So I do appreciate your leadership in this
and moving us towards that direction.
So always being the one of the furthest one north,
happy to help in any way possible,
or just, I like to keep Commissioner Williams
informed of how well connected we are so far.
This year has been great,
But I do understand it's very real the impacts and how easily we can be disconnected.
I know that there's folks who live in Klamath whose kids go to school in Crescent City and
when the 101 is flooded or when there's erosion or any issues, these kids are completely blocked
from education.
So it is very, very real impact.
So thanks again.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
Appreciate the presentation.
I am an LA county resident.
So God bless Caltrans.
That's all I'm going to say.
I'm blown away.
Well, first of all, you're one of the few other statewide
agencies that gets blamed for more stuff than we do.
So potholes, Caltrans.
Traffic, Caltrans.
It's raining in July.
That's also somehow Caltrans's problem.
But I'm constantly amazed at the engineering.
I want to nerd out now on some of the stuff you talked about
in terms of sucking the salt water out of the pylon
to preserve that bridge.
Because we have a pier in Hermosa Beach
that we've got to spend millions on to try to fix.
And I'm writing down furiously, OK, we
can suck the salt out of the pylons.
But the things you have to think about are mind-boggling.
I sit on one of the cog on the transportation board.
And I know one of the things you're dealing with in LA County
is shutting down the Vincent Thomas Bridge and the 53,000
people that traverse that every day,
and the 5,000 heavy duty trucks.
And just trying to wrap your brain around, OK,
how are we going to get all those people to where
they need to go when you shut that bridge down?
because you have to do it.
So I'm constantly amazed at what you all do.
And we keep asking for more.
I mean, we had an accident in our city the other day,
and I'm like calling my Caltrans guys, and I'm beating you up.
And I'm like, what are we going to do to fix this?
So I know you've got never ending competing priorities.
Everything is urgent.
And then you get a rock slide or a mud slide,
and all of a sudden all your energies have to be diverted.
So thanks for what you do to literally keep California rolling and moving, and thank you
for being here.
Thank you.
This is a great conversation and a really excellent presentation.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, your team, Commissioner Williams, really appreciate this.
So I know everyone is hungry, but we have folks in person who are here for consent,
and I want to ask my fellow commissioners if we can power through consent.
I'm getting nods of yes, so thank you very much.
All right so that does take us to item seven which is the consent calendar for
all units and districts on the agenda today. There are three items from Orange
County. We aren't aware of any controversy on these items and the
applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations so staff is
recommending these items be approved on the consent calendar. Thank you Mr.
swing are there any expert days none and are there any public comments on any of
these items yes we have three speakers our one is available for questions for
7a and then for 7b and c we have Leslie Purcell who wishes the comment on both
of those Leslie Purcell when you're able to please unmute and begin Leslie and
As a panelist now, you should be able to unmute.
OK.
Leslie Purcell.
Yeah, I'm speaking on 7B, the Ocean Avenue.
It's a question of putting in a pool and spa.
This is right at the edge of the beach in Seal Beach.
And I question the wisdom of allowing a pool and spa
with sea level rise and wondering exactly
how far above the sea level this is.
There's going to be 40 cubic yards of grading and soil
removal.
And it says the rear yard directly abuts the public bead,
and the pool will be in the rear yard.
So there was a cosmos map of potential sea level rise.
So there's the sea coming right up there.
I have a just concern about this
and question the appropriateness
of allowing this kind of grading
and a pool at such close sea level.
That was really my main comment.
I am glad that there's at least no basement proposed.
So thank you.
And then did you also have a comment for 7C?
Move to the consent calendar?
Yeah, okay.
I'll go ahead with that then.
again 7C it's somewhat inland but it also has a pool and it's next to the
Las Doritos Wetlands and I find that a bit concerning. I know that there is a
tent that's proposed and some protections for the wetlands but
honestly it just seems like there's even more grading 350 cubic yards of
grating. The pool will be saltwater presumably with no chemicals, but how is this insured and
is there any way to monitor this, you know, in the future? I know I lived at a condo with a pool
in Ventura near the hill area and I was always pulling bees and other things out of that pool.
if they would land and be swimming
and getting ready to drown.
That wasn't even next to a wetland.
So just raising that as an issue.
I appreciate that there are these conditions
that the status that put in,
but I still question the wisdom of such a large amount
of grading with a pool and spa next
to a very sensitive wetland.
But thank you all for your work.
Appreciate it.
Thank you, no more speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
I'll return to the Commission.
Do three or more commissioners wish to remove or comments?
Commissioner Escalante.
Yeah, and I hate to do this.
I know that we like to move consent quickly,
and especially right before lunch.
But I did have a question about 7C.
Can the ADU be sold separately as its own housing unit,
if anybody so desired,
because I'm just,
I'm concerned about the loss of two distinct housing units.
It's not a lot merger,
but technically how is, you know,
this ADU is gonna be,
housing doesn't really represent
an independent unit either.
So I just wanted to understand that.
Typically, ADUs cannot be sold separately from the house.
There are some exception in the ADU law
that does allow it.
I highly doubt that this property qualifies for that.
So it is unlikely that it could be sold separately.
I have trouble with that.
The challenge that we have here is under housing law,
ADUs are considered,
they are considered housing in separate, they are units.
And so we, in this particular case,
it does, when you look at it from a housing perspective,
it's two separate, it's a house and an ADU,
those are two separate housing units.
I hear your concern, but that's what the law says.
And so we were trying to find a path that would allow
for potential in the future, for there, again,
to not merge the lot so you still
had an opportunity for two lots in the future.
Understand that that's not what's being proposed here.
It's a house in an ADU.
But I think under the existing law,
we're a little stuck with how to consider that.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, just as a follow-up, I guess the issue is, for me,
is that this is merging two lots.
Am I, is that correct?
So the original proposal from the applicant
did actually do that.
And we were very concerned about that from the housing
perspective.
So we worked with the applicant to do something less than that.
And that is with this lot tie that's been proposed and we believe the city is in agreement
with that lot tie approach.
The thing we're thinking about is sort of long term is we don't want to permanently
lose these lots with a consolidation.
And so the lot tie, it's undoable at a later date when the site gets redeveloped.
Or through some kind of amendment request that would do that.
Is there a minimum lot size requirement in this zoning?
And the reason I ask that is because is it even practical to move the lot line so that
you have two lots between the two structures?
And if it's not, then you basically have built in a de facto loss of capacity for expansion.
So if you have two lots, you can get ADUs on both lots plus a JADU and even do lot splits.
So it's like you literally have the entitlement for four units on each one of those.
And now under this scenario, I think you're actually losing
entitlements to build in density.
And so I'm wondering, the density potential,
is it being impacted?
And is that something that we even have a nexus to?
I mean, this is one of those things.
We're like, what's our ability or our authority around that?
I hate to use that word.
But you know what I'm saying?
What is that nexus in terms of?
Yes, I think there's a bunch of what you're saying.
I think there would be a decrease in density potential,
as you described it.
When we looked at this project, what we're proposing
or what we are recommending for approval,
we think is consistent with the LCP.
But again, there's a lot to be concerned about here.
And I hear your concerns.
And if the commission is not agreeing with the staff recommendation on this,
then you can pull this from the consent and we'll bring it back at a later date.
We can have a full hearing on it.
I do want to mention that the city of Seal Beach,
they don't currently have an LCP,
but they are actively working on one,
both the land use plan and the implementation plan.
This issue to the extent we can address it at that level,
I think we would seek to do and are seeking to do.
Thank you. Commissioner Nada.
I was just going to say that my notes on this item was what about the net loss of a
housing unit and it sounds like there's several commissioners that share that concern. So I would
they may be the way to deal with that is to have it here pull it off the consent calendar.
Is there a second?
So, are there three commissioners who wish to fold the item?
Well, question first.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for the presentation.
I share my colleagues concerns.
You know, this is the never ending list of challenges we have
when we have competing policies.
This is clearly one where Sacramento has created policies
that permit this type of the demolishing two unique functional single family homes and
replacing it with one big one and a functional ADU that could act as a single resident but
we know typically how these go.
So with that being said, understanding that current policy from our friends in Sacramento
permit this.
So by pulling this for a future item, are we kicking the can down the road when our
hands are essentially tied because we don't have the authority to stop this counterintuitive
project I think I would say that it's it's staff can spend some more time
evaluating it given the commissioners concerns I can't guarantee you will come
to the Commission with a different recommendation but given all the
concerns raised here today I think it's it's worth another look I would support
that then if that's the case madam chair okay um and I just have one follow-up in
In terms of timing if this is indeed pulled and brought back at a future date, will the
LCP update have occurred by that point be simultaneous?
I'm assuming it won't be.
No, no, that's a bit of a longer-term project.
Okay.
Personally, given that, and given the constraints under which we are working, I don't support
removing this, but I'm hearing three or more commissioners interested in removing this
item from the consent calendar, please signal with a raised hand.
Okay, we have three so we will remove item seven C from consent and that will come back at a future date for us to hear the full item. For now, if we could have a motion for the balance of the regular consent items item seven A and seven B, or comments.
So moved.
Motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Vice Chair Hart.
May I have a roll call vote, please Ms. Miller?
Commissioner Rodoni.
Aye.
Rodoni, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Aye.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Nodof.
Aye.
Nodof, yes.
Commissioner Presiado.
Yes.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante yes Escalante yes, Commissioner Hart, yes, Hart, yes, Commissioner Jackson, Jackson, yes, Chair Harmon, yes, Chair Harmon, yes, the vote is unanimous.
Thank you. Those items have been approved and now we will move quickly to the items that have been pulled from the regular agenda to consent.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So that starts with item 11A.
This is the city of Laguna beaches, ADU-related LCP
amendment, LCP time extension only.
Item 13B, the application from the Rail Authority
on their culvert, their work on the culverts in San Clemente.
That's moved to consent.
Item 15a is the city of Oceanside's LCP amendment
for the downtown density.
Sixth housing cycle, time extension only.
Item 16b, application 624, 859 for Oceanside Loma,
Alta Creek mouth maintenance in Oceanside.
Item 16c, this is application 625, 425.
that's the assisted living project in city of San Diego.
There is correspondence on item 13B,
Southern California Rail Authority's culvert work
and riprap installation expressing support
with the staff recommendation.
We've also received correspondence on item 16C,
which is the assisted living facility on El Camino Real.
Comments expressed opposition
based on cycling safety and traffic
on El Camino Real.
It's outlined in our staff report addendum.
The applicant submitted traffic studies
that demonstrate the proposed project
won't substantially lower the level of service
on adjacent roads.
The opponent also raises concerns about impacts
on biological resources and water quality.
Both issues are addressed through
water quality control measures,
a setback from the biological resources
and other provisions to control adverse lighting effects.
No additional contrary information was submitted by the opponent to substantiate the claims
so staff continues to recommend this item be approved on the consent calendar.
And that completes my comments, thanks.
Thank you.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
We have a couple people who wish to speak, Mitch Silverstein and Susie Whitelaw on item
13b.
Mitch Silverstein, you're being moved in as a panelist.
And then across the other items, we just have those available for questions.
Mitch Silverstein, when you're able to.
Thanks.
Hello, Commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein, California Policy Senior Coordinator at Surfighter Foundation, commenting
on W13B regarding after-the-fact authorization of a 95-foot-long rock revetment placed on
the beach in San Clemente by the SoCal Regional Rail Authority.
I bring this to your attention because large swaths of this stretch of beach, starting just
north of the famed Tressel surf break, have been armored with rock revetments to protect
railroad assets, much of it via after-the-fact authorization through emergency CDPs or in
the case of this particular revetment, with no permitting whatsoever.
This pattern is gravely concerning to Surfrider.
The Coastal Act does allow for armoring to protect existing structures, but only when
designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply.
San Clemente's LUP has even stronger language.
It additionally states that any shoreline armoring device must be the least damaging
alternative and must be designed to minimize and mitigate encroachment on the public beach.
Therefore, my question is how can any of these design considerations required to minimize
negative impacts to our beaches take place when rail agencies throw boulders on the beach without
any prior consultation with the commission, state parks, or the city of San Clemente? The answer is
they cannot. The unpermitted revetment being considered today takes up 17 feet of beach space.
In areas further south, revetments take up to 40 feet of beach space.
I'm talking vertical beach space on to the, you know, towards the ocean.
These revetments aren't being designed to minimize public encroachment on the beach
or adverse impacts of sands apply.
In many cases, they're being clumsily thrown on narrow beaches with zero consideration
of local coastal dynamics.
Ironically, waves are now hitting the rocks and scouring the beach, putting the railway
into further danger.
With that said, I encourage the Commission to demand future mitigation as allowed under
under special condition six by requiring the applicant
to maintain the pre-reventment beach within that area.
Lastly, I urge you to demand increased scrutiny
on unpermitted and emergency revetments put on the beach
to protect rail access through San Clemente,
as well as steep consequences
for when rocks are placed illegally
so that nothing happens on that beach
without both public and commercial infrastructure.
Thank you.
Thank you, Susie Whitelaw.
Thank you, I'm Dr. Susie Whitelaw
with Save Our Beach to San Clemente.
There are two completely separate issues
included in the CDP.
The main project is a routine maintenance
of the culvert going under the railroad.
And we have no issue with that.
However, during the permitting process,
another issue arose that has been folded
into this application that gives us concern.
It was a local resident who noted that the railroad
had placed a significant amount of rock on the beach
back in 2017.
And his permitting process
made her submit that documentation
ask if it had been permitted and it was not. This covers almost 2000 square feet of our beach.
Now the routine maintenance project includes mitigation for what probably should have been
under an enforcement action. The staff report is requiring mitigation in the form of three
hundred thousand dollars payable to the city of San Clemente to support its phase two of its
borrow site study. The staff report provides no rationale for why that fee amount was chosen.
In 2023, Save Our Beaches reported another much larger unpermitted rock placement which has not
yet been mitigated. We also have frequent reports from residents of hearing rocks being dumped at
night on top of the existing rock revetments that are difficult to document. The proposed
mitigation is a good start, but we are not convinced that this is enough to mitigate the
harm and dissuade the railroad from future unpermitted rock placements. What we are asking
is that the Commission approve this as a down payment on potentially required mitigation
and allow more time for the public to understand and comment on this issue and evaluate whether
the final mitigation amount is adequate to address the harm done to our public beach.
We don't want to delay the current proposed mitigation as the Borrow Site Study is urgently
needed, but we would like the Commission to provide future opportunities for further public comment
and more robust evaluation, the harms done to the beach and appropriate final mitigation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And we did have one other speaker, but we aren't able to find them.
Kristi Boyd, Kristi Boyd for item 11A.
If you're in the meeting, please raise your hand.
I'm seeing no hands raised, no other speakers.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Do three or more items, three or more items, do three or more commissioners wish to remove?
Mr. Schwing, would you like to respond?
Sure. Yes, I can talk briefly just about some of the questions about the revetment itself.
We we did look at the project as if it was not in place
to be given if that's our usual approach when we're looking at development after our approval for development after the fact and
We did conclude that what they're proposing here is the least environmentally damaging alternative
And that it you know meets all the requirements under 302 3 5 so I wanted to mention that
I would just add too that you know, this is a violation. It's noted as such in your agenda
And as you also know we have been making efforts when possible to fold in
Hold in enforcement actions into permanent action into permit items when we have the opportunity and that's in part because it's
it's faster and it's more efficient in a lot of cases,
especially when you have a willing applicant,
which we did here.
So that was why it's not a separate,
we could have done it as a separate enforcement item
down the line,
but then we would have a much longer period of time
when we don't have resolution.
And as a reminder, there is the resolution of violation here,
I think it's $300,000 to go to the SAND source study
that's being done by the city of San Clemente.
So we thought that was an adequate funding for resolution
for this violation.
And sorry, just one more thing I can add.
In terms of the relationship between the proposed project,
the work on the culverts and the rock,
there is actually a relationship.
They have to actually remove some of those rocks
and then put them back in conjunction with that work.
So we didn't feel like they really could be pulled apart.
Thank you, um, missioners wish to pull an item, make a motion move consent.
Okay.
That's a motion by vice chair heart, a second by commissioner Wilson.
May I have a roll call vote, please?
Commissioner Rodoni.
Hi.
Rodoni.
Yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez.
Yes.
Commissioner not off.
Hi, not off.
Yes.
Commissioner Presiado.
Yes.
Presiado.
Yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart?
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Chair Herman?
Yes.
Herman, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
Those that consent calendar has been adopted.
So we are going to go to lunch now.
If everyone could please be back at 2.20 to resume.
Thank you.
Thank you, I hope everyone had a great lunch.
And we are going to reconvene with items 9.1 and 9.2,
which share a single combined staff report,
including the proposed consent cease and desist order
number CCC dash 25 dash CD dash 04,
and consent and administrative penalty number CCC dash 25
The consent order and consent administrative penalty are proposed to be issued to two LLCs,
SCP-1740 Ocean Avenue LLC and SCP-1740 Ocean Avenue Opco LLC which are lessees of the Sanborn
Hotel located at 1740 Ocean Avenue in the city of Santa Monica. APN number
4290-019-010. Would the alleged violator and or its
representatives please step to the mic and identify themselves for the record
or unmute. Yeah I believe they're on Zoom. We're moving them in as a panelist right
now. Thank you. Bill Doak. Hello. Hi, we can hear you. Okay, great, thank you. My name is Bill
Doak, and I serve as the managing director for the ownership group of the hotel at 1740
Ocean Avenue. It's now known as the Sanborn Hotel. Thank you, sir. From the time we received a notice,
we worked cooperatively. Thank you, sir. Excuse me, I'm still moving through the
early stage of this process. Did you say your name was Mr. Oak or Mr. Doak?
It's Mr. Dohr.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Dohr.
Appreciate it.
OK.
Staff, can you please identify which items are already
part of the record?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
The record consists of the contents of the staff report
and supporting documents, the public documents
in the violation file, the addendum, and today's hearing.
OK.
Thank you, Ms. Hagee.
And how long will you need for your presentation today?
We'd like 25 minutes, although we may not use it all.
Great.
Thank you.
There shouldn't be any ex parte communications
because this is an enforcement item.
But do any commissioners have any such communications
that they'd like to report?
Seeing none, I'm going to review the rules for this proceeding.
Staff has asked for up to 25 minutes for its presentation.
So I will give the alleged violator the same amount of time.
And they may also request to reserve some of that time
for their rebuttal.
After any presentation by the alleged violator,
we will allow three minutes for any other party who'd like to speak as an interested
member of the public, after which I may allow the alleged violators or I will allow, rather,
the alleged violator to use any reserved rebuttal time to respond to comments from those interested
persons. Our staff will then typically respond 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 of 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 question.
With that we will now begin the public hearing and I will turn it over to Ms. Heggie for
the staff presentation.
Thank you so much chair.
Staff is pleased to announce that the respondents those lessees that the chair just announced
who are at lessees of the Sanborn Hotel
located in Santa Monica, have worked with staff
to reach an amicable resolution of this case
and proposed consent cease and desist order
and consent administrative penalty,
which we'll collectively refer to today
as the consent agreement.
We can start the power, oh it's up okay.
The Santa Monica Pier is shown on this slide
and the hotel is marked by the yellow arrow
on the left hand of the screen.
The matter before you today involves the failure
comply with the CDP condition that explicitly required the hotel to
implement a public transit program including reimbursing employees who took
public transit to work providing a public transit carpool and bike
incentive program in addition to several other measures designed to both reduce
vehicle miles traveled and carbon emissions as well as increase the
availability of public parking in the area. Staff worked closely and
collaboratively with the hotel and greatly appreciates their cooperation
and participation in crafting the proposed resolution.
We think it's an exciting settlement proposal because it involves not only increasing the
employee transit subsidy and incentive program which benefits the employees, but also includes
several additional projects that will increase public access to the coast and a number of
measures to protect coastal resources as you will soon hear.
Staff recommends that the Commission issue the proposed consent agreement to resolve
the coastal violations associated with this property.
Today's presentation will be given by Shelby Waymunt, an attorney in our headquarters unit. Robin Waymunt of the council's office is also available for any questions.
Good afternoon chair and members of the Commission. Next slide please.
This slide shows the Sanborn Hotel in Santa Monica.
This case involves the long term failure of the hotel to comply with their CDP requirements,
which deprive the employees of the hotel of being reimbursed for their public transit expenses for nearly 20 years.
As I'll explain later, the CDP condition was imposed in order to find this project consistent
with the Coastal Act, specifically section 30252, which aims to decrease vehicle miles
traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, increase the availability of public parking in the
surrounding area, and increase public access to the coast.
While the long-term nature of this violation not only deprived hotel employees of a financial
benefit they should have received for nearly 20 years, this compliance issue potentially
increased traffic, limited parking in a very congested area of Santa Monica, and limited
public access to the coast. However, through this creative proposed resolution, the hotel
has agreed to increase the transit subsidy, increase coastal public access, and implement
several measures designed to reduce energy, waste, and water use at the hotel, thereby
protecting coastal resources. Next slide, please.
Here you can see a regional map. The Sanborn Hotel is in the city of Santa Monica and marked
with a yellow star. For reference, we've highlighted LAX to the south and Malibu to
the north. Next slide, please. This slide shows the location of the hotel, which is
shown by the yellow star located immediately down coast and across the street from the
iconic Santa Monica Pier marked by the green star, which is next to a large and popular
public beach. Next slide, please. At the time of the CDP in the 1990s, traffic and parking
constraints in Santa Monica were a large concern, as it continues to be today given the popular
popularity of Santa Monica as a coastal destination.
When the Commission issued the CDP for a demolition of a 91-unit motel into the construction of a new larger hotel,
which is now the Sanborn Hotel today,
the Commission found that special conditions were required in order for the project to be consistent with Section
30252 of the Coastal Act, which requires any new development to maintain and enhance public access to the coast by providing means of serving
that development with public transportation.
Next slide, please.
To comply with that section of the Coastal Act, the Commission imposed special condition
two, a summary of which is shown on the slide here, which required the hotel to reimburse
50% of the public transit passes for hotel employees for 30 years, create dedicated carpool
and bike parking, and implement a publicity and incentive program to inform hotel employees
and future owners of the hotel of the condition.
This condition was required by the commission in order to find the development of the hotel
consistent with the public access policies of the Coastal Act.
And without this condition, the project would not have been consistent with the Coastal
Act.
If implemented at the time the hotel opened in 1999, this condition would have provided
a financial benefit directly to hotel employees, reduce traffic, increase the availability
of parking, and decrease carbon emissions for the past few decades.
Next slide, please.
Now I'll review the enforcement history.
The picture on the slide depicts the hotel under former ownership when it was known as
the La Merigo Hotel.
After learning that the hotel did not provide the transit reimbursement program, commission
enforcement staff sent the hotel's prior owners a notice of violation letter in 2018
notifying the former ownership of the violations.
After the hotel failed to resolve the violation in July 2021, the executive director issued
a notice of intent to commence cease and desist order and administrative civil penalty proceedings
to the prior owners. However, while commission staff were in the middle of negotiations to
resolve the outstanding violations, the hotel was sold to the current respondents without
any notice to commission staff. However, after receiving the notice, the new owners, the
respondents, contacted commission staff to resolve the hotel's outstanding liabilities.
Next slide please.
This slide depicts the hotel under current ownership, now known as the Sanborn Hotel.
As you may all be aware, CDP conditions run with the land and therefore attach to any
new owners of the property.
As mentioned earlier, special condition 2B of the original permit requires that the hotel
must provide a transit fare reimbursement program for a minimum of 30 years, which would
have expired in 2029, 30 years after the hotel opened in 1999.
However, from commission staff's investigation, none of the hotel's prior owners ever provided
such a program from when the hotel opened until at least some time after commission
staff sent the notice of violation letter.
And therefore, the prior ownership of the hotel did not provide the required financial
reimbursement to their employees for the entire time that the hotel had been in operation
to that point, which was about two decades.
However, in contrast, after the receipt of the NOI,
the current owners of the hotel worked quickly
and collaboratively with Commission enforcement staff
to reach the proposed resolution and have
been reimbursing their employees for taking public transit
throughout our negotiations.
Next slide, please.
The two main requirements that are
necessary for the Commission to issue a cease and desist order
are either that the development is unpermitted
or is inconsistent with a previously issued permit.
Here, the failure to comply with the CDP conditions,
including the requirement to reimburse employees
for their public transit costs,
is an activity that is inconsistent
with a previously issued permit,
and therefore the requirement for the issuance
of the CSUN desist order are met.
Next slide, please.
Coastal Act Section 30821 allows the commission
to impose an administrative penalty for violations
of the public access provisions of the Coastal Act.
Here, the hotel did not comply with a special condition
that was required for the permit to be consistent
with the public access policies of the Coastal Act.
And if this condition had been implemented as required,
it would have provided a financial benefit
and incentive to take public transit,
reduced vehicle miles traveled,
and increase the availability of parking.
Thus, there is a basis for an administrative penalty here,
as is described in greater detail in the staff report,
beginning at page 12.
Next slide, please.
Section 30821 incorporates the five factors
from section 30820 as shown here on the slide
and as the basis for determining the amount of civil liability
to be imposed, which is covered extensively
in the staff report beginning at page 17.
While there were many delays in reaching this resolution
due in part to the hotel changing ownership,
the hotel here today worked quickly and collaboratively
with commissioned staff to reach the proposed agreement
after they purchased the property,
which required less staff time
compared to many of our other cases.
Additionally, the violations occurred
during the previous hotel ownership
and the current owners worked diligently
on this proposed resolution
to address the entire violation.
The expansive resolution here includes future commitments
that benefit hotel employees, public access,
and coastal resources.
Aggregating these factors,
commission staff concluded that a low penalty is warranted.
Staff recommends that the commission adopt staff's
recommendation for the imposition
of an administrative penalty,
as I will describe in detail in the next few slides.
Next slide, please.
This slide summarizes the main components
of the proposed settlement agreement
and the wide range of benefits this agreement will have
for hotel employees, members of the public,
and for protecting coastal resources.
Through this proposed resolution,
the hotel has agreed to resolve the violations
and liabilities to the program shown here on the slide.
This case involves a variety of environmental justice issues
as well, which are priority for the commission
and the Coastal Act.
Public access on the coastal zone
is an environmental justice issue,
and this resolution would provide a dual benefit
of increasing public access in the surrounding area
by decreasing vehicle miles traveled,
thereby increasing available public parking.
In addition to providing a financial subsidy
for the community of workers at the hotel
who choose to take public transit, bike,
walk, or carpool to work.
By the exact cost of each component of the proposed
settlement is difficult to calculate.
Commissioned staff estimates that just the increase
in the public transit subsidy and having it apply
in perpetuity alone will cost at least $400,000.
Although this number will increase if more employees
choose to take public transit in the future.
In addition, in an attempt to avoid future problems,
proposed resolution includes a critical provision that ensures if ownership of the hotel changes
in the future that any future notices owners are not only put on notice of the requirements
of the proposed settlement agreement but must also agree in writing to comply with all requirements
of the consent agreement. Next slide please. The first part of this expansive resolution
involves an increase in the transit subsidy from 50% to 100% and requires the transit
subsidy in perpetuity rather than for a period of 30 years. This slide shows the big blue
bus line and metro e-line which both run through Santa Monica and have stops near the hotel.
Car ownership is expensive and costs have risen in recent years. By requiring full public transit
reimbursement, this resolution will ensure that hotel workers have an affordable option for their
commute to work while also reducing traffic and carbon emissions and avoiding employees having
to park in downtown Santa Monica near the pier where parking is extremely limited and expensive.
Next slide please. Public transportation options in Santa Monica have only grown
since the initial permit condition was required in 1990 and there is a big blue bus line stop
within one block of the hotel and a metro e-line stop within a 10-minute walk of the hotel shown
by the yellow star. Next slide please. Additionally, the hotel agreed to provide dedicated bike and
carpool parking for employees. This slide shows the bike path along Santa Monica Beach
across the street from the hotel. The bike and carpool parking must be in a secure and
safe location within the hotel. Next slide please. This slide shows a map of the downtown
Santa Monica Big Blue Bus line which includes a stop nearby the hotel depicted by the yellow
star. The hotel will also create an incentive program for employees who choose to take public
transit carpool bike or walk to work. This incentive program involves a
monthly $500 lottery system that involves cash, gift cards, free hotel
stays and other benefits for employees who choose to participate. While
participation in the program is optional for employees, there is a provision in
the proposed agreement that requires an increase in the monthly lottery system
if the level of employees who choose to take public transit, bike, carpool or walk
to work ever falls below a certain threshold. The intent here is to ensure that the incentive
program is successful and increases to match the rising cost of living. Next slide please.
Next, the hotel has agreed to install eight electric vehicle chargers which must be free
of cost for all employees to use. The hotel also advertises on its website that the EV chargers are
available for guests to use free of charge. This slide shows EV chargers that were installed at
another hotel pursuant to another CCC consent agreement. The combined components of the public
transit program creatively address the long-term violation of special condition two while helping
to ensure that the goals of section 30252 are met. Next slide please. Plastic waste is one of the
main items picked up during the Coastal Commission's annual cleanup day as you heard earlier which is
shown by the poster on the slide here. The hotel has also agreed to take steps to eliminate single
use plastics and styrofoam at the hotel. This proposed component requires the hotel to eliminate
all single use plastics at the hotel and the specific requirements are shown on the slide
and include only using reusable or biodegradable foodware as well as prohibiting plastic straws,
bags, bottles, and single use toiletries. Next slide please. In addition, the hotel has agreed
to follow proper recycling practices and to install two water bottle refill stations for guests,
employees and the public to further reduce single-use containers. This
agreement to eliminate plastic use and styrofoam at the hotel will protect
coastal resources and reduce waste. Plastic pollution has an extremely
detrimental effect on the environment, human health, and marine life and steps
to eliminate plastic pollution will have long-term benefits. Next slide please.
The hotel has also agreed to join a program to reduce energy,
waste, and water at hotels such as the Surf Rider Foundation's
Ocean Friendly Hotel Program in perpetuity. The requirements for the
Surfrider Program are shown on the slide here
and include minimizing outdoor light pollution and on-site Ocean Friendly
Gardens. In addition, for the Surfrider
Program, volunteers frequently visit participating
hotels and restaurants to ensure the requirements of the Ocean Friendly Hotel
Program are followed. Programs like this serve to reduce
marine debris and help educate members of the public about which hotels protect
coastal resources so members of the public can travel more sustainably. Next slide please.
Next, the hotel will enhance public access through purchasing beach wheelchairs to Heal
the Bay Aquarium, which is located at the Santa Monica Pier, very close to the hotel, as you
recall from the earlier location slide. Heal the Bay has an existing beach wheelchair program,
as shown on the slide here, which are free for members of the public to use, and the existing
wheelchairs were purchased through a commissioned wheel tail grant. The hotel agreed to purchase
four new beach wheelchairs for Healdah Bay, which doubles the amount of existing beach
wheelchairs at the aquarium. Further, the hotel has agreed to coordinate with Healdah Bay on the type
and model of wheelchair to be purchased to ensure that these wheelchairs are the type and model that
best meet Healdah Bay's needs. And these wheelchairs must be the all-terrain wheelchairs, which are
designed to be used on the sand and the pier and are more durable. There's a high demand for these
beach wheelchairs and when discussing the existing program with Healdah Bay,
commissioned staff learned that on several school field trips to the Aquarium and Pier,
some students were unable to join their classmates on the beach in Pier due to not having enough
beach wheelchairs. This unique and creative component of the agreement expands coastal
access locally in Santa Monica, helping to maximize coastal access for all. Next slide please.
Next, the hotel will purchase replacement and maintenance parts for the new and existing beach
This may sound small, but it is critical to having beach wheelchairs for public use.
Currently, three out of four of the beach wheelchairs at Healdah Bay Aquarium are not operational
due to the lack of funding for replacement and maintenance parts,
and this component of the proposed consent agreement would remedy that for the new and existing chairs
by ensuring that the chairs are repaired and operational again.
Next, the hotel will provide funding to expand the storage for the existing and new beach
wheelchairs.
As these wheelchairs take up a large amount of space at the aquarium and are frequently
exposed to saltwater due to the aquarium's location at the pier, this expanded storage
will help ensure that these wheelchairs are protected and that Heal the Bay can expand
their existing wheelchair program.
Finally, the hotel will purchase outreach materials for Heal the Bay beach wheelchairs
to let members of the public know about their availability and these signs must be printed
in English and Spanish. We're also very excited to work with our wonderful public education
team to update our website and directory of available beach wheelchairs. Next slide please.
This slide shows the E-line, which is the metro line located in Santa Monica and the
nearest stop is a 10 minute walk from the hotel. In closing, we want to thank respondents
for their dedication in working with us to craft this creative resolution that increases
and protects coastal access for all. This proposed agreement involves an expansive
range of benefits that serves to meet the goals of the Coastal Act by maximizing public
access for all members of the public, decreasing vehicle miles traveled, increasing parking,
reducing carbon emissions, reducing plastic, waste, energy, and water use, and providing
a direct financial benefit to employees and ensuring that these benefits are continued
in perpetuity, no matter who owns the hotel.
Next slide, please.
We recommend that the commission approve the proposed consent,
cease and desist order, and proposed consent
administrative penalty set forth in the staff report.
The motion can be found on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report.
And this concludes my presentation,
and we are available for questions.
Thank you very much, Ms. Lamont.
OK, now I will turn it to the alleged violator, Mr. Doke.
you may address the commission at this time.
You have up to 25 minutes.
Thank you.
Again, my name is Bill Dolcanis.
I'm a service and managing director
for the ownership group of the hotel.
And I just want to reiterate what the staff party said
that from the time we received the notice,
we work cooperatively and constructively
with the commission staff to reach resolution.
And I'm here today to express our full agreement
and commitment to the consent order.
and that is before you.
We appreciate the staff's collaboration
through the process, and we look forward to continuing
to be a responsible partner of Santa Monica community.
Thank you, that's all I really have to say.
I'm here for questions.
Wonderful, thank you so much, Mr. Doke,
and we will reserve your 24 minutes and 23 seconds
in case anything comes up in public comment.
I'm glad I don't need them, okay.
We are too. Thank you very much. Okay we'll now move to public comment on this item. Chris?
All right we have three speakers starting with Steve Ray and then on Zoom C.J. O'Brien
and Zoe Collins. A reminder that each of these speakers are allowed three minutes.
Was that three minutes? Oh my goodness what am I going to do with that extra minute?
Well, commissioners, staff, members of the public, my name is Steve Ray, and nearly
30 years ago, I was at the hearings where this hotel came before the commission.
It was a very contentious issue, and it remained contentious for years because even after the
The project was approved and then built and started operations.
The staff of the hotel workers union that represented them constantly every month like
me came to the Coast Commission and spoke about the issues at the hotel.
Nothing ever seemed to really get accomplished with it.
hotel owners were in violation from the very beginning. However at some point
the people stopped showing up and the issue went away. I thought things had
been resolved. Now I find out after all these years later it never was resolved
it just got buried you know as so many things do. So now we're at a junction
where first of all the hotel has changed names, has changed owners and I'm very
hopeful that the new owners are going to provide a whole new dynamic here in this
hotel for the employees and for the public itself and hopefully all their
guests. So I'm here to support this settlement. Sometimes I think you know
if all these years that went by there should be some sort of monetary penalty
but I understand the staff's rationale regarding this and I think what they've
crafted is an agreement that is even better than the actual conditions that
were placed on the on the hotel in the first place. I want to congratulate Lisa
Hagee and Shelby Weymans and the other staff members who have worked on this. I
really want to congratulate the new owners who are taking the right
approach and doing the right thing here and we should reward that, that they are willing
to do that. And I in particular in the settlement and heartened to see something that's very
near and dear to my heart and my legs and that is that they're doing a lot there to
provide beach access for the handicapped through the wheelchair program, the beach wheelchair
program not just providing some more wheelchairs but they're going to garage
them they're going to repair them they're going to repair the older ones
that are there already through field of day I find that very heartening because
I can tell you walking down on a beach sometimes when your legs don't want to
try to slog through that sand it's really nice to have those wheelchairs so
for that reason and for all the other I support this thank you very much thank
you. Next, CJ O'Brien. Hello, my name is CJ O'Brien Weddle and I'm the ocean
friendly programs manager at the Surf Rider Foundation. Surf Rider supports the
proposed consent agreement and as the organization that created and manages
the ocean friendly hotels program, we're happy to see this agreement require the
Sanborn hotels permanent participation in the ocean friendly hotels program or
an equivalent program. The ocean friendly hotels program sets forth strong
standards for waste reduction, water conservation, energy efficiency, and more
as you can see from the slide. Currently our 38 participating hotels save about
1.6 million plastic water bottles and 2.5 million mini toiletry bottles from
polluting our ocean communities and landfills every year. Making this
This commitment, permanent, ensures that these practices become embedded in the hotel's
operations for years to come, regardless of future ownership changes, and demonstrates
a prolonged commitment to ocean protection.
Surwriter urges the Commission to approve this consent agreement as recommended by staff.
We look forward to welcoming the Sanborn Hotel into our Ocean Friendly Hotels Program and
supporting their ongoing commitment and journey to protecting our ocean.
Thank you.
Thank you. And then Zoe Collins.
Good afternoon. My name is Zoe Collins and I'm here on behalf of Healdah Bay to express
strong support for items 9.1 and 9.2. I want to thank you for your leadership and ensuring
that our close is not only protected but also accessible to everyone. The order before you
today has tangible benefits by directing enforcement dollars towards inclusive measures like providing
beach wheelchairs at our aquarium. You're opening the shoreline to families, elders
and community members who might otherwise be excluded from the joy of experience from the beach.
These chairs are more than equipment, they are pathways to belonging, dignity and connection
with the ocean. We know that access is a cornerstone of the Coastal Act and this action
demonstrates how enforcement can be a tool for equity. It's a model of how we can turn compliance
into community benefit. At Healdah Bay we are proud to steward this resource and ensure that
beachgoers can check out a wheelchair as easily as they can check out a Type 4 guide. On behalf
On behalf of our staff, volunteers and the thousands of visitors who will benefit, thank you for prioritizing inclusion and for recognizing that a healthy coast is one that welcomes everyone.
We look forward to partnering with you to continue building a coastline that reflects the values of equity, access and stewardship. Thank you very much.
Thank you. There are no other speakers.
Thank you very much, Chris. Mr. Doke, do you have any final words you'd like to share with us.
Excuse me, I just want to thank each of the speakers
for their support of this.
And also, one other issue that, excuse me, resolved,
there was, with the prior ownership,
was a contentious issue, was the union.
And we actually voluntarily supported
and now have reached an agreement with the union
pretty mainly after we acquired the hotel.
So the hotel employees are now represented
under a collective bargaining agreement with the union.
But I wanted to just let everybody know
we appreciate the support on this.
Great.
Thank you very much, sir.
Now I'll return to staff if they have any closing comments.
I think that's it.
If we would be happy to answer any questions
the commission might have.
Great.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will now close the public hearing
and bring it back to the commission
for any questions, comments, deliberations.
OK.
Commissioner O'Malley.
All right, thanks.
Thank you.
Once again, I want to talk about how much I appreciate
our unfortunate staff for doing this.
and I know it's a lot of work in coming up to a settlement
that everyone is kind of happy about, I love.
It also stresses the importance of your mentioning
that people would show up and argue
that something needs to be done.
And then we were granted enforcement abilities
in our staff, and so we really, really appreciate
that not only was that able to happen,
but the work that you continue to do, so appreciate it.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Escalante.
I'm happy to make the motions when we're ready,
but just to recognize the great work from our staff
and delightful to see this new leadership in this hotel,
taking all of this at heart,
that suite of conditions or agreements,
they all speak to my heart very loudly.
I think it's quite important,
especially for the beachfront hotels to lead by example
when it comes to plastic pollution reduction,
climate emission reduction.
So all of this congratulations today.
I can't speak.
Congratulations to everybody
and I'll move forward whenever we're ready.
Commissioner Whelffman.
Yeah, I just wanna emphasize this list
of conditions are amazing.
And I appreciate the hotel's representative just basically
saying that they believe in them and that they're ready to go.
I want to just emphasize the incentive approach in terms
of the transit program I just think is great.
Honestly, I'm just hoping that this isn't an odd thing,
this list that this becomes the standard, and I really appreciate that. I really
want this to be the standard for these types of hotels for going forward, so
thanks. Commissioner Jackson. Thank You, Madam Chair. Thank you, staff, as well as
the the applicant. Yes, that's not the proper word in this case, is it? But thank
you for the collaborative nature in bringing this to where we are today. I
just had a couple quick questions. How many employees do you expect to utilize
this public transportation assistance? Well we actually, you know, we actually
implemented this already. I think it goes in waves but we're probably around 50,
about 50 employees today are taking advantage of the public transportation
offering at least. Okay that's 50 out of how many? Full-time employees is 95 you
know I think and we also have ride share as well. Okay. That we help with
parking. And for those that don't utilize this there's a place for them
to park safely all hours of the day and night I'm assuming. Yes they do and I was curious
about the, excited to hear about the charging station and I know that SCE and other organizations
are offering incentives to help to vary the cost for those level two, level three chargers.
Are you putting in level two or level three, do you know that?
The medium one or the fast ones?
We've had the medium ones in place and we're actually adding the level threes now because
I said they're faster so we can get more use out of them.
Great.
Those will be added.
Fantastic.
Good to hear.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
That's all I have in mind.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Further comments?
Ms. Peggy, did you want to?
I was just going to say that we wanted to draw the distinction between this and some
of our other unilateral enforcement cases you've seen recently and just emphasize the
benefits that are near to everybody, the commission, staff, the violator, or the alleged violator,
and the public, because these are resolved much more quickly and more amicably and we're
able to do some creative things that we would otherwise not be able to get.
And to a couple of the comments that commissioners had, we are trying to make these state of
the art.
these provisions in every single case
that we have involving a hotel or a restaurant.
It gives us an opportunity to give the business a chance
to explore the options and to participate in the program
in a way that spreads the word and avoids plastics.
And I just wanted to also say that we agree
that it should be the standard, and we're trying to impose it.
We don't have the legal authority
to do some of these things unilaterally.
And doing these through consent orders
allows us to be creative and to really work with the party to do something that benefits
the community. And this was a complicated one because we wanted to address a number
of issues including the employee concerns and we were very pleased that the hotel was
willing to do that. So anyway that's we're excited about it and we hope that this is
a sample for things to come. Thank you Miss Hagy. I was going to I share so many of those
sentiments and I was just going to say from my part briefly there's so much in this item
and that I too hope becomes a model
for how we approach and manage these issues moving forward,
not only substantively in terms of some of the things
that have evolved in terms of the conditions and outcomes,
but also just the manner in which this was resolved
and the, I'm thinking, teamwork and engagement
that was shown by the new owners.
I just really appreciate it.
And it's not often that we have these items
with such a sort of celebratory tenor,
but that's what I'm personally feeling.
And that is due in large part to our staff.
Incredible work over such a long time.
And the new owners really coming to the table
and working collaboratively.
That's the word I was looking for.
Doing so collaboratively.
So I hope that that approach to these issues
is also a model for the future. With that, I will return to Commissioner Escalante for
motion. Thank you, Chair, and I'll start with motion 1. I move that the Commission issue
consent cease and desist order number CCC-25-CD-04 to SCP-1740 Ocean Avenue LLC and SCP-1740
item be Avenue OPCO LLC pursuant to the staff recommendation and staff
recommends a yes vote second the motion by Commissioner Escalante a second by
Commissioner Wilson they're asking for a yes vote may we have a roll call please
Miss Miller Commissioner Lopez yes Lopez yes Commissioner not off I not off yes
Commissioner Presiado? Yes.
Presiado? Yes.
Commissioner Wilson? Yes.
Wilson? Yes.
Commissioner O'Malley? Yes.
O'Malley? Yes.
Commissioner Escalante? Yes.
Escalante? Yes.
Commissioner Hart? Yes.
Hart? Yes.
Commissioner Jackson? Aye.
Jackson? Yes.
Commissioner Rodoni? Aye.
Rodoni? Yes.
Chair Herrmann? Yes.
Herrmann? Yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you. The motion carries.
Commissioner Escalante. Thank you. And again, thanks for that elegant solution. Motion two. I move
that the Commission issue consent administrative penalty number CCC dash 25 dash AP dash 005
to SCP-1740 Ocean Avenue LLC and SCP-1740 Ocean Avenue UPCO LLC pursuant to the staff recommendation.
staff recommend say yes. second. we have a motion by Commissioner Escalante, a second by Commissioner
Wilson. they're asking for a yes vote. may we have a roll call vote please. Commissioner Nodoff?
aye. Nodoff yes. Commissioner Preciado? aye. Preciado yes. Commissioner Wilson? yes. Wilson yes.
Commissioner O'Malley? yes. O'Malley yes. Commissioner Escalante? yes. Escalante yes. Commissioner Hart?
Yes.
Part, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Rodoni.
Yes.
Rodoni, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Lopez, yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
The motion carries.
Thank you very much.
And thank you again to our enforcement staff.
OK, we'll give our staff just a second to turn over,
and then we will move on to item 10.
Give us just a sec to shuffle some chairs.
just showing whenever you're ready.
Thank you. So that does take us down to item 10,
which is the deputy directors report for South Coast District, Orange County.
The report contains three waivers for projects in Newport Beach and San Clemente.
There's none on opposition on two of the waivers.
We did receive comments on one of the waivers and staff
did provide an addendum in response to that.
so staff continues to see concurrence and we're asking whether three or more
commissioners object to any of the waivers in the report. Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes? Seeing none, any public speakers? We had one sign up, Adam
Levrens, but we're not seeing him in the meeting, and then I'll also know that we
have Shauna Schaffner and Sherman Stacey who are here in person and available for
questions as well for this. There are no other speakers. Thank you very much Chris.
Okay do three or more commissioners object to any item in the Deputy
Director's report. Seeing no objection the Commission concur. Thank you Mr.
Schwing. Now we will go down to item 12A please. Thank you and there is a staff
PowerPoint for this item if we could bring that up and Amrita Spencer with
our Long Beach office will be doing the staff presentation. Amrita please begin
when you're ready.
Great.
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Item 12A is the substantial issue determination and de novo action for an appeal of a local
CBP approved by the City of Wimbledon Beach.
The City-approved project includes permanent authorization of slope repair activities approved
under an emergency CPP, including 525 cubic yards of grading, instruction of a soil berm,
various soil benching, grading and terracing, installation of subtrains, and a temporary
woodlagging wall. The city approved project also includes an after the fact approval for
a shoring wall with seven caissons ranging from 30 to 35 feet in depth and after the fact of
authorization for a beach access staircase associated with the existing simple family
residence, an installation of two new shotcrete retaining walls. The applicant is 32007 South
Coast Highway LLC. The appellants are Mark and Sharon Bunch. The standard of review and determining
whether the appeal raises a substantial issue is the city's certified LCP and the public access
policies of the Coastal Act. If the commission determines that a substantial issue is raised
as recommended by staff the de novo hearing will follow in the meeting. Next slide please.
The project is located within the South Laguna area of Laguna Beach in Orange County and is
seaward at Pacific Coast Highway. The project site is a flag shaped approximately 12,000 square foot
coastal lock top lot that is developed with a single family residence part way down the slope.
a detached two car garage located at street level from PCH and a funicular that runs between the
garage and the residence down the slope. Next slide please. This slide shows the proposed project.
The caisson shoring wall is located along the northern property line and is outlined in dark
blue. The woodlagging wall that was approved and constructed under the emergency permit
is shown in orange, the property lines are shown in black, and the proposed new retaining walls are
shown in green. Next slide please. As previously mentioned, the proposed project also includes an
after the back approval of the JACS as shown here on this slide. The Orange County Planning Commission
issued a conditional use permit or CUP for the construction of this staircase and associated
debts in 1973. Although the CUP was approved, at the time, the property owner was made aware
by the county that a CDP was potentially required from the South Coast Regional Commission first
went to Prop 20. The city's online record does not contain evidence that the fed property owner
received a CUP for an exemption from a staircase. Likewise, the Commission's Proposition 20 records
do not contain any applications for the traffic access staircase. Thus, the original staircase
is unpermitted for select crop 20. In 2015, the city issued a building permit to repair
and replace the unpermitted staircase and determined that a CDP was not necessary because
the project was considered exempt for care and maintenance. Subsequently, the staircase
was reconstructed without a CEP.
Although the commission executive director determined
that a CEP was necessary for the project in 2018,
the city did not process and after the fact permit
until the project that is now subject to this appeal.
Next slide, please.
The primary issues raised by the pallets
include the concern that the bluff edge determination
was not made pursuant to the certified LCP,
and therefore all requirements related to the bluff top development were not properly assessed and that the proposed development occurs on the bluff base.
With regard to the bluff edge determination, the city staff report referenced the bluff edge as being located at the 89-foot contour line first went to the applicant's geotechnical study, shown on this slide as the green dashed line.
However, the commissioned staff geologist reviewed the project materials and determined that the bluff edge is located at approximately
the 150-foot contour line, shown on this slide as the purple dashed line.
The mission staff's bluff edge indicates that the bluff edge is within the property
at 32005 Coast Highway and is entirely landward of the existing residents and all of the city
of food development on the subject lot.
Although the proposed slope repair could likely be permitted to protect the existing pre-postal
residents, the city did not have a sufficient level of actual support to make the required
findings of consistency with the LCP with regard to development of a bluff face, as
the city did not state whether the development would occur on the bluff face, and if so,
whether that development would be permissible under the LCP.
The appellants also contend that the city should have addressed unpermitted bluff-based
development of its approval, consistent with the land use element.
In its review of the current project, the city acknowledged that the case on shore and
wall and stairs were un-formitted and sought to leave the license off the fact.
However, the city did not properly analyze this development in relation to the buff
base and bluff edge that the fact falls into the LEP.
Therefore, there is a low degree of factual and legal support for the city or the permit.
The opponents also contend that the city failed to include permit conditions to address hazards
and the waiver of liability, failed to analyze alternative project designs, and generally
failed to properly apply various LDP policies for shoreline protective advices.
As described in the staff report, these contentions also generally raise issues regarding consistency
with the certified LCP.
For the reasons discussed in this presentation and details in the staff report, staff recommends
that the Commission find substantial issue with regard to the grounds on which the appeal
has been filed.
Unless three or more commissioners
wish to hold a hearing on that question,
substantial issue will be deemed to exist.
If substantial issue is found to exist,
we will move on to the Commission's de novo action,
and I'll take a pause.
Thank you very much, Mrs. Spencer.
Are there any export expertise?
Okay, seeing none, I'll ask if three or more commissioners
wish to have a hearing on substantial issue, okay, seeing none, substantial
issue has been found and now we will move on to the de novo portion of the
hearing. Thank you chair. Can we move to the next item? Chair may I raise just a
point of order hopefully to help you. These two applications are related.
This is not a moment for testimony. I'd recommend you can please speak to our
council and we'll continue. I will, thank you. Okay, great. In this case the proposed block
stabilization would protect the precocial residents on the site that is entitled to protection
pursuant to action 7.3.13 of the certified LEP which limits the use of block protective devices
to protect existing development and danger from erosion.
Moreover, the bluff stabilization work has been determined to be the minimum amount of
work necessary to protect the site from future erosion.
With respect to the unpermitted case on Shoredall, Commission staff concurs that the wall is
necessary to prevent instability on both the project site and the neighboring site in the
north.
Although the proposed CLOPS stabilization work is intended to protect the current free
coastal residents, the residents could be redeveloped in the future.
Once this residence is redeveloped, the new structure would not be entitled to bluff protection
under the certified LCP.
Therefore, Special Condition 2 requires the applicant to acknowledge that the authorization
of the proposed bluff protective devices shall expire when the existing residence is redeveloped
in a manner that constitutes new development
is no longer present or becomes uninhabitable,
or no longer requires a bluff-protective device.
Next slide please.
Regarding the Unpermitted Access Staircase,
the staircase's private development
constructed entirely on the bluff base
that does not protect the existing residents from erosion
or provide public access or safety.
Thus, the development is inconsistent
with Land Use Element Policy 735, which limits bluff-based development to public improvements
that provide public access, protect postal resources, or provide for public safety.
According to Land Use Element Policy 78, CBP applications must identify and remove
unpermitted and or obsolete structures that encroach into oceanfront fluffs, as previously
explained though subject staircase in its original form and in its redevelopment in
2015 is a non-permitted structure. Moreover, the beach access stairs have been
instructed completely on the blufface as evidenced through site photographs such as on the slide
and through the bluff edge determination. Since there is an unpermitted structure on
the site of the center depth solution,
the application must identify the staircase removal.
In addition, the beach access areas are also inconsistent
when certified LCQ policies pertain to visual resources
as the stairs adversely impact public scenic views
of the natural bluff landscape
surrounding 1,000 steps each for the project is located.
Therefore, special condition one
requires revised plans that include the removal
of the unpermitted beach access staircase
and Mississippi sea depths,
and vegetation of the area with native landscaping.
Additional special conditions are required
to ensure protection of archeological
and tribal cultural resources
during ground disturbing activities,
and protection of art quality
and public access during construction.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval
of the de novo permit with 10 special conditions.
The motion resolution can be found
page 20 of the staff report. This concludes the staff presentation and
staff is available for questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, now
we will go to the applicant. Thank you and good afternoon, Madam Chair,
commissioners and staff. Steve Kaufman for the applicant on both of these
related appeals. I'm going to save time by making one presentation because
you'll be happy to know. We accept the staff recommendation for approval and
all the conditions. There's just one issue, bluff edge, and it applies to both. So we
can, Chief Counsel has come up with a creative way to deal with that so that I
can just make one presentation. I've got a thumbs up from them. That's great. May I ask Mr. Kauffman how much time you'd like for your presentation? I would
certainly appreciate 15 minutes. Thank you. And I have a PowerPoint when you're
ready. Let's go to the first slide. Next slide please. The problem is it's a
recommendation on the appeals. It's a gratuitous finding in the staff report
regarding the bluff edge location. That's the focus of our presentation. The
project site has two separate parcels. A lot at the top 3 2005 Coast Highway was
This was developed with a house that was subsequently demolished after a failed heat storm drain
on Coast Highway rained down on this property, severely eroding the slope, which I'll show
you shortly, undermining and destroying the house.
At the bottom, 32007 Coast Highway, the larger parcel by area, has an existing house that
sits on a natural bench, a substantial natural flat area just landward of the 89-foot elevation
contour where the landform breaks and descends continuously to the beach below, a feature
above the beach that continues with the homes both up coast and down coast of this existing
home which you can see all sit basically on the same trend line. Next slide please. In
1971 before South Laguna was annexed to the city of Laguna Beach, the then property owner
applied to Orange County for a garage and stairway to the lower house and explained quote
The topography of our lot involves three vertical drops
of 12 feet, 56 feet, and 89 feet.
And the application was approved in July 1972
and the County Planning Commission explained, quote,
the property slopes gently from Coast Highway
to the edge of the bluff and from there to a steep cliff
to the mean high tide line.
And the 89 foot contour as the bluff edge
was recently confirmed by GeoFirm,
our coastal engineer in July 2025,
geotechnical investigation of the bluff edge.
Next slide.
This is a 1972 aerial, the same year
as the planning commission approval.
This is the only visual evidence that shows the natural slope
and bluff edge in 1972, years before the slope was very badly
eroded by that failed storm drain, the gentle slope
referred to by the planning commission,
the natural bench on which the lower house was later built,
and the 89-foot contour at the bluff edge.
Next slide please.
The slope extending from coast highway to the beach
is distinctly stratified.
You can't see how distinct it is from that picture there,
but the portion underlying the existing lower home
consists of marine terrace deposits.
And that's the only portion of these properties
ever influenced by marine action.
Everything landward and above the lower house
consists of non-marine terrace deposits.
And as you'll see, the slope landward of the house
is anything but natural, having been completely altered
over the years by gully drainage and very severe erosion
and debris flow caused by the 2003 failed storm drain.
The staff report explains that an emergency permit was approved
for slope repair, but the slope work was just temporary.
And the permit before you today is the permanent repair,
which staff acknowledges is necessary
to protect the existing residents.
And we agree with that, of course.
Now to the bluff edge finding.
In a summary sentence, the staff report says
your staff geologist estimated the bluff edge is high on the slope at the 150 foot contour
on the upper property. First, two points why this gratuitous bluff edge finding is inappropriate and
should be deleted and then I'll address the bluff edge directly. Next slide. First, this project is
permanent slope stabilization between the two properties well below the 150 foot contour. No
bluff edge issue is raised by either application as to this project and the staff report again
says the application should be approved because slope stabilization is necessary to protect
the existing house.
But it goes further and simply estimates the bluff edge on the upper side at the 150-foot
elevation contour and it's simply not necessary for this Commission to address an issue of
such consequence to the upper parcel when it's not presented by this development.
Coastal Act Section 30607 allows you to impose reasonable terms and conditions, but it's
It specifies the reasonable terms and conditions of those necessary, quote, in order to ensure
that the development or action will be in accordance with the Coastal Act.
And that's not the case here.
The bluff edge is irrelevant.
And the gratuitous finding if adopted would, in our view, be a term that isn't reasonable
and would violate Section 30607.
Next slide, please.
Second 150-foot contour in the required bluff top setback, landward of it, would leave about
677 square feet of buildable area on that upper lot of which 324 square feet
would be required by City Code for a garage that's half of it. So with this
finding the staff recommendation would unnecessarily inversely condemn the
upper parcel. Now we do accept the staff recommendation of approval and the
conditions but we obviously can't accept condemnation of our upper lot. That's a
problem and numerous cases and I know this because I handle them for you and
for other parties involving the Commission these cases hold that our
failure not to challenge that finding within the 60-day statute of limitations
in the Coastal Act would bar any future challenge to it and further if we
simply accepted the approval under Lynch versus Coastal Commission we'd forfeit
the right to challenge it so that would unnecessarily force a lawsuit just to
protect our options on this property. I just think that's not the way to go.
Despite what the staff says in the addendum, the finding is right, but has
obvious consequences for the applicant. I just explained that. It clearly has
intended consequences for the city by unnecessarily trying to preempt its CDP
review process, and if there's a future development, you and the city would have
the full opportunity to appropriately address it when address it under the
process that the legislature established in the Coastal Act. The process that was
followed here, Arts of the City, comes to you on appeal if that's necessary. So it
makes no sense to make that finding in the context of this project. Now, next
slide, to the finding itself. We provided staff with a 70 17 page evaluation of
the bluff edge by GeoFirm and it was attached my letter to you. As you can
see from this slide, the GeoFirm report was comprehensive, included as the bluff
edge is at the 89-foot contour, there's no bluff edge on the upper slope as defined by the city's
LCP because the upper slope was not subject to marine erosion and there was and is no rounding
away with a downward gradient continuously to the base of the bluff at the beach or any step-like
feature. Next slide. Geofirm looked at 23 aerials from 1938 to 2016 but the most revealing is this
blow up of the 1972 aerial of the slope on both properties, which again is the only evidence
of the natural condition of the slope and bluff edge. Next slide. And here it is again.
And you can see in 1972, the slope on both properties, the natural bench on which the
lower house was later built, the marine terrace, non-marine terrace contact, the trend line
of development up coast and down coast of the lower house, and the distinct bluff edge
at the 89-foot contour.
And as to the bluff face, to the 89-foot contour,
as you affirm, explain, this is the only area
subject to the bluff-forming erosion process
to have impacted the property in the last 83,000,
105,000 years, a long time.
And this photo shows exactly what the Planning Commission
stated in 1972.
The property slopes gently from Coast Highway
to the edge of the bluff and from there
to a steep cliff to the mean high tide line.
Now, most of staff's arguments in the addendum assume development on the bluff face,
that they're misplaced, because the bluff edge is not at 150-foot contour.
It's at the 89-foot contour elevation, and the bluff face is below that.
So I want to explain to you why the bluff edge isn't the 150-foot contour.
Next slide.
First, this is almost a fully developed area.
The staff report would view this bluff edge issue in isolation.
But consider that a gratuitous bluff edge finding
at the 150 foot contour would unfairly be prejudicial
to all the homes in this developed area,
none of which are here today.
Next slide.
Second, you saw the slope and bluff edge in 1972.
We don't have a pristine natural slope here anymore.
It suffered major damage when the storm drain collection
point on Coast Highway directly in front of this property
failed spewing water over and down the middle
of the property severely altering the slope
and undermining and destroying the upper home.
These two photos show the extraordinary damage
to the slope.
Next slide.
Two more photos from 2003.
And on the left, if you can see it,
there's a man standing on the slope.
He's not a little man, he's a real man.
Next slide.
As to the, if you can see it.
As to the staff's bluff edge estimate,
exhibit five to the staff report includes two graphics,
a topo and a cross section.
But commissioners neither have the slightest relevance
of the bluff edge. First the topo in exhibit five. You've seen the slope in 1972 in the
photo, the planning commission's characterization of it in 72 and the later slope damage from
the failed storm drain in 2003. This exhibit is not, it's not the pre-existing natural
slope or natural anything. This slope was prepared in 2018 and it reflects the temporary
stabilization work after, after slope repair and that's because the damage slope was modified
as you can see, to be uniformed.
Contour lines are uniform, trust me.
So this exhibit, commissioners, is completely irrelevant
to determining a natural bluff edge.
It's doubly irrelevant because there's not even a step
on this reform slope at the 150-foot contour.
The contour lines at 150 feet show it to be part
of the newly and temporarily repaired slope.
Next slide.
This isn't another view of the same topo
Staps exhibit five but it's a 2019 composite. This is a post repair topo and
exhibit five overlaid on the fainter contour lines of the badly damaged slope
before it was temporarily repaired. It's a before and after of the
slope repair. The underline contour lines show the badly damaged slope ended up
with somewhat varied topography closer to Coast Highway before it was repaired
and on the down coast side contour lines showing a drop-off. On the
the up coast side, contour lines in a different direction, and in the middle, somewhat wider,
but irregular contours, created where the water gushed over the slope, generally creating
a more gentle slope on the ground as it descended from Coast Highway. Now the former house took
access off Coast Highway, the flood of water from the failed storm drain altered the entire
slope. The house wasn't set on a graded pad, didn't have a conventional foundation, was
likely on shallow piers with exposed ground under the house, and the house and piers
filled under the pressure of the water. Next slide. This is the 2017 cross section
in Staffs Exhibit 5 prepared from the post damage and post repair topos, not to
show the original natural condition of the slope. It couldn't, and you've seen
the photo. Like the topos, it's irrelevant, and it's an irrelevant
one-dimensional slice, where just off of Coast Highway, the topo lines and the post damage
and post repair were somewhat wider as a result of the force of the water, but completely
different and not uniform. And more importantly, it doesn't show the pre-existing natural slope.
And as Geofirm explained, it doesn't reflect a natural rounded slope to the base of the
bluff at the beach, or a step seaward-facing slope at the 150-foot contour or otherwise.
Finally, in contrast to the one-dimensional cross section,
Geofirm provided a three-dimensional view of the entire slope with lidar figures.
Lidar being used to create 3D maps of the earth's surface.
I love these exhibits, so...
The arrow points to the property. 32005 is outlined and I invite your attention to where the color is red.
This slide demonstrates that at a 30-degree slope, there's no step at 150 feet.
But the red color shows a clear demarcation of the Bluff Edge Seaward of the lower house
at the 89-foot contour, continuing all along this Bluff.
Next slide.
A 45-degree slope, no step at 150 feet, but again, the Bluff Edge is apparent at the 89-foot
contour.
So, commissioners, there's literally no evidence before you to support a summary Bluff Edge
finding at the 150-foot contour.
Last slide, please.
You know, the creation of flat coast highway, flat areas under all the houses in this area,
the large flat area in which the intervening house was built, and this now damaged unnatural
redone slope, they are, for the most part, a term that Commissioner Wilson used, anthropogenic
changes.
They are not steps, they don't constitute natural bluff edges.
Commissioners, I respectfully ask you to delete the summary buff edge finding it's not necessary.
Would inversely condemn the upper lot.
It's wrong and not supported by the evidence.
That's probably the most important point.
With me today is Kevin Trigg, who prepared the geotechnical report on the bluff edge
location.
We're happy to answer any questions you might have.
Madam chair, I'd like to reserve about a minute, if possible, for rebuttal.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.
Okay, Chris, I'll turn to you.
All right, we only had one other speaker signed up
and two available for questions.
Brian Minnie, you're being moved in as a panelist right now.
When you're able to, please go ahead.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hi, my name is Brian Minnie.
I'm a land planner, landscape architect.
I live across the street from this
and a couple of houses to the north.
I got involved in this eight years ago
when the grading started on this
and they quickly applied for emergency grading permit.
The 3207 that you have the address
in front of you right now,
basically bought the lot above it so they could grade it,
so they could come down and clean up the slope.
And in doing so, they took an area,
a parcel that they bought at a discounted rate.
I understand it was like a million and a half dollars,
which normally lots on the ocean side
would be like five and a half to 10 million dollars.
So this was a reduced price property
that was distressed, that had a natural bluff on it.
And it was 50 feet high from the 150 contour.
What the applicant is not showing you
is that the 150 contour goes through the staircase above
and crossed over the top of the slope for the other parcel.
So they're all talking about the property below,
but this is a flag property that has grading
and grades of 150 at the top of it
where the other staircase in the funicular goes.
That's a 150 bluff that was cut and graded
under emergency protection of the property below.
So for them to claim that this is going to be graded,
they're showing you a topography map
that was altered in 2018 and not the existing topos.
So the existing topo has not been addressed
and that's why you're seeing contours
that are not being fairly represented to the public.
The topo maps that are shown
are not the historic existing topo
when the house existed there.
That house existed up to the 150 contour,
which is correct, and I support that 150,
for the parcel above, because that part was discounted.
It was about to pass the property which is buildable.
And then our other two people that we had are Kevin Trigg
and Ken Berger.
They're both listed as available for questions.
We have no other speakers.
Thank you very much Chris.
Okay, Mr. Kaufman, you have one minute.
Mr. Minnie was talking about 3,2005, not 3,207.
Coast Highway is about 165,
150 is down about 15 feet.
The point I want to make to you is, and you know this, under the Coastal Act when you
certify an LCP, local governments then delegated the responsibility in the first instance to
review and approve CDPs for proposed developments.
That's how these appeals came to you.
Staff asked you to effectively, blindly preempt that process, which you don't know anything
about at this point, and to precondem the lot for reasons unrelated to the applications
before you.
and if the city considers development on that lot, it must be permitted to exercise its
lawfully delegated jurisdiction under the act. Otherwise, you frankly, in my opinion,
you undermine the settled and good relationship that the legislature established in the act
between local government and the commission. And, you know, when it comes before the city,
any interested party, including Mr. Minnie or Mr. Fudge, can participate at that time.
Thanks foreclosed at this point.
So please amend the main motion on these applications to delete the blood-fetch finding.
That's our request.
Thanks very much.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Okay.
We will now close the public hearing, and I'll return to our staff.
Thank you.
We're going to start.
I'll turn it over to Amrita Spencer to start off the rebuttal.
Thank you.
Yes.
I'll start by responding a little bit more generally
to Mr. Kaufman's comments about not meeting the bluff edge
in the staff recommendations.
Staff would respectfully disagree with Mr. Kaufman
on that point.
As I mentioned in the staff presentation
and as is detailed in the addendum that was posted
earlier this week, we had to evaluate the bluff edge as part
of the appeals.
In their appeals to the commission,
Mr. and Mrs. Fudge did raise the issue of specifically
of the bluff edge for these lots,
and particularly with the proposed slope stabilization
work occurring on the bluff face.
And so in order to really evaluate those contentions
and make the findings in the staff recommendation
for both the substantial issue determination
and the de novo actions,
staff did have to consult with our technical services unit
to determine where the bluff edge is.
In a moment, I'll turn the mic to our staff geologist to further detail how the bluff
edge was determined, but just going back to some of the more general points, when evaluating
unpermitted development that occurs on a bluff-to-blat, we, again, have to evaluate the bluff
edge to determine consistency with LUE Policy 735, which provides a very limited scope of
what can be approved on a bluff face. And in addition, 738, which requires development
applications to identify unpermitted development that encroached on to bluff faces. And so,
I guess, you know, practically speaking, staff would not have been able to arrive at the findings
found in the staff recommendation without understanding where the bluff edge is on this
particular slope. So that sort of ends my comments there, and I'd like to turn it over to
our staff geologist to continue staff comments. Hi, I just gotta get the microphone set up.
Yeah, I wanted to comment on this. First off, I always said that this slope was not
caused by marine erosion. This entire topography is actually a result of marine erosion. This slope
was not formed by other processes, but by marine erosion against the bedrock and then these
terrace deposits that overlaid the bedrock. So this is very common along the coast is that we see
steep bedrock slopes overlaying by shallower terrace deposit slopes.
Those terrace deposits are not...
We've got very, very strong bedrock with weaker sediments on top of that, these terrace deposit
sediments, and those tend to lay back to a shallower slope angle.
And so the top of that is really the top of the bluff.
But the bluff has this sort of step-like character in this instance.
Basically, looking at this, we say, well, what is the LCP guide us to?
The LCP specifically states that if there's a step-like character,
that the upper riser is the top, considered the bluff edge,
at the top of the upper riser.
And so we can't really agree that this lower elevation, 89 feet,
which is closer to the top of the bedrock,
not exactly at the top of the bedrock,
but it's closer, that that is the bluff edge.
That's where you're getting the more resistant
scented off reformation, forming a steeper slope
at the base of the slope,
and then you've got this less resistant
terrace deposit sediments that are more slope forming.
They're just prone to a lower slope angle.
But we see the topography here very clearly in the topographic cross-section takes us
to where I put this blue arrow, the top of the bluff.
And then I would just like to jump in here to address the comments that the applicant's
representative made that if the commission were to find that the bluff edge is at 150-foot
contour it would constitute inverse condemnation of the upper parcel and I
respectfully disagree. All the Commission would be doing is establishing
the bluff edge. What is done with that bluff edge when there's future proposed
development is a separate question and it can be evaluated as he said. The
facts of a future decision that's not even before you are really when that
issue would be determined. So at this point I think just simply identifying
the bluff edge would not would not cause a take if the upper property. Thank you
very much. Okay now I'll turn it to the Commission. Commissioner Wilson. My
question just has to do with the process. We made basically findings and
declarations as part of our substantial issue. Isn't that true and wasn't we
you've already agreed to the findings, is that, am I wrong about that in terms of
doing a financial issue was based on that analysis? The finding of substantial
issue was based on whether the city adequately evaluated the facts and
and based on what we think the bluff edge is that is one reason why we think
the city, why the appeal raised a substantial issue.
Right, so I'm just saying it was part and parcel to that finding. I would
say yes for the most part but it's mostly about whether the city
adequately evaluated it so I do believe at this point the Commission that issue
is still before the Commission. Thank you appreciate that. That was just a
clarifying question. I just I read the report I agree with the findings I
agree with the section 30604 B and C and the hazard policies that have been
referenced and so for me I'm ready to concur with staff recommendations.
Thank you. Any other comments? Motion? Commissioner Wilson?
Let me roll through all these pages to get there. Motion is, 20.
20? Okay. I move that the Commission determine that appeal number A-5-LGB-20-0059 raises no
substantial issue. No, wait, is that 5-8? What are you saying 5-8? Someone else find
it here, because I'm rolling through all these pages I just reviewed. It should be
on page 20. Okay. I can find page 20 here. Rolling through it. I found it. Okay. Sorry
about that. Wait. This is not the page 20 of what I'm looking at. So you, what is yours?
Commissioner O'Malley. Thanks. Thank you. I move that the Commission approve coastal
permit development permit number A-5-LGBT-20-0058 pursuant to the staff
recommendation. I recommend a yes vote. I'll second. Thank you that's a motion by
Commissioner Nodoff, a second by Commissioner Wilson. Vice Chair Hart. 20.
I wish to make comments in the motion. Yeah sorry I know it's a little out of order I
just wanted to confirm that and it sounds like there's consensus on this
that the commission is agreeing with our staff geologist with regard to the location
of the bluff edge that it is further at the 150 foot line.
I just wanted to clarify that, since that's the point of disagreement,
and I agree with the rest of the motion.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I align myself with those comments as well.
So we have a motion by Commissioner not off a second by Commissioner Wilson.
They're asking for a yes vote.
And we have a roll call.
Please Ms. Miller.
Commissioner Presiado.
Yes.
Presiado.
Yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah.
Sorry about I was on the addendum.
Sorry.
Wilson.
Yeah.
Wilson.
Yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley.
Yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante yes. Commissioner Hart yes. Hart yes. Commissioner Jackson aye. Jackson yes.
Commissioner Rodoni yes. Rodoni yes. Commissioner Lopez aye. Lopez yes.
Commissioner Notoff aye. Notoff yes. Chair Herman yes. Herman yes. The vote is
unanimous. Thank you. The motion passes. Okay with that we will move on to item
12B. Thank you. So yes, we are on item 12B, and we do recommend incorporating the record
from the prior item in this item. And, Amrita Spencer will be doing the staff
presentation. Go ahead, Amrita. Thank you. I apologize in advance. This might be a
little repetitive. Well, good afternoon again. Item 12b is the substantial issue determination
and de novo action or an appeal of a local CDP approved by the city of Laguna Beach.
Similar to the previous project, the city approved permanent authorization of slope repair
activities approved under an emergency CDP, including grading a soil burn, soil benching,
grading and terracing, a shoring wall with three caissons approximately 30 to 35 feet deep,
and the installation of a new retaining wall in front of the caisson wall. The applicant is 32005
Coast Highway LLC and the Appellants are Market Sharing Fudge. The standard of review and
determining whether the appeal raises a substantial issue is the city's certified LCP and the public
access policies of the Coastal Act. If the Commission determines that a substantial issue
is raised as recommended by staff, the de novo hearing will follow immediately. Next slide.
Again, the project is located in the South Laguna area of Laguna Beach in Orange County.
The project site is a rectangular 6,000 square foot coastal block-top lot that is currently vacant.
As you can see in this slide, the project site abuts the 3207 Coast Highway lot which was
discussed in the previous project. Next slide please. This slide shows the proposed project.
The case on showing wall is indicated in blue. The property lines are outlined in black and the
proposed retaining wall is showed in green. Next slide please. Similar to the previous project,
the appellants raise concerns regarding the bluff edge determination that is inconsistent
with the certified LCP, inadequate assessment of requirements related to bluff top development,
and the presence of bluff-based development. As mentioned in the last report or last presentation,
the city staff report referenced the bluff edge as being located at the 89-foot contour line shown
with the green dashed line. However, the commission staff geologist determined the
bluff edge to be located at approximately the 150-foot contour line, shown in the blue.
Similar to the previous appeal, the city had a low level of factual support to make the required
findings of consistency with the LCP regarding development on a bluff face and whether the
development would be permissible under the LCP. Again, while the city did acknowledge
unpermitted development on site, it did not adequately analyze the development in relation
to the bluff face and bluff edge setback policies of the LEP. For the reasons discussed in this
presentation and detailed in the staff report, staff recommends that the commission find
substantial issue with regards to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed. Unless there are
more commissioners wish to hold a hearing, a substantial issue will be deemed to exist.
And if substantial issue is found to exist, we will move on to the commission's de novo action.
and I'll take a pause. Great, thank you very much Ms. Spencer. Are there any ex partes on this?
Okay, do three or more commissioners wish to have a hearing on substantial issue?
Seeing none, substantial issue has been found Ms. Spencer. Great, thank you. Next slide please.
The subject law is currently vacant, however there was a single family residence on site that
that was demolished in approximately 2004
without the benefit of a CDP.
The applicant has requested an after-the-fact approval
for the demolition of the residence.
In reviewing the site history,
staff found that the site's long history
of slope instability resulted in the site being red tagged
prior to its demolition.
Due to these geologic hazards,
commission staff recommends after-the-fact approval
for the demolition of the residence.
As stated in the last project, the proposed bluff stabilization work has been determined to be
the minimum amount of work necessary to prevent to protect the site for future erosion and would
not protect any new on-site development on this lot. However, if the site is redeveloped in the
future, any new structure would not be entitled to bluff protection under the certified LCP.
Therefore, Special Condition 2 requires the applicant to acknowledge that the authorization
of the proposed blood-protected devices will expire when the site is redeveloped.
Additional special conditions are required to ensure protection of archaeological and tribal
cultural resources during ground disturbing activities, protection of water quality,
and public access during construction. Next slide please. In conclusion, staff is recommending
approval of the de novo permit with 10 special conditions. The motion and resolution can be found
on page 17 of the staff report. This concludes the staff presentation and
staff is available for questions. Great, thank you very much. And now we will open
the public hearing. Mr. Kauffman, you've already made your presentation correct.
It's my understanding, Madam Chair and commissioners, that after conferring
with your counsel that the administrative record today on appeal A-5-LGB-20-C
The A5LGB-20-0058 will apply equally to this particular matter, A5LGB-20-0059, and that
will include my presentation and my PowerPoint as well.
Is that correct?
Just to clarify that we talked about having the hearing, both hearings in the administrative
record.
I want to be clear that my presentation under 5-8 will be included as to 5-9.
Correct.
You just said if there were to be litigation, then the transcript of the hearing would include
both the prior hearing that we just heard and this one as part of the administrative
record in that litigation.
Including my PowerPoint.
Including your PowerPoint, correct.
All right.
Well, thank you for that, commissioners.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate it.
appreciate it. Okay and we just had the one Brian Mena again moved in as a
panelist really quickly you should be able to unmute. Can you hear me? Yes we
can hear you. Yes okay so this the comments on this parcel is that this
parcel was bought with half the property as usual usable because it had a
a coastal bluff definition on it.
It's 50 feet high and takes approximately half the parcel.
So to say that you can come back in and grade out
that property and an emergency basis
for the benefit of the property below,
and now you're able to build twice as much building
on the property.
The previous house had 1,800 square feet
and was located four feet below the existing house
that's next door, the 007 address that we just went over.
That bluff face extends from that parcel
all the way through this parcel.
So the intent of all the various special conditions
that you've put on is that you maintain
the existing bluff edge at the 150 contour.
Well, the 150 contour has been blown away,
but it says that it would be resulting
to use that alignment of the previous 150 elevation
as your control point per the various actions
that you've listed, the various conditions.
So I would ask that you put a special condition on there
that you restrict anything that's built below
the 150 contour to keep the integrity
of the natural bluff face and to restore it
with re-landscaping, as is instructed on the recommendations.
So, and you would please make sure that any future use
to determine the buildability of this lot,
use the previous topo that was there in the 90s
or the 70s whenever it was.
Because in 2017, there was 500 yards of fill added to it
and creates a higher zoning envelope
to build a higher unit in front of our homes.
So I would ask that you stipulate not using that,
that, hopefully that was shown on the exhibits three and 10.
20 seconds for rebuttal.
Thank you.
Sure.
Thank you.
First, he lives across the street.
He doesn't want to see a house there
because it will block his private view.
That's not a Coastal Act issue.
Secondly, he just explained, it was Phil placed on it.
The graphic that you saw from staff
was a graphic after the work was done.
So that's what you're relying on.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, we will close the public hearing
and I'll return to staff if they have any comments.
No additional comments.
Okay, thank you.
The commission, comments or motion?
Commissioner Wilson.
I'll make the motion.
Again agree with the findings of the staff on this
So here we go. I move that the Commission approve coastal development permit number a-5-l
GB-20-0059 pursuant to the staff recommendation. I recommend a yes vote
We have a second second. Thank you motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner O'Malley. They're asking for a yes vote
Hey, we have a roll call vote, please
Commissioner Wilson? Yes. Wilson, yes. Commissioner O'Malley? Yes. O'Malley, yes. Commissioner Escalante?
Yes. Escalante, yes. Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Rodoni? Yes. Rodoni, yes. Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Lopez, yes. Commissioner Notoff? Aye.
not off yes commissioner preshiato yes preshiato yes chair harmon yes harmon yes the vote is
unanimous thank you the motion passes okay with that we will move to item 12c please
thank you there's a staff powerpoint presentation on this item if we could bring that up
and riley christie in our long beach office is going to do the staff presentation on this item
When you're ready, go ahead Ryman. Good afternoon commissioners. Item W-12C is an appeal of a coastal
development permit that was approved by the city of Huntington Beach for a project located at 16542
Marianna Circle in Huntington Beach. The applicant is Hui Hyehong and the opponents are Clyde Yerginang
and Robert Miller. Next slide please. The subject site is on the inland side of Pacific Coast
Highway on an island within Huntington Harbor area of Huntington Beach Orange County. Next slide please.
The front of the house faces me on a circle
and the rear of the house is backed up
against Somerset Way.
The neighborhood is developed with residential structures
that are one to two stories in height.
Next slide, please.
The abalance raised several contentions
primarily related to a new proposed pool in the rear yard
and reduced rear yard setback that the abalance referred to
as a lot extension and a new rear yard block wall.
However, the only portion of the project
that is subject to appeal is the new block wall,
as shown in this slide labeled in blue.
city of Huntington Beach has a commission approved a categorical exclusion for this area
for development of single family homes and accessory structures such as pools and minor
variances including setback variances are approved without a cost development permit
via the categorical exclusion order. The city processed the categorical exclusion
for the 10-foot rear and setback where 15 feet is required and the new pool as shown on this slide
labeled in red. Therefore these portions of the project are not appealable to the commission.
However, the Catacorpal Exclusion Order does not include approvals of walls and fences over six
feet high. Accordingly, the City properly considered the coastal development permit for
the new seven-foot high wall and therefore only the wall is subject to appeal. Next slide, please.
As seen on this slide, the locally approved project includes the construction of a new
seven-foot three-inch block wall with glass top within the rear yard of a single family residence
with an overall height of 13 feet and four inches as measured from the top of the curve
the long Somerset Lane. While the maximum height allowed by the City's certified zoning
code for walls and fences in the rear yard is 42 inches high, the code does allow for
exemptions and a higher wall can be approved with a conditional use permit, which the City
properly processed in addition to the Coastal Development Permit.
Next slide, please. The appellants contend that the City-approved project is not consistent
with requirements of the LCP related to geotechnical stability and hazards, alteration of natural
drainage, erosion and water quality, potential degradation of visual resources and character
of the community, cumulative impacts, conflicts with height requirements, and impacts to habitat
and open space.
With regard to geologic instability and hazards, the city record included a geotechnical investigation
which determined the project site is not within an area subject to geologic hazards, including
liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslides, and the report concludes that the project
can be constructed safely.
According to the LCP, the project is not within an area of sloping stability and the project site
will not be susceptible to coastal flooding. Thus these contentions do not raise a substantial issue.
Regarding the contention that the project will alter natural drainage erosion and water quality,
there are no natural drainage courses on site. The city's record included a hydrology study which
indicates that proposed grading and drainage will facilitate anticipated stormwater peak flows.
Recommendations from the hydrology report and geotechnical report will prevent erosion
and avoid impacts to water quality. Therefore, this contention does not raise a substantial issue.
Next slide, please. The appellants contend that the proposed project will impact coastal views.
However, the subject site is on the interior of the island where public
coastal views are not afforded across the site. The contention raises concern about private views
over Section 30251 of the Coastal Act and the LCG does not protect private coastal views.
Next slide, please. Regarding the neighborhood character,
The city conditioned the block wall to include landscaping that will visually soften the
appearance of the proposed development and maintenance of the landscape slope to ensure
the landscape buffer is present from Somerset Lane. The city indicated in their staff report
that the quote, visual character of the neighborhood will not be negatively impacted
because the proposed wall is consistent with other legally established walls
for through lots in the vicinity end quote. Therefore this contention does not raise a
substantial issue. There are no impacts to coastal resources as a result of the wall
and therefore there will be no cumulative impacts to coastal resources if additional
properties construct walls in the rear yard in the neighborhood. The city found that the wall is
consistent with other existing walls in the neighborhood and therefore approval of the
wall does not set a precedent, thus this contention does not raise a substantial issue.
Lastly, the appellants also contend that the wall will impact habitat and open space easement areas.
Staff verified with the city that there is no recorded open space or conservation easement
over the private property in the rear yard setback area. The existing landscaping appears
to be non-native and there is no evidence of sensitive habitat areas. Therefore,
this contention does not raise a substantial issue. The City's decision to approve the proposed wall
does not present any inconsistencies with a certified LCP with respect to community character,
public views, coastal active, access, or coastal hazards. The project does not raise any coastal
issues of statewide or even regional concern.
Next slide please.
Since the publication of the staff report, Commission staff received one comment letter
from a appellant, Clyde Yerheen.
The letter raised issues which were addressed in the staff report.
Staff also received two public comment letters after the public comment period ended from
appellant Robert Miller and Mayor Huntington Beach Pat Burns.
Their comments are available in the file.
Staff therefore recommends that the Commission find no substantial issue with regard to the
contentions on which the appeal has been filed.
The motion and resolution can be found on page seven
of the staff report.
This concludes the staff presentation
and staff is available for questions.
Great. Thank you very much.
Are there any ex parte to report?
None. We will open the public hearing.
I'll turn to Chris.
Yes. We have the appellant, Clyde Erumian on zoom.
Go three minutes for five, please.
Clyde, when you're able to please unmute and begin.
Can you guys hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thanks for my videos off.
It's our video.
Are you guys there?
My name is, can you guys hear me?
Yes, we can hear and see you.
My name is Clyde.
I live directly behind the home on Marianas Circle.
I agree with a lot of what Riley was saying.
One thing that I'm really concerned about
is the whole safety factor.
So under CEQA, under CEQA, California Environmental
Quality Act Public Resources Code 21080,
any discretionary project that may cause a physical change
in the environment must undergo environmental review,
even if the city has issued an exemption in a coastal zone.
This is a coastal zone.
If the house wasn't in a coastal zone,
we wouldn't be here right now.
So anything in a coastal zone requires an EIR.
That's my main thing.
I got no problem with the house.
I'm staring at the house.
It's a beautiful house.
The owner should be able to do what they want.
It's their property.
I just want to make sure everything's safe.
That's my biggest concern.
So I say, staff approves it, I'm okay with all of that.
I just wanna make sure an EIR report is done,
an environmental impact report, make sure it's all safe,
because people are building crazy things out here
and I just wanna make sure the island's safe.
We're surrounded by water, you know what I mean?
So this should not have been exempt by the city.
And I mean, improper use of a CEQA exemption says,
the city's decision to classify this project
as CEQA exempt conflicts with both the intent
and the letter of CEQA guidelines.
15061, the so-called common sense exemption applies only when it could be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility of significant environmental effect.
The standard is clearly not met here given the property is in a coastal zone.
So anything that's in a coastal zone, you've got to get an EIL report.
It's all right here.
I mean, I'm sure you guys know about it, and that's my biggest concern, just making sure
everything is safe and let them build.
As long as you can get that report done and everything looks good, I'm okay with it.
All right, thank you. Thank you. Next is
with the applicant team Jim Brophy a
Jim Brophy and do you wish to speak you should be able to unmute now and then also available for questions
was a
City of Huntington Beach staff Marco Cuevas. Other than that
We only had one other member of the public who wish to speak and that is Pat Burns
Pat Burns, you're being moved in right now
It appears Jim Brophy and Marco Cuevas both don't wish to speak no, I do Jim Brophy
Yeah, sorry. I didn't hit the unmute button Jim Brophy on behalf of the homeowners. We've long and shall fan
The
Decision to to ask for the variance back in March of 2000 in March 10th of 2025 was not made in a vacuum
The project is in alignment with similar projects that have been approved and constructed, four of them actually on this same street.
16-491, Mariana Circle, 16-502, Mariana Circle, 16-521, Mariana Circle, and 16-592, Mariana Circle.
Also, throughout the neighborhood, the island, it's called Gilbert Island.
There are many other projects that are similar,
particularly 16661 Wellington Circle.
Basically, that's it from our perspective.
It's in alignment with other projects
that have been approved and constructed.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
And now Pat Burns.
Yes, and Chair, may I ask Chair,
are we giving two minutes or three minutes
for just general public speakers?
we just have the one three minutes okay I'll be brief really if you've seen
those pictures where the wall is gonna go and I've received several complaints
from people within that Somerset Lane and it's a green belt with this curve
the general plan 65 or plus years ago provided that and now they want to
Suddenly put a big wall there and the neighbors are complaining that's gonna change the whole character of that sweet and it might invite other walls
so out of respect for preserving the coastal area in that island and the
Condition these people bought their homes. I believe we ought to respect that
And I apologize because I was trying to flag this one and I would have appealed it at the city level
but it got past me and
otherwise I would have peeled it at the city level but this one it just changes the character it's
going to invite a bunch of other overbuilding and I've received complaints from several people
and I just don't feel it. All right thank you we have no other speakers.
Okay thank you very much Chris. All right um I will close the public hearing and ask whether
our staff has any response they'd like to make. Mr. Schwing. Is there any way I can get that minute
the public hearing. Thank you. Okay, no problem. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, we did
respond to all of those same concerns extensively in the staff report and in the addendum. I just
would point out with regard to the the CEQA determination, that isn't something that's before
the commission at this point. The CEQA determination is the city's to make. What is before us today is the local coastal development permit.
which relates in this case to just this wall.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with that.
It is, you guys do have authority.
You guys do have authority over the city.
Thank you. So we don't have any role in overseeing the city's secret determination here.
So I'll just conclude with that if there's any further questions.
Okay.
I just wanted to also let everybody note that that was
Riley's first presentation as a staff member of the Coastal Commission, so
thank you, Riley. Great job. Okay, with that I will return to the Commission for
comments, questions, or a motion to find no substantial issue which can be found
on page seven of the staff report. I'm prepared to make a motion. And I'm just gonna have a
quick comment. Commissioner Wolfen. Yeah, I will say that that it is not unlikely that
their concern about this construction will basically you'll see that's what
you're gonna see in the future along there unless the community works with
their with their City Council to amend these provisions I mean for us that's
really not our place in this moment but I would say that if you think that and I
would think that that's what's going to happen you will see that people extending
the usable space of their property out into this into this corridor you will
see pools and patios and all kinds of stuff that's for sure and if you don't
want that I recommend getting getting to City Council and to your Planning
Commission as soon as possible to make those changes thank you. Thank you. Vice
Chair Hart. Yeah I want to agree with the comments that were just made that you
know we're here to determine what the coastal act issues are and that this is
a issue that needs to be addressed and resolved and I had that same thought
but if if this moves forward what the consequences will be for that area so I
think it is really important for local residents to engage at the local level
on this but in any event for this particular item I move the Commission
determine that appeal number a-5-HNB-25-0045
raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the
appeal has been filed under section 30603 of the Coastal Act.
Yes vote.
And I second that.
I also recommend that the neighbors advocate for a sidewalk
there, as well, while they do that.
There you go.
Thank you.
There's been a motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second
by Commissioner Wilson.
They're asking for a yes vote.
May we have a roll call, please, Ms. Miller?
Commissioner O'Mellie.
Yes.
O'Mellie, yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Radoni yes Radoni yes Commissioner Lopez Lopez yes Commissioner
not off I not off yes Commissioner Presiado yes Presiado yes Commissioner
Wilson yes Wilson yes chair Herman yes Herman yes the vote is unanimous okay
thank you no substantial issue has been found I suggest we take a quick break
I'm nine minutes you see back at 4 30. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, everyone. We will continue
with our agenda. We are now at item 13 a I believe. Thank you. Thank you. And there's
a staff PowerPoint on this one as well. And Vince Lee with our Long Beach office is going
to do this staff presentation on this item. Go ahead, Ben. All right. Good afternoon,
Item 13A is a coastal development permit application to demolish an existing two-story guest unit,
garage structure and swimming pool, and construct a new 25-foot high two-story over-basement,
12,780 square-foot single-family residence with an attached 850 square-foot ADU,
a rear yard pool, spa, concrete patio, landscaping, and 3,000 cubic yards of grading on a coastal bluff top lot.
The applicant is Sea Cycles Living LLC.
Slide, please.
The proposed development is located
on a 21,216 square foot beach fronting bluff top lot
and is designated residential low density
in San Clemente certified land use plan.
The lot is not currently subject to marine erosion
as the San Clemente coastal trail,
the Orange County Transit Authority railroad tracks
and Rob Rebatman protecting the railroad
run parallel to the public beach below
and are located between the toe of the bluff and the ocean.
The site consists of a generally flat pad
descending 105 feet down a state coastal bluff.
Next slide.
The primary coastal act issue associated with the project
is safe siting and adaptability of the proposed
new development on this bluff top lot
that is subject to coastal hazards.
For new bluff top development,
an appropriate setback distance needs to be applied
to reduce the likelihood that the new development
will become threatened by erosion in the future
and to reduce the likelihood that buff protection
may be sought to protect the new development in the future.
The setback is typically determined by consideration
of a combination of factors,
including the location of the bluff edge,
the location of the 1.5 factor of safety line,
and the rate of bluff retreat.
The applicant consultant has identified the location
of the bluff edge at the seaward edge
of the relatively flat building pad,
and the location of the 1.5 factor of safety line
as shown in this slide.
The commission's engineering geologist
has reviewed the consultant's bluff edge location
and the factor of safety line and concurs with both.
To determine the bluff retreat rate,
geotechnical consultants typically
review historic aerial photos of a site.
In St. Clemente, the railroad track was constructed
around the turn of the 20th century
and predates aerial photography,
so there are no historic aerial photos available
without the railroad present
base of the bluff. The railroad track and berm upon which it sits have prevented wave attack
and marine erosion. Despite occasional storm damage and wave overtopping in this general location,
the railroad and the berm have effectively halted marine erosion at the toe of the bluff
for the last 135 years or so. Thus, the natural rate of bluff retreat is difficult to determine
for this site and throughout San Clemente. Because the base of the bluff in San Clemente
has been protected by the railroad barn and in some areas the related revetment, it is difficult
to determine how the bluff would have retreated in the past and had such protection not been present,
which in turn makes it difficult to protect, to project the likely rate of bluff retreat in the
future over the expected 75-year life of the proposed development. In the absence of the
To typically apply method to determine bluff retreat rate,
the commission in this case,
must rely on the location of the bluff edge
and the 1.5 factor of safety line
to best estimate the safest location on site
to place new development
and to determine the development sighting,
least likely to generate requests
for shoreline protected device.
San Clemente LUP policy hazard 41
requires a minimum bluff edge setback of at least 25 feet
and consistent with the distance recommended
by a site specific geotechnical study.
As proposed, the residents would be set back 65 feet
from the bluff edge, right at the 1.5 factor of safety line
without accounting for future bluff erosion.
In response to uncertainties related to bluff retreat rate,
the staff is recommending that the bluff phase
and the site stability be monitored in order to track
any changes to the location of the bluff edge
and site stability.
Staff is recommending special condition two,
which based on the required monitoring,
at the point development becomes threatened,
it'd be removed rather than protected by shoreline
or bluff protected devices as required by section 302.53
of the close act.
Next slide.
Due to the uncertainty on the bluff retreat rate,
staff has significant concerns on the proposed basement,
which includes the ADU, a gym, a bathroom,
and storage space as outlined in the staff report.
And staff recommends special condition one,
which prohibits the construction of the basement,
the applicant is not contesting the staff recommendation
on the removal of this basement.
Next slide.
There is an existing non-conforming retaining wall
in the western portion of the site
along the top of the close of Lough.
Although non-conforming accessory development
must be removed when a principal structure is removed,
staff determined that the removal of the retaining wall
is infeasible as outlined in the staff report.
Instead, staff recommends special condition two
require monitoring of the retaining wall and require removal when threatened by a future
bluff erosion. The applicant is also in this case in agreement with staff recommendation
on this issue. The proposed project also includes construction of a new swimming pool and spa
located on the sewer side of the residence. Swimming pools and other water features can
decrease bluff stability as sources of excess water on the bluff due to pool leaks or leaks
in the water lines leading to the pool.
They also increase the added rate of development
on the bluff top.
Thus, swimming pools are discouraged on bluff top lots.
Furthermore, the proposed pool and spa,
which would be even more seaward than the residents,
are still subject to the same uncertainty
with regard to bluff retreat.
Future bluff retreat, as mentioned previously,
is very difficult to estimate in San Clemente
due to the lack of data about natural bluff retreat.
In the comments from the applicant's agent
that we received after the staff report was published.
They point out that the pool is a nonhabitable ancillary
structure and asserts that the pool complies
with the certified San Clemente OUP,
including the setback geotechnical
and leak detection requirements.
The applicant provided a supplemental geotechnical analysis
showing the proposed pool and spot is setback landward
of the 1.3 factor of safety line under stated conditions.
The commission's staff geologist had reviewed the supplemental geotechnical analysis and found that the report did not provide the results of a seismic or pseudostatic slope stability analysis, which should be lower with the seismic loads.
Consistent with the commission's precautionary approach to setting new development and considering sea level rise,
has concluded that it would be prudent to remove the pool and spa from the plan until more certainty
is known about the potential for future bluff retreat in this area. Therefore, staff recommends
special condition one which prohibits construction of a pool and spa and requires submission of
revised plans to delete the swimming pool and spa from this project. Staff also received a late
comment from a resident in the area who opposes the overall project due to concerns about landslides
impacting the site and surrounding area.
Commission staff had shared similar concerns,
which is why staff had pressed the applicant's consultant
to complete slope stability analysis for the bluff slope,
as well as the historic landslide located off the property
to the south.
In both instances, those analyses showed a factor
of safety of 1.5 or greater for the proposed development.
This meets the requirements identified
in the city certified LUP.
Nonetheless, as noted before, staff continue to recommend removal of the proposed basement
and the pool in order to facilitate removal of the development if or when it is threatened
by hazards in the future. Next slide. In closing, staff recommends approval of the application
with 12 special conditions and the motion is on page five. This concludes staff recommendation
and we are available for questions. Great, thank you very much. Okay, are there any
ex parte's to report on this matter. None. I will open the public hearing and I'll turn to Chris.
The only speakers we have are with the applicant's team. Paul Douglas, Anders Onestad, and David
Van Slooten. If any of you would like to speak. Good afternoon, honorable chair and honorable
commissioners. Could I have 12 minutes total for the three of us? I'll maybe do about eight,
eight reserve one for rebuttal and then two for Mr. Van Slooten and Mr. Douglas.
Okay. Thank you very much. Again, so my name is Anish Onestad. I'm an attorney representing
the applicant, which is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Van Slooten and you'll hear from Mr. Van Slooten.
First of all, I'd like to thank staff for all of their hard work on this. It's been
in a process, been a long process.
We've reached a compromise on most or all of the issues.
There's just, I'm gonna focus on the pool,
but we got there.
The original plan was around 12,000 square feet.
That's been greatly reduced.
The basement that was mentioned with the gym and the ADU,
that's been removed, so there's no grading.
So that leaves really just the pool
that I was gonna focus on.
And as Mr. Lee pointed out,
the certified San Clemente LUP expressly provides
for bluff top swimming pools.
And we've complied with all the requirements
that are in there and I'll go through those one by one,
but has a 43 is actually titled bluff top swimming pool
setback, and it has a minimum setback requirement
for swimming pools the greater of 25 feet
from the bluff edge or setback distance recommended
as the result of a geotechnical review.
Of course it's the greater of,
So we satisfy both of those.
The pool, which is an ancillary structure,
which is also permitted under San Clemente LUP,
has eight and nine, which is referred to in 43.
So these all work together.
It's behind that line.
We, through the negotiations, we were under the impression
if we reduced the basement, take all that out,
get the letter from a geologist,
get the geotechnical consultant,
and the city engineer to approve it,
that then this would all as a package
be recommended for approval,
but we're left with just the pool issue.
We do have the geotechnical review,
which finds that the pool is located
behind the 1.3 safety line,
which satisfies the standard of care and geotechnical.
It's geotechnically acceptable.
And the city engineer did a preliminary approval
of that. So the city sees it as fine, the geotechnical sees it as fine, all the
other conditions that are required. Staff and its original staff report really
raised three issues. Concern over possible leaking, concern over weight on
the bluff, added weight, and then excuse me, the uncertainty as to the
erosion rate of the bluff edge due to the situation in San Clemente where you
have the track and the berm down there so you don't have a historical rate of
erosion. So all those things are addressed. The San Clemente requires a
liner. The pool is of course designed with a liner that would catch, stop, leaks.
It also has alarm and detection system if there's leaks. So the leaking is
addressed, consistent with the LUP. The weight, we actually provided a
supplemental letter that in this site location the weight of water, this is
surprising, everyone knows water is very heavy, but the weight of water is
is actually less than the weight of the local site soil.
We submitted that and in the addendum that we just got,
the geotechnical staff, the commission staff
actually agrees with that and agrees that
it does actually weigh less.
So you're not adding a load to the bluff.
So those first two concerns are removed.
And by the way, it's only a five foot deep pool.
It's not a deep eight, nine foot pool.
Five foot deep can easily be removed consistent with the OUP.
And I'll get to that in terms of the monitoring.
And then the third issue being the erosion rate
of the bluff edge.
And we provided the geotechnical analysis
that it is safe to be cited there.
The seismic issue wasn't raised until just now.
I've talked to the same consultant, LGC Consulting.
They've run the analysis.
It's 1.1, which meets the standard of care.
We could provide documentation of that as well.
So under both the pseudo-static or seismic as it's called,
and under the static conditions it meets the factor of safety.
So what we propose is there's already monitoring conditions and removal conditions for the
structure and we believe that the same principle can apply to the pool.
The applicant would be happy to include a condition to monitor the pool for any threatened
to its stability, condition of removing it
if it becomes threatened.
So all of those concerns can be addressed
and they're all consistent with the LUP
as it's laid out and certified.
So as staff said, pools may be discouraged,
but we don't believe that discouragement is a basis
under the Coastal Act to require removal of it
from the plans.
And if we could get a modify the staff's recommendation
to approve the pool, we're happy to comply
with all the other conditions, removal of the basement,
it reduces the total square footage, the grading, et cetera.
That's what we ask.
So there's any questions, I'm happy to address them.
If not, at this point, I'll reserve my time
and two minutes for Mr. Van Slooten
who would like to have pulled up on video.
He wasn't able to be here in person, he apologizes.
And then Mr. Douglas, who's been processing this application
since the very beginning, I came on board a little bit later.
All right, thank you.
And then Dave Van Sluetens on Zoom,
you should be able to unmute and be on.
Yes, thank you very much.
Thank you, Anders, and thank you, Vince.
You have been very diligent
in carrying out your responsibilities to the commission
and appreciate all the commissioners
and your interest in the public good.
So just a little bit of history, Paul might touch on this,
but we were prepared for a hearing
in August, and we submitted a response to Vince's staff report
where many of these recommendations proposals
still exist, one related to the basement.
We had designed an ADU into the basement.
We were interested in providing affordable access
by offering that up.
But I guess just given the configuration of the design
that didn't meet your standards.
So we removed that.
We actually had submitted a modified drawing
of the house, removing the basement,
and in order for it to work, Vince probably knows,
we actually had our, we submitted drawings from our architect
that actually showed that there's a very, very small space
between the two garage that's kind of subterranean
It requires a three-foot retaining wall for the house to work for us to get from the garages
into the house.
The street is seven feet below the building pad.
But as far as just a little bit of background on us, my wife and I are the owners of this.
We have a large family.
We have no intention of developing this for sale or for profit in any way.
This is to build a lifetime of memories and connection to foster relationships with our
large and growing family and our large extended families.
We feel very fortunate to have found this property.
We've fallen in love with the neighbors and the community as we've gone through this process.
The pool and the spa are a very critical element to the utility that we see in this property.
And from the very beginning, even before we decided to buy this property, we met with
our geologist and we met with Paul Douglas, who you'll hear from.
And we spent a lot of time understanding the restrictions related to a property like this
and development.
And we've done everything we can from the very get-go to comply with the relevant standard
and regulations, never wanting to push the envelope.
And we feel that the experts standards as referenced believe that the pool and the spa
should be approvalable as cited and I just primarily wanted to provide context with why
this is such an important element of the design in our proposal for this property and I appreciate
your time.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners Paul Douglas, 92058, not to take much time,
but we have submitted revised plans reflecting the deletion of the basement and staff advised
me just recently they want the City of San Clemente to review them and approve them,
which the City is reviewing as we speak.
The owner has agreed to a hold harmless agreement where the state is being held harmless for
damage done to that property it's involved in a deed restriction as
you're aware of and included as a detailed monitoring program which
requires a periodic monitoring of any movement on the bluff for any reason
whatsoever and I think honestly with these agreements in place I see no
reason why the pool and spa can't be included in those agreements and should
approved thank you. Okay you have two and a half minutes remaining but are there
any? There are no more speakers. Okay would you like to? Okay no thank you I think that
completes it appreciate it thank you for the thorough presentation. With that I
will close the public hearing and return to see if our staff would like to make
any closing comments. Thank you Madam Chair. So again with regard to the pool
our main concern has been with
its location further out on the property,
closer to the bluff edge,
closer to the area where we're concerned over time
about the rate of
erosion and the uncertainty surrounding that.
The way our approach has been with this project is with that unknown,
we want to make sure that at
the point structures are threatened,
that they could easily remove the development.
And that pertains to the pool,
but also to the house itself.
So again, we were taking a precautionary approach here.
Looking to make sure
removableity was built into the project.
And, you know, if additional information is available in the future about that rate of
erosion that gives us more certainty, I think we're certainly open to the applicant coming
back with a proposal related to a pool on the site.
But at this point we don't think we have that level of confidence in the information.
But we do have, again, our staff geologist here who can speak to the details of the stability
issues as needed.
And we're available for questions.
Thank you very much.
Rise your heart.
Okay.
I have a few questions.
First of all, let me just start with something easier, which is the rail line that I guess
is apparently acting as some kind of a coast, some kind of protective device.
Could you describe that a little more clarity and also given all of the discussions surrounding
the need to remove that or move it or bring it inland or something will have to happen
at some point, I assume, could you just talk about that if it were to be removed, how that
would impact the bluff face or if you can?
Yeah, this is a question we've been looking at for a few years now is what will be, what
the future of the San Clemente Bluff because of this unique situation where this rail line has been
there since I believe the 1880s or some well before we have much real data as far as mapping
and aerial photography well before the advent of aerial photography. So what is the historical Bluff
retreat rate? Well it's not easy to ascertain that because it's been protected by the the rail line
and the associated revetments.
And so we've taught myself and Jeremy Smith, our coastal engineer, have talked with a number
of academic experts and have not come up with a clear solution to this question.
But it is our understanding that in our discussions with OCTA that runs that rail line that there's
some agreement that they're going to at least consider a 30-year time frame for removal
of that rail line. At that point, then the bluff would be much more subject to marine
erosion with sea level rise. And so we may see a very different picture in San Clemente.
And that's one of the concerns about placing anything very close to the bluff edge is that
longer term, not in the immediate, but much longer term that it would be subject to perhaps
bluff retreat.
Yeah, because one of the things that occurred to me is that, you know, is to have an addition
– let me just start by saying this isn't one of those black and white situations, right?
Even in the staff report, there's a little bit of equivocating on this pool, so one thing
I think that's important is that at the time I think that anything of the pool would need
to be removed if the track and the adjacent, I mean I think it's something we have to look
at as we deal with these coastal developments above the track where the track is used as
a retaining device and then it's removed presumably along with any kind of reinforcing rock face
or whatever, who knows what it's going to be like, but I feel like we need to include
that possibility as, you know, potentially requiring removal of the pool, let's say,
in this case, if the tracks were removed.
I mean, can you just tell me your thoughts on that?
I haven't really thought of it before, but in this particular case.
Well, that's certainly one approach and definitely that will be an important change in the erosional
environment in this location.
And again, sea level rise over the next 75 years, it will be quite significant, several
feet we expect.
So yeah, those two events will both the long-term sea level rise and then whenever the tracks
and the revetment are removed, there will be definitely a distinct change in the erosional
environment.
So that might be an idea to trigger remove at that point.
That seems like it should be included, but let's just talk about the full for one second.
So if you would give me that time.
So basically the reason, the identified reason to not allow the pool were addressed, the
first one being the concern about leaking, but it's in the, it's required that it have
a liner.
Can you talk about the, do you, are you concerned about leaking even though it has the requirement
of a liner?
And I don't know if that's you or another.
I mean, I'll speak generally, but I think a liner certainly helps with leaking and if
you add a, I mean, liners can break or rupture, especially if you're in an inactive area and
there's movement on the bluff.
There are detection systems, I believe, that can help with that, but I don't think it completely
eliminates the possibility of leaks.
So if you have a leak-proofing, you have a liner and you have a detection system that
would require draining of the pool, obviously, away from the bluff, if, I mean, these are
all, this is why you're recommending against the pool because it would have so many requirements.
I'm just saying, I'm just walking through it because of the, you know, these people
obviously really want to pool. So you have the liner, you have the requirement that it
be drained if there's any indication of leakage, you have this other requirement with regard
to removing of if the real line is removed.
The weight, do you agree with what the proponent said
with regard to the weight,
if the weight is less of water than it is of the dirt?
Yeah, that's sort of fundamental principle
in engineering geology.
Well, water has a weight of 62 pounds per cubic foot,
whereas soil tends to be something more
in the 100 to 120 pounds per cubic foot range.
So yeah, water is lighter than the soil.
So why does the report on this item express concern
about the pool weight?
I don't know.
So that's not an accurate answer.
There's also concrete and other materials, right,
when you're putting in a pool.
So I don't think it's just the weight of water
is different than soil, but there is a fundamental difference
between having soil, the native soil in the bluff,
digging all of that out, adding concrete, and adding water.
Whether the whole picture or the whole package is lighter
or not is, I don't think we have that information.
But the weight of water and the weight of soil,
that's true, we agree with that, that's science.
You know, one thing that's not really addressed,
but I'm very concerned about and was addressed
with regard to the basement, is the digging itself.
Is the digging into, right at the edge of the bluff,
digging down and putting the pool in there.
I don't know if there is some other kind of pool that is an option for these people.
They only want to, I am not sure if there is any kind of an above ground pool option
that could exist, but I am just saying it is not that each point is definitive, you
know, because of the weight, because of the leaking, because of the bluff, because of
the rail.
is the accumulation of all of these issues has led to staff recommending
against the pool and I have to say it's because of the cumulative impacts of
the pool that I have to say at this point I agree with them unless you can
come up with some kind of other alternative that doesn't involve digging
down into the bluff etc. that's kind of where I am. Can I respond? Mr.
Madam Chair, I think as I listened to all the conditions associated with approving the project in general, I thought that there was sufficient conditions that can be laid out to support the property as it's being envisioned.
I am not convinced that the pool is a deal breaker.
It looks like the pool can work
and the condition needs to be if movement
or the monitoring system shows
that there is an impact on the bluff,
30 years from now, potentially,
that then you can deal with whether the pool asset
needs to remain on the property or not.
So I think the staff did its due diligence
and where it cited the property.
I think the staff did its due diligence
on all of the conditions that are there.
And I would support approving the pool
if we could condition it on the monitoring.
Mr. Lee indicated that the seismic information
and other details weren't provided
the geologists that address the pool. But I would expect there's probably more pools
if we take a map view of the area. So it just seems like there is good effort. There's not
going to be any digging for the ADU or the basement. And it looks like the pool could
be appropriately cited and monitored and conditioned on removal if it impacts the bluffs over decades?
So maybe staff can explain to me what I'm missing because I don't understand why the
pool is such a liability to the integrity of the bluff if technology and the process
to create the pool can be managed.
I think, I think basically what what Commissioner Hart had said is sort of the approach we took that the culmination of all these things made us feel that it was too uncertain. And so we didn't feel comfortable, including, including that pool and that pool in our staff recommendation.
If the commission disagrees with the staff and that determination, you could add the
pullback in, and if you choose to do that, we would help you in figuring out what type
of conditions could be added, but again, I think from the staff perspective, when we
looked at this, we weren't convinced that there was enough evidence to show that this
would be safe into the long term and stable and for all the reasons we laid out on the
staff report, but certainly you could come to a different conclusion.
I just wanna make one more remark, Madam Chair.
The home facility, the unit,
has the condition of where it's placed,
the 25-foot setback plus the 1.5 factor.
And the discussion from Mr. Lee was that
if the bluff or sea level rise or beach erosion
or whatever impacted the area
that they would never be able to retain the facility
or create barriers.
I think if the same condition is applied to the pool unit
that they can't mitigate saving it in the future,
I would be supportive of being inclusive in the pool.
And the second issue that I hope the staff can speak to is
How is it that San Clemente, in its local authority,
has envisioned pools in these bluff areas?
So I'm just trying to understand
how San Clemente basically provided a pathway
for the developer to consider a pool at that location.
And then secondly,
if we already have a condition associated
with the whole facility not causing any unnatural barriers
or anything, any mitigation,
if the bluff is challenged in any way,
then the property has to be vacated.
I may not be speaking in the correct terminology,
but I wonder if staff can comment on those two issues.
Apologies, Commissioner Braciero, I'm gonna ask Vin,
maybe you could take a first stab.
We have been furiously writing over here.
can jump in then. Thank you Shannon. Yes sorry about that. So my windows are going crazy.
Um so that's a good question and I think those you know I don't want to speak for the city of
San Clemente. Their LEP does allow for pools on bluff top lots um and you know we just don't have
sufficient data to be able to make a determination that a pool in this location would be safe as we
we said there are all these uncertainties.
As Mr. Schwing said earlier,
we do think there's an opportunity for the applicant to provide us
additional information where we could do
a full analysis and make a better informed decision.
We're just not able to do that with the information that we have right now.
If I could, there's just one other thing I would note here,
And that is the city of San Clemente that while they do have a certified land use
plan, it's not yet the standard of review here.
The city still needs to get their implementation plan certified
by the commission.
And if you look in the condition, it talks about certain procedures that,
I mean, the policy that's been referenced that's in the land use plan.
It talks about procedures that will be identified.
And those procedures haven't been identified yet,
because the city hasn't done the implementation plan.
So I would just note that.
That policy isn't yet the standard of review.
And really, once we have all those pieces in place,
we think we can address the issue better.
Thank you very much.
And I'd like now to turn to Mr. Van Slooten.
I apologize, sir.
I thought Vice Chair Hart's question was rhetorical,
but it was not.
So if we could please hear from you
and with my apologies for cutting you off there.
Yeah, can you hear me?
We can, thank you.
Okay, yeah.
I think Anders was gonna try to speak on my behalf,
but somebody had commented about
the impact of the excavation of the five foot deep pool.
vince knows this property extremely well um what appears to be the former community pool
sits right on the heart of this building pad there's a pool right there now that's not
operable we've never had water in it while we've owned it it's 13 probably 13 feet deep
in the deep end there was a high dive i was told and anyways um so we are obviously going
to get rid of that we were thinking we could leverage that existing hole with the basement
you know kind of minimizing the amount of excavation because that hole already existed
but we're going to with kind of what we've proposed in place of the original design and
getting rid of the vast majority of that basement that will you know become part of the building
pad but the new hole for the pool will be much, much less intrusive.
And obviously, we are very, very sensitive to the excavation, probably most sensitive
to that.
We have homes that are right next to us that are built pre-coastal acts that are perched
right on the bluff edge.
You know, we're 65 feet back at the point, they are right on the bluff edge.
Thank you.
This is a delicate build, okay?
Thank you.
So if we could return to Vice Chair Hart's question around an above ground pool option.
Vice Chair, I don't know if you want to reiterate.
No, that's it.
I mean, I am, I really am concerned about more excavation at the edge of, this is really
getting close to the edge of the bluff.
So you're talking now you're going to fill in this very deep hole where there was a pool,
one thing that's happening below the house, you know, to site the house on. So
you are talking about excavating above the bluff. And I would say of all of
these different factors that are somewhat speculative, the thing that's
not speculative is that you're going to be digging a hole at the top of the
bluff for the pool. So I would say of all of the factors that are making me lean
toward the staff recommendation that you provide more information so that we
staff can really consider if the pool would be safe there it's the it's this
sort of thing so I doubt very much they're open to any kind of above ground
pool but I just want to confirm that yeah oh yeah we go ahead to Andrew's
yeah you're correct Commissioner unfortunately an above ground pool
apparently is not not not an option here and I just wanted if I could just speak
briefly probably 30 seconds on three quick points yes there's definitely other
pools in the area. There's pools in an immediately adjacent neighbor, definitely
pools in the whole neighborhood. As Mr. Van Sooten said, they're removing a much
larger older pool. In terms of the weight, there's a question about the weight
and whether that includes all of the other structure. Like I said, it's not a
pool with a foundation. The geotechnical consultants analysis included the weight
of, you know, what else goes into that, and the conclusion was there's no
detrimental effect on the bluff from that, and that would presumably include the,
you know the excavation which is you know a five-foot excavation not a deep
pool and then but the applicant definitely would be willing to enter
into a condition about removal if the tracks are removed so I mean that's we
appreciate that creative thinking and if that's an option that would be a
condition that the applicant has informed me would agree to thank you sir
thank you okay Commissioner Jackson then Commissioner Nada thank you Madam
Thank you Chair, thank you to the applicant, thank you staff for your always awesome work.
I appreciate you ironing out all the hard issues and leaving the simple one for us.
I do like, you know, I think last night when I took a look at this, I was leaning very
heavily one way, and that's why we have these hearings.
So upon further review, in light of the fact that the applicant is willing to hold, provide
a hold harmless clause, indemnify the commission, I'm wondering, consistent with Commissioner
Prociado's comment, could we just condition the approval of the pool on the owner's commitment
to monitor for potential impacts and to report and take timely corrective action to address
any future concerns, and I think that would address the railroad and anything that could
be discovered during the building process.
And I think that might be something that folks could sort of wrap their brain around in terms
of the commitment for any amelioration and or removal of, particularly in light of the
fact that we've got the whole hold harmless clause in the indemnification
component. Yes I think if the Commission is interested in retaining the pool on
the property as part of the project we could add we could come up with
language for a condition that describes the elements you have and and could
provide more details on that. Thank you. Because what I think I'm hearing is I'm
I'm hearing that we just, at this time,
staff doesn't think it has enough information,
but it could get information.
And I feel like the pool issue needs some time,
and that would allow us to have more information,
to get the geological information to get more comfortable,
and also to look at design,
because there's a way to do,
if a five foot pool could be two and a half feet deep,
or with two and a half above.
I mean, there's a lot of creative designs
for pools these days.
So that would allow, I would be willing to do,
say, do some kind of temporary,
or not approve it right now,
but say, come back with that information.
And if it meets these standards, it would get approved.
That's another approach to do it.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, so if somebody's trying to count where folks are,
I'm OK with some conditions and letting
the pool remain on the property.
For me, it would be wanting to see that also recorded on title
so that I know a lot of these properties switch hands quickly,
and I don't want to end up in a position like many
that we've seen where new owners take over and say,
oh, never realized that.
I didn't commit to that.
It needs to be there.
That's all.
Commissioner Radone.
Yeah, Chair.
This may be a little bit in hindsight for you,
but I just wondered about the siting of the pool.
It seems like there's a fairly large rear yard,
wondering if there's a better location
further from the bluff that the pool could be siding.
Yeah, we definitely looked at that.
Other places to locate it.
If it was more on the northern side,
but then it's a little hard to see from the plans,
but it would basically be you'd trip,
you'd fall into the pool when you exited the house.
So we would have put it in a different place
if that would have helped.
But unfortunately, that wasn't an option.
But thank you for the question.
OK.
Oh, Commissioner Wilson.
I'm not going to ask anything about the pool.
I know.
So I'm just wondering, when you said
you were going to remove the basement and the ADU,
in the same floor as the ADU is everything,
that whole floor removed, is that what I'm understanding?
Yeah, that's that's essentially correct. And if Mr. Douglas is more intimately familiar with the plan. So you can correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, basically that entire floor, which would have taken advantage of the old pool hole. The idea, have an adu and then have some storage space and I guess a gym in there.
But staff didn't want to have a basement and have, you know, any additional excavation in addition to the deep pool that was there. So we agreed to pull all that back. And so there's basically just enough room for the office off street parking
garages and then access to the home.
And that's all that's left of the basement.
Because I mean, there was also,
I mean, there was the ADU down there.
There was men's and women's bathrooms separate down there.
Maybe I just didn't understand why, in a residence.
I mean, I'm familiar with the design
of 12,000 square foot homes in general,
but I was just wondering, I mean you just really exist.
Why was there men's and women's
separate bathrooms in that section?
I can't speak to that, I don't know if Mr. Douglas
can speak to whether that was it's a large family.
Mr. Van Saluten is Mormon.
I don't know if that had a factor with maybe a gender
divide and it was appropriate.
OK, I was just curious because I was like,
I'll just, one of the reasons I asked this question
is because especially as some local government, often people
come in with, and they say this thing where it's like,
it's just for our family.
It'll forever be for our family.
And then a year later, it's sold.
and it's designed in a way that makes you scratch your head.
And then you realize it's basically, oh,
it's a giant party house now.
And it's a short-term rental for this that I'm just saying.
And you're like, so it makes us a little bit
you have to ask the question about the residential vibe
of it.
And from my perspective, it looks great from the idea
that it really has an apartment upstairs.
Because you have a kitchen upstairs.
You have a kitchen on the second floor.
And you also, well, on the first floor
used to have a kitchen as well with the ADU.
So there are, in many ways, it's set up almost as two
separate living spaces.
And in some ways, I'm like, why didn't this just get designed
so that you could convert it into a primary unit and a
secondary unit later for the benefit of the people living
here?
It seems like why wasn't that, I don't know, I was more
inclined to design it so it could be done that way.
but whatever, it's the way you guys are doing it.
So you understand why I was just wondering about the men's
and women's bathroom and the stuff downstairs.
It's a fair question.
And besides, like I said, it is a Mormon family.
Lots of kids, lots of grandkids.
This is a legacy home for the family,
where they're planning to have the family bonding.
And there was four washers and four dryers in this design.
So I was just saying, for a single-family resident zoning,
it's unusual, but it's not a commercial project.
I think I've explained it the best.
I think that's the very large family.
Commissioner Wilson, thank you.
Any additional comments?
For my part, I'm frankly agnostic on the pool a bit.
I'll talk to you later.
That said, I think I agree with Commissioner Jackson
on the hold-harm list, if the applicant is willing
to take the responsibility for the pool.
I can support with a condition that would include a liner,
a detection system, directional drainage,
a condition that simultaneously with
or as near to simultaneously as possible,
the removal of the railroad track, the pool is also removed.
And I agree to the extent possible that we include a condition as Commissioner Lopez identified that these obligations and commitments that run with the land is the way to put it and so I turned to staff to see if some kind of condition around that it's useful I think we heard some degree of consensus up here on that.
I think how we would recommend you proceed is to,
once we're done with deliberating,
somebody could make a motion
and then someone else make an amending motion,
and we could guide you through
what that amending motion would include,
and it would include adding the pool, presumably,
adding the pool back in,
and then we could talk through the specifics
of what a condition would read on the various monitoring,
leak detection systems, et cetera.
Thank you well then with that
Very helpful suggestion. I will entertain a motion or Commissioner will I have just have a clarifying question around the around holding harmless
This do we typically do hold harmless cuz cuz that can yeah, that's there is an assumption of risk condition already on the CDP
That's right. Okay. All right. Thank you
anyone like to make a motion
Then we'll do the amendment motion after
I'm not sure if you want me to do the many motion the motion
Okay fine move the Commission approved coastal development permit five dash two four dash zero two two four pursuant to the staff recommendation
Thank you, and then I will entertain an amending motion
Mr. Jackson
Thank you. I would move
Staff's recommendation with an additional condition
Can I interrupt a really please? I have some specific things to suggest
for your amending motion.
Please suggest a way.
I think the first component is that we would strike
condition one, A3, did I get that right?
Which is just basically required removal
of the pool from the plan.
And then we have a suggested condition
that we're trying to maybe pull up on the screen.
So you can all take a look at it.
The general parameters would be construction of a pool
with a leak detection plan, double-walled pool, concrete
protection slab, rubber pond liner, leak detection system,
saltwater pool that's not chlorinated
with an ozone generator for sanitation, no chlorine
or other harmful chemicals, and then a pool removal plan.
So again, Chris is working on, hopefully.
Sorry, we only gave it to him about 20 seconds ago.
I'm trying to get it up so that you can actually review the proposed language.
Well, the language that you would propose if the commission adapts the amended motion.
Thank you.
The one thing not included in that condition was a specific removal trigger related
to the railroad, I'm not sure.
They actually did.
Oh, forget it.
It's further down the line.
Give us a second.
It's just going to be so much easier if we read it than if we try
read out many paragraphs to you. Yeah, of course. Thank you. So here here's the condition that we've
drafted very quickly so please take a look because it's not perfect I'm sure so we can
edit it in real time if we need to. Prior... did we get it back up? There we go. Okay thanks.
Prior to issue to the Coastal Development Permit, the applicants shall submit for review and
approval a leak detection plan for the proposed pool that will be employed as long as the pool
exists on the site. The plan shall be prepared by licensed professional certified engineering
geologist or geotechnical engineer with expertise in coastal bluff processes. The plan shall
require ongoing periodic monitoring initially at five-year intervals beginning five years
from the date of approval of coastal development permit 5-24-0224 or as long as the pool exists
on the site. The monitoring plan shall identify specific methods for bluff retreat measurements
at the subject site. The plan shall describe methodology and monitoring
parameters to assess the location of the bluff edge, evidence of any land movement
on the site such as but not limited to cracks and gaps in the soil, hardscape or
buildings, and three evidence of any landslide movement on site. At a minimum
the plan shall include the following. A double walled pool with concrete
protection slab and a 0.06 inch thick rubber pond liner to waterproof the
undersides of the pool, a leak detection system with an emergency alarm, a sub
drain under the pool, and sump pump to convey any leaked water to the on-site
drainage system and away from the Pacific Ocean, a non chlorinated salt
water pool with an ozone generator for sanitation and no chlorine or other
chemicals harmful to the marine environment, and a pool removal plan that
details how the pool could be safely removed if it ever becomes threatened due
to erosion, seismic activity, or other hazards. So then there's another section
If, oh sorry, in the event, there should be a T there, in the event the railroad tracks
seaward of the site are ever removed or planned to be removed, the applicant shall submit
a geological analysis to determine the safety of the pool and either remove the pool if
it cannot maintain a minimum standard of safety consistent with industry standards without
use of a dependent foundation, hold on, for shoreline or bluff protection devices.
Then last the permit you shall undertake development in accordance with the approved we have to will match up the plan names with the plan unless the Commission amends this permit or the executive director provides written determination that no amendment is legally required for any proposed minor deviations.
I would just note that the either in that second to last paragraph should be removed so and they shall remove the pool if it cannot maintain a minimum standard of safety straight either.
will it include the title requirement? That is already a condition of the
permit. Okay. And is it so is there a design is something can we give the
executive director the authority to approve a design that meets this because
I think I really do think that there are some design full designs that could
alleviate some of the concerns so could we put can we give the executive
director of the authority to approve the design? Yes we can add that. I think I
would make it a broad plan that it's sort of a design and construction and
like to you know I will come up with a better term for what we should call the
plan but it would it would be inclusive of all those things. Thank you. And to
clarify it would be submitted to the executive director for approval? Yes we
need to add that version right it says review and approval but we'll add
Vice-chair Hart just a couple questions with regards to the plan on at five year
intervals I just want to clarify that that would be submitted to the ED is
that because that's not I think we should add that okay and also what
happens if they don't give us the monitoring plan then what happens every
five years then they would be about in violation of their CDP and it would go
into our enforcement unit. Okay, do you think we should clarify that the pool removal or that just doesn't make sense?
That's just standard. If they don't meet a condition of their permit, it would be a violation and we would deal with it through enforcement.
Okay, so just add that along with the pool design, etc., that the five-year interval monitoring reports also would go to the ED approval.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'm just going to ask for this edit.
This doesn't have anything to do with the pool, but I don't know where to put it in.
So on the exterior lighting, it just says all on-site exterior lighting C-word of the
residence shall be shielded.
Why not just all outside lighting shall be shielded?
I think that change makes a lot of sense, so we can make that change to the special
condition.
Yeah.
We'll incorporate, so we're kind of moving all over the place, we'll incorporate that
change on the exterior lighting into our staff recommendation. I just want to be
clear that the discussion we've had around the pool is under this amending
motion. We're not changing the staff recommendation to include that, but
that's part of your amending motion. Just want to make that clarification. Okay,
thank you. Remind me, Commissioner Jackson, did you make this amending motion or not?
So moved, yes ma'am. I'll second the amendment. And I appreciate the staff's ability to generate that very
impressive motion within a matter of minutes. So bravo. We have a motion by Commissioner
Jackson, a second by Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Escalante to the motion. Yes, thank you. Just
to explain my vote, I think San Clemente and their history of unstable bluffs makes me
nervous and I try to tend to be a little conservative much like our geologist on these type of
decision so I will be a no on the amending motion thank you okay thank you
we have an amending motion on the floor may have a roll call please it's nice
Commissioner Escalante no Escalante no commissioner Hart yes Hart yes
Commissioner Jackson aye Jackson yes Commissioner Rodoni yes Rodoni yes
Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez yes. Commissioner not off. Aye. Not off yes.
Commissioner Presiado. Yes. Presiado yes. Commissioner Wilson. No.
Wilson no. Commissioner O'Malley. No. O'Malley no. Chair Herman. Yes. Herman yes.
The vote is seven yes three no. Okay the amending motion passes and now we will
need a vote on the underlying motion.
I think it's already made, but I don't remember who did it.
I did.
And so I already read the motion, and now I'm
incorporating the amendments and requesting a yes vote.
All right, so that is a motion by Vice Chair Hart
and a second by Commissioner Lopez.
And we have a roll call vote, please.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson yes Commissioner Rodoni hi Rodoni yes Commissioner Lopez all right Lopez yes
Commissioner not all I not off
Yes, Commissioner presiado
Yes, presiado. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes Wilson. Yes
Commissioner O'Malley. Yes O'Malley. Yes, Commissioner Escalante. Yeah, Escalante. Yes
Chair Herman, yes Herman. Yes, the vote is unanimous. Thank you. The permit is approved
Okay. Now we will
right along to item 13
Alright, thank you. That does take us to item 13 C and
Emily Greer and our Long Beach office is going to do staff presentation. We do have up there it is
Go ahead Emily as soon as you're ready. Thanks
Thanks, Carl.
Good evening, Commissioners.
Item 13C is a coastal development permit application
by Larry Dunmull to construct a new 13-room boutique hotel
in the city of San Clemente.
Next slide, please.
The proposed project is located at 402 and 404
Pasadena Court in the Pierable area
of the city of San Clemente.
The Pierable is a mixed-use district
adjacent to the municipal pier,
which serves as the central focal point of the city.
The subject site is situated landward
existing beachcomber inn and therefore is not located directly adjacent to the coastal bluff.
The site is designated as coastal and recreation serving commercial with an architectural visitor
serving commercial district overlay in the city certified LUP. Next slide please. The applicant
proposes to convert the existing approximately 3,000 square foot historic single family residence
on site into five rooms of a new boutique hotel. The project also includes the construction of two
free-standing structures to add an additional eight rooms for a total of 13 hotel rooms.
The proposed hotel would consist of 10 high-cost rooms and three low-cost rooms,
which is equivalent to 30% of the number of high-cost rooms. The three low-cost rooms would be
located within the existing historic building. The three lower-cost rooms would accommodate up
to two individuals. However, unlike the standard rooms, the lower-cost rooms would not contain
on-street bathrooms. Instead, one bathroom would be constructed to be shared among the three lower
cost rooms. The applicant proposes that the rate structure for these rooms be based on an
annualized average daily rate of $147.76, which corresponds to 75% of the 2024 peak season
statewide average daily room rate. By using an annualized ADR, the nightly rate for these
rooms may vary throughout the year, sometimes exceeding $147 and sometimes falling below it,
but the average rate over the course of the year would not exceed $147.76.
In this case, the applicant provided a feasibility analysis demonstrating that a rate cap on the
lower cost rooms would make the project infeasible. Construction of a new approximately 7,600 square
foot, 17 space sub-training parking garage is also proposed, as well as an approximately
800 square foot restaurant with outdoor seating, a pool, spa, and a public viewing area with a new
public sidewalk. Next slide please. The main coastal resource concerns with the proposed project
are potential impacts to paleontological, archaeological and tribal cultural resources,
biological resources, water quality and marine resources, and the needs to address low-cost
overnight accommodations. All of these issues are addressed in the recommended conditions of approval.
To highlight a few of these conditions, Special Condition 2A ensures that the rooms remain low
cost over time by memorializing the applicant's proposed annualized ADR. Special Condition 2b
requires a marketing and engagement plan that discusses how the applicant will actively promote
and publicize the proposed affordable accommodations to ensure that communities that have been
historically marginalized and face greater barriers to coastal access are made aware of the
resources and utilize the lower cost rooms to the maximum extent feasible. Special Condition 2c
includes annual reporting requirements to ensure that the applicant provides
the required affordable rooms on site and is properly implementing the marketing and engagement
plan. Next slide please. Since publication of the staff report, staff received three comments
from members of the public, one in support of the project and two opposing the project.
The letters opposing the project raise concerns regarding the project's consistency with the
Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic resources and the stability of the site.
an addendum was published responding to the comments received.
Regarding the site stability, there's no evidence of prior slope instability or
land sliding at the project site. The proposed project includes the
replacement of the old cracked retaining walls on site and removal of excess
soil loads. This work is expected to improve site
conditions and address concerns related to the existing wall cracking.
As for the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Resources,
this is not the standard of review for the CDP application.
As shown on the slide the applicant proposes to preserve the historic residents in place.
Additionally, the historic fountain would be temporarily removed during construction and then
put back in place. The historic terrace stairs, Rhett and Reynolds and the historic garden per
glove would both be documented and reconstructed. These efforts are intended to retain the original
landscape design, visual character, and spatial relationships of the property resulting in minimal
change to the historic resource. As such, commission staff found that the project is consistent with
with the LUP's policies related to historic preservation
and restoration.
Additionally, while the Secretary of the Interior Standards
are not the Commission's standard of review,
the city's approval of the project included an analysis
under those standards.
The city concluded that the proposed work is consistent
with the Secretary's standards.
Next slide, please.
In closing, staff believes that the project is consistent
with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act
and with the certified LUP for the area
as proposed and conditioned.
staff is recommending approval of the proposed project with 11 special conditions as outlined
in the staff report. The applicant has stated that they're in agreement with all special conditions.
The motion and resolution can be found on page five of the staff report. This concludes the staff
presentation and staff is available for questions. Great, thank you very much. Are there any ex-partes
on this matter? Any none? I'll go to Chris. We only had one person who wished to speak from the
representative uh the Jim Holloway the owner's planning representative but weren't unable to
find him on Zoom and then we had one speaker who wished to speak otherwise Amanda Quintanilla
okay oh wait okay I see the name owner now at it they signed in under the name owner on Zoom
I'm moving in as panelists you should be able to speak and then I believe Amanda Quintanilla is
in as well they were also signed in under a different name but they're raising their hand
We just had those two speakers.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Jim Holloway, under the name owner, I believe you should be able to unmute and turn on your
camera.
Now, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Jim Holloway, for the owner.
And I need zero minutes for presentation.
I would like to take a moment to thank Emily, specifically for her very responsive and clear
communication, and we do have a geologist, the owner, legal, and myself city planning
available for questions, so we would like to respond to public comments if necessary
and appropriate. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And we just have the one public
commenter. You're being moved in. Or you should be able to unmute now. I see that you're unmuted.
Could you please state your name under the Zoom name, Michael Q. We're not hearing anything
on our end.
Hello.
Okay, there you go.
Okay, good evening.
Yes, my name is Amanda Cantonea.
I'm a San Clemente resident for over 50 years and I'm aware of landslide issues that have
been issues here in San Clemente for decades.
I'm respectfully requesting the Commission deny approval for this project at 402 Pasadena
Court, historically known as Vista de La Solas.
There are valid concerns regarding the geological instability of this area as evidence of by
growing cracks in the surrounding wall along Ebony to Victoria, pictures of this were submitted
as evidence and respond to the corrected addendum regarding site stability.
I strongly oppose its statements.
The instability of the retaining wall is not due to its age, but in increasing stability
of the land in the area.
The cracks have widened significantly over the last two months and a new crack has appeared
at the base of the wall,
further down the slope near the utility box.
This is indicative of land slippage
and growing geological instability at the site.
The commission geologists noted the observed cracks
and the retaining walls and indicated
that they are not necessarily indicative
of any active or deep seated landslide.
It's my understanding that deep seated landslide
is a type of mass waste stain
where the zone of failure extends deep
below the ground surface.
The report also states the removal of excess soil loads
in certain areas of the property.
These measures are expected to improve site conditions
and address concerns related
to this existing wall cracking.
It seems like there is substantial load
that is impacting the wall.
This is not excess soil,
but rather soil that has shifted due to its instability.
There has been no additional soil place at this location.
Concerned about the excavation of this property
with the new additions and potential to damage
of the existing historical property.
It just seems that remediation will likely be necessary
before proceeding and will likely show
that the further construction will not be viable.
I respectfully request that you deny this project,
especially going into our rainy season
that can result in landslides or sinkholes formations
as such as that occurred at the House of The Manteca site.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have no more speakers.
Thank you.
And I will return to Mr. Holloway
If you'd like to respond, I think he has a minute
and a half left.
Sure, can you hear me?
We can.
Okay, go to Nick.
We have Dave Worthington, and if you have questions
about our geologist who's had a lot of conversations
with the Coastal Commission geologist,
and if you have, I think your addendum speaks plainly
and clearly that there's been a lot of conversation
back and forth between the experts,
and they agree that our plan is solid.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Hey, with that, I will close the public hearing
and I will return to our staff
to see if they wish to make any closing comments.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So we did respond to those concerns fully
in our staff report and addendum.
I do want to note, of course,
we do have our own staff geologist here as well
that can field questions about that issue
if there are some more.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Schwing. I'll return to the commission for comment, questions, or a motion.
I'll make a motion. Thank you. Commissioner Whelff.
And I just want to say I'm not absolutist about the, there will be one residential
structure that we removed. I just want to say that because of the low cost accommodation here, but also
these kinds of projects also reduce the pressure on the short-term rental
market so it does help with housing when we have
expansions of these types so with that i move that the commission approve coastal
development permit number five dash two four dash zero eight
zero one pursuant to staff recommendation i recommend a yes vote
second thank you that's a motion by commissioner wilson a second by
commissioner presciento we're asking for a yes vote if we could
please have a roll call Miss Nye. Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye.
Jackson yes. Commissioner Rodoni? Aye. Rodoni yes. Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Lopez yes.
Commissioner Notoff? Aye. Notoff yes. Commissioner Presiato? Aye. Presiato yes. Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson.
Yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley.
Yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante.
Yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon.
Yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
The permit is approved.
Yeah.
Now we're going to move to item 14C, Deputy Director's report.
Thank you.
So in item 14, we're reporting seven waivers
for projects in Solana Beach, National City in San Diego, including a marine
debris removal project at the entrance to San Diego Bay. We're also reporting
on an emergency permit waiver that was filed by the City of Oceanside to breach
the outlet at Loma Alta Creek in Oceanside with approval of item 16B, which
was on consent earlier today. These actions will be covered under a regular
of CDP going forward.
Not aware of any opposition, so we're
asking whether three or more commissioners object
to the waivers in the report.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes?
Any speakers on this, Chris?
No.
There are no speakers.
Great.
Thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commissioning
concurs, Mr. Schwing.
With that, we will go to our final item of the evening, 16A, thank you.
Thank you and we do have a staff PowerPoint on this item and Lindsay Kane and our San
Diego office will be doing the staff presentation on this matter.
Go ahead Lindsay.
Thank you, Carl.
There's the presentation, well good evening chair and commissioners.
Item 16A is a CDP application from L.H.O. Mission Bay Hotel for renovations to the existing
Paradise Point Resort in response to the consent cease and desist orders issued in September
2023, as I'll explain in the presentation.
The applicant is in agreement with the recommendation and special conditions.
Last night, commission staff received a letter from the City of San Diego requesting denial
of the application due to potential parking impacts.
The city's letter is posted as correspondence.
The project is located in Mission Bay in the city of San Diego.
The resort leases 52 acres of Vacation Island from the city.
The leasehold fronts approximately 4,200 feet of public beach and bay waters.
Paradise Point began operations in 1962 as Vacation Village and has since grown to a
162 room hotel with meeting space, restaurants, retail stores, and various guest operations
like pools and fitness centers. Several instances of unpermanent development have occurred over
the years that have obstructed coastal access and caused water quality concerns. The applicant
originally submitted a CVP application in 2022 to address the unpermanent development
and implement resort improvements. However, it was subsequently withdrawn in order to
work toward resolution with enforcement staff through a consent cease and assist order and
administrative penalty that were approved by the Commission at the September 2023 meeting.
The consent order required the applicant to reapply for a CDP, which is this subject
application. The applicant has incorporated all of the required items from the consent order in the
proposed project and already installed public access signs throughout through the consent order,
including the one on the slide that clearly states there is free public parking and public
access to the beaches surrounding the resort. Next slide, please. The proposed project has
many parts including new public restrooms near the beach, redeveloped public access path,
solar panels to offset energy demands and support the EV charging stations installed through the
consent order, redevelopment of the marina that will incorporate ADA compliant design,
installation of an event tent after the fact approval of the public pier reconstruction,
reconfiguration of the existing parking, and redevelopment of the lagoon system.
While the city has a certified LCP, Mission Bay is in an area of deferred certification
where the commission retains permanent authority and the standard of review is Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act. Next slide please. Currently the resort uses a pump station to pump water from
from Mission Bay into artificial lagoons throughout the resort.
As required by the consent order, the applicant is requesting removal of the pump station
in order to transfer the lagoons, shown here in blue, to freshwater closed-loop systems,
meaning no water from the bay will be used in the lagoons. Some of the existing lagoons
will be removed, and others will be converted to landscaping, as shown here circled in green.
Additionally, several special conditions are included to maintain water quality and implement
marina BMPs during and after the proposed reconstruction of the marina. This includes
conditions to protect existing eelgrass, a pre-construction calerpa survey,
a construction pollution prevention plan, and a post-development runoff plan. Next slide please.
The applicant is proposing to install several ground-mounted solar panels above the existing
parking lots. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that blue water views of the bay are
maintained and impacts to views are minimized. Next slide please. Given historical exclusion
at the resort, the consent cease and desist order designated areas of public parking as
shown here in yellow. The applicant proposes to install an approximately 10,000 square foot event
tent highlighted in purple within public parking lot B. In order to offset the removal of 50
parking spaces from this lot, the applicant has proposed to create a new parking area in the
northern portion of the resort adjacent to North Cove, a popular beach area. While public parking
will be relocated adjacent to this beach area or other areas throughout the resort to accommodate
the tent, the total number of public parking spaces will be maintained and is consistent
with the parking requirements of the Mission Bay Park Master Plan, which serves as guidance.
As mentioned previously, the City submitted a letter requesting denial of the proposed
project due to a flawed parking study. We appreciate the City's engagement on the subject
application, however we respectfully disagree with their assertion that the parking study
fails to account for the impacts of the proposed event tent. The key point is that the tent is not
a new addition. It was in place and in use since at least 2015 and removed in late 2020. Thus,
the parking study conducted in February 2019 was performed when the tent was already operational.
The study period included near 100% hotel occupancy and multiple concurrent hotel events
with up to 750 attendees. It is staff's understanding that these events took place with the use of the
tent. Therefore, the peak parking demand of 488 vehicles, which is approximately 54% of the
resort's existing parking capacity, already reflects the operational impacts of the tent
in combination with other intensive uses at the resort. Furthermore, the study's methodology,
which was 65 observations over five days across three time periods, provides a reasonably robust
snapshot of real-world parking demand under high-use conditions. While the study was conducted in
February, the presence of multiple large events in near-full hotel occupancy makes it a valid
proxy for peak demand scenarios. Thus, the parking study shows that even under intense use,
the resort had significant parking capacity, approximately 46% remaining. There are several
special conditions recommended to address parking, including a requirement in Special Condition 4
that requires the applicant to create an event schedule, parking monitoring, and signage plan
that monitors daily usage of the parking spaces throughout the leasehold and in adjacent city-run
parking lots, specifically during events held in the Event 10. If the monitoring indicates that
events cause spillover into adjacent public parking, the applicant is required to submit
a CDP amendment to address the impact. The special condition also requires new and updated
signage to direct members of the public to the new parking area adjacent to North Cove.
Staff has worked with the applicant to maintain and promote public parking and visitor facilities
such as new public restrooms and showers near the beach, fishing pole holders onto the pier,
and redeveloping the public access path adjacent to the conference center and barefoot bar,
which is shown in red on the slide. This includes moving the path from within an outdoor dining
patio to along the water, improving views of the bay for the public walking on the path,
and reducing the potential for the path to be blocked by restaurant activity.
The path will also connect the public to the beach for easier access than what exists today.
Special Condition 6 requires a public access management program
to ensure public access is maintained during construction.
Next slide please.
The sea level rise projections for a 100-year storm and with 4.9 feet of sea level rise are
shown here. The light blue indicates areas of potential sustained inundation that may occur
during an extreme storm. While the majority of the resort will not be impacted, some areas,
including the southern parking lot and the new public access path, are predicted to be impacted.
Special Condition 5 requires the applicant to monitor the public access paths and make
adjustments to ensure they are maintained and accessible in the event of sustained inundation
through landward relocation. Next slide please. In conclusion, as conditioned, the project will
be consistent with the resource protection policies of chapter three of the Coastal Act.
Therefore, staff recommends that the commission approve the subject
coastal development permit application as conditioned. The motion is on page six. This
concludes staff's presentation and we are available for any questions. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. Are there any ex partes on this matter?
Mr. Lopez. Yeah, back on October 1st, 25, I had a meeting with Charles Watson, Ted Harris,
and Ted Harris, along with my chief, Priscilla Ramos, regarding this project, everything
that was just outlined, including the construction of the new public bathrooms, the solar panels,
and construction of a new exterior space in support of staff's recommendation was their
final point to me with agreeing with all special conditions. Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner Presiado.
Yes, I received two communications in the last 10 days. The first one, I will...
I'll update the record right now, but the last one was yesterday. I received a copy of the letter from the mayor.
is the mayor, the council president and the councilwoman that represents the area.
In both instances, there was indication that the city of San Diego was not
feeling engaged in this process and in both of those instances, they've indicated
their interest in having more connectivity, more engagement with the staff.
And so, and I do want to communicate that my contacts have been with an official with Unite here.
Her name is Bridget Browning, and she's also the president of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council.
And I will be submitting a report in writing regarding those ex partes. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner. Okay, seeing no more ex partes, we will open the public hearing and I will turn it to Chris. Okay, we have the applicants here in person, Dave and Yelly and Ted Harris.
Thank you for waiting all day.
How much time do you need.
You could turn the mic on, please.
Thank you.
Hopefully less than 10 minutes.
Commissioner, it's really great to be back in front of you.
Last time I was here was for the approval of the consent agreement.
I want to thank Lindsay and all of her hard work and collaboration with us.
And certainly, we agree and support the staff report and all of its recommendations.
I also want to thank enforcement staff and Rob, who presented the success story to you
the previous meeting regarding all the things that we did and have implemented
as part of the consent order that didn't require the approval here in the CDP and
and just want to run through what we have approval for today. A little bit of
next slide please a little bit of background is this resort is a pretty
historic resort it's been been there since the 1960s and what we're trying to
do here is really work with Coastal Commission to open up public access and
make the site more attractive to visitation. Our real issue here isn't as
the city-states an issue with parking, our issue is we've got to get people to
come here and come to the coast and enjoy it and hopefully through these
public serving enhancements we'll be able to do that. Next slide please oh I'm
I'm sorry.
Yep, that's fine.
So here's the improvements that were already provided
under the consent agreement.
I believe everyone, I don't want to bore you
by reading them all the bullets, but I'll keep it moving.
But there is a lot of work that we have done already
working with coastal staff.
And we're really proud of a lot of the enhancements
that have already been accomplished.
Next slide please.
These are the additional visiting serving improvements.
I think one of the big items here is that
adding a public bathroom to the west side of the island,
there's great beach on that side of the island
that typically only gets utilized by resort guests
because there hasn't been access there before.
Part of our plan and the CDP
not only creates a public bathroom over there,
but it also creates a unloading zone
with relocating some of the boat
parking to that side of the island as well.
Also the public access path
that will traverse over the outside deck
of the conference center and down in front of Barefoot
through the right outside where the lagoons had gone
and up to the marina and access down to Tidal Beach,
I think will be a huge improvement
because people will then be able to park
not only in the lot in the conference center,
but in the public park and be able to walk
along the coastline and be able to get all the way down
to where there's actually a beach down on Tidal Beach.
And, you know, there's a lot of public-serving improvements
here, the other being the North Cove parking.
Right now you can park in the park,
and if you have a family, you can come to North Cove,
but you're slogging all of the stuff,
and we see the public doing that all the time
by relocating parking to that side of the island
and creating the public loading zone over by North Cove.
that will make that co-far more accessible to the public.
Next slide, please.
Some of the things that aren't part of the consent order
are a lot of interior remodeling.
This is an older age property
and we have seen visitation decline over the years.
We are a public company and so we produce reports
that are public record that show
how occupancy has declined here
And a lot of the things that we're doing here
are to try to make the resort more attractive
and have the site more attractive,
not just to overnight visitors,
but to the day visitors that would come in the public.
We would love to see families in San Diego County
coming up for the day and parking for free,
accessing the beach, bringing picnics.
Hopefully we'll get to the point
where we got live music around the bay
and we're really creating some activation
giving people a reason that reason to come. Next slide please. I jumped again a
little bit talking about the public restrooms but we have a slide here that
provides a lot more of the specifics and it being open open to the public and
providing greater access for the west side of the island. Next slide. This was a
later edition and and hopefully we'll be able to get this in in time to take
advantage of the tax credits to make this economically feasible but this is
the on-site renewable power. We've done a lot of extensive work on this. The
additional usage or potential additional usage for the EV charging
stations that we already installed has, you know, what prompted us to
really look into this and see if there was a way to to add this to the site to
make renewable power possible here and so that we could make sure that we
weren't adding additional strain on to the local grid. Next slide please and
then addressing the lagoons that were this was an issue that you know the
lagoons have been there since the 1960s but they're obviously there were
significant concerns with them and I think that we've worked really well with
coastal staff to address those concerns and find a solution that will continue
make the site attractive to visitors but also make sure that we're addressing all
the environmental concerns that were related to them. Next slide please.
Marina reconstruction we were on the agenda last month and this became a
concern that was brought up by both Unite here and the mayor's office so we
did a lot of clarification and went into a lot of detail to make sure that we
addressed those concerns so you know actually the square footage area of the
dock gets reduced by it was a hundred square feet all the pilings remain and
are in use and you know this is one of those items that I I don't know when the
last time this Marina dock was addressed but it it is falling into
disrepair and so in order to maintain the access and this is where people come
and they can get boat rentals, they can get paddle board rentals, they can, this
really allows for a lot of the water sports. It also allows people that are
arriving by boat to come and park the boat for free and access the
amenities that are on the island. So this was something that was, that we did have
in the consent order and something that we agreed to as part of the
consent order and we've been able to to work with coastal staff as well as the
city to ensure that you know it's a minimal disruption and we're all the
pilings remain in place it's just replacement of the actual dock system.
Next slide please. The coastal path and so this is what I was speaking to
earlier this highlights the how changing the lagoon's then where Barefoot is which has been a
legendary site for for decades really becomes more more attractive to visitation it also creates
coastal pathways where people can come in to the resort from from the parking adjacent parking lots
in the park, they can walk along the shoreline now, they can access the
marina more easily, they can access the beach more easily. I think this will be
we're really excited about this enhancement to public access. We think
this is going to be transformative and and really invite a lot more of the
public to come to the property. Next item please. And then you know just really
want to again thank Lindsay and her team. I strongly support the staff's
recommendations. We're in full support of the items that are in the CDP, especially
the items that were agreed to in the consent agreement. You know, like I said
earlier, I mean, I've been working on this a long time and when I first
came to this project, I mean, this has gotten a little personal for me because
yeah, you know, when I first came to this site, I looked around, I was like, wow,
this was great once and now people don't come here anymore and and I really
think that the partnership with with Powell we're coming in as new owners in
2018 and the partnership with the Coastal Commission I think we have an
opportunity to really create something special that will be a fantastic
amenity for the for the local area and and really bring bring people back to
this island that has really been forgotten about there was a slide that
we tried to update that I don't know that I either I skipped through it too
quickly or or it wasn't in the presentation but it did address the
parking it showed a picture that I took just before one o'clock on July 4th
which is our peak day and it showed how the parking lot had over a hundred empty
spaces in it and it's like if we can't fill this parking lot on July 4th and
Then you know
Thank you happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it
All right, we have two speakers that were able to find
The first is Ryan Carl's got and then Pamela heatherington
Ryan when you're able to please unmute and begin
Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you
All right, thank you. Hello commissioners chair Harmon and staff. My name is Ryan Carl's got I'm a lifelong San Diego
I've been enjoying
Mission Bay all of my life
Since I was a little kid and now I take my little kids there
To enjoy the beaches wildlife playgrounds and open space
I'm also a member of the Mission Bay Park Committee an advisory committee in the city of San Diego today
I'm speaking on my own behalf. Mission Bay has long faced threats from poor planning
and the de facto privatization of our public lands. The applicant before you is a prime
example of this, taking up half of one of the islands in our bay and on the whole giving
the impression to the general public that you're only welcome around there if you're
paying hotel guests. The applicants related coast lack violations are noted
in the agenda item of course. This resort is now asking to expand their non
public areas like the Conference Center and event space and not only does this
exacerbate the impression that their large resort footprint is not open to
the general public but the parking impacts of this expansion have not been
adequately studied. They could very well impact parking in adjacent areas of the
Park and limit public access beyond its own footprint. The February 2019 study
may have been a time with fully occupied hotel but the general public uses this
area less in February much less than they do during the peak summer months
as the applicant noted July 4th is their peak and so they did not do a parking
study during a peak time, it's not adequate. This CDP application is premature and lacks
the necessary parking and public access studies. And that's exactly why our mayor and other
city leaders said as much in their letter to you. I urge you to deny the CDP as proposed.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Pamela Hetherington. And then we did find one more speaker actually,
likeowitz, Pamela Hetherington.
Thank you.
Pam Hetherington, Environmental Center of San Diego.
Thank you, Chair and Commissioners.
I'm speaking today in support of most elements
of this proposal, except for the installation
of the new event event.
Overall, we appreciate that this project
includes actions that improve public access,
remove outdated infrastructure, and move the site closer
to compliance with the Coastal Act.
The construction of a new coastal access path
and the removal of the pump station
are particularly welcome improvements
that enhance the public's connection to Mission Bay.
However, the addition of a new tent is inconsistent
with the purpose and content
of the coastal access protections.
Large event structures tend to privatize space
that should remain open and available to the general public.
We recognize that the Commission's enforcement division has already taken steps to address
past violations through consent orders and penalties, and we appreciate that accountability.
Going forward, it's crucial that redevelopment here does not repeat the same pattern of encroachment
or after-the-fact approvals.
Approving the access improvements, environmental cleanup, and solar installation demonstrates
progress and alignment with California Coastal Protection goals.
But the event tent remains a step backwards, an unnecessary intrusion on public land that
compromises both use and equitable access.
We offset the commission support the project components that restore, improve and protect
the coast and deny the installation of the new event tent.
And I wanted to comment too that the city is speaking about charging for parking in
Mission Bay.
So I think that we need to take that into consideration.
And we also need to consider the fact that the city who holds these leaseholds and doles
them out to the hotels and south are not good stewards themselves because camp land and
Paradise Point block public access for over 25 years.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And then Bernadette Butkavish.
Bernadette.
Good evening commissioners, Chair Harmon and staff.
My name is Bernadette Buckwitz, I'm calling today in opposition to Paradise Point project
as currently proposed.
As a lifelong resident of San Diego and Mission Bay Park goer, I'm also a member of the Mission
Bay Park committee and I'm concerned that we are getting ready to approve giving up
even more valuable public access and an otherwise largely privatized peninsula in our precious
local state tight lands.
The Paradise Point Resort was built on a beautiful island-like peninsula back in 1962 and about
14 years before the Coastal Act was passed into law.
And I believe that had this resort been built post-Coastal Act that it probably would have
looked a bit different.
The issue before you today is that the resort is now asking to expand their conference center
and meeting space capacity without fully analyzing the impact of the island's already limited
public access. To this, the City of San Diego, as many have mentioned, has raised specific
concerns around the proposed project's parking impacts, including the flawed parking study.
I think my fellow committee member mentioned, but the study was done in February, not a
high peak season for beachgoers. The study does not account for the intensification
of users in the resort and the study does not account for the addition of the 10,000
square foot tent in the parking lot and corresponding event operations.
If this CDP is approved, it would be approved without the appropriate study required to
understand the actual impact on public access to this already largely privatized peninsula.
And for this reason, I'm asking that this is premature and therefore I respectfully
ask that you stand with the City of San Diego and deny the CDP as proposed.
Thank you.
No more speakers.
Thank you very much.
Chris.
Okay.
I will close the public hearing and return to our staff if they have any response they'd
like to make.
I would just note that I think all the issues that were raised during public comment were
were addressed to both in the staff report, the addendum,
and then in the staff presentation
that was made by Lindsay Cain earlier.
We're happy to go into any more detail
if any of the commissioners would like,
but we feel confident that we've addressed all the concerns.
And frankly, just as a reminder,
this is an enforcement action.
The commission required this work to be done.
It's been a long time coming.
We're excited to be at the place
of being able to move it forward
so that we can get this really important public access.
all the important public access amenities, the bathroom,
all the things you saw in the presentations today,
this is gonna be really good for public access
for San Diegans, and we're excited to be able
to recommend approval.
Thank you very much.
Okay, I will return to the commission
for comments, questions, or a motion.
We'll start with Commissioner O'Malley
and then Commissioner Preciado.
Thank you.
I am prepared to make the motion when it's time,
and I have very, very quick comments.
Thank you to the staff for this.
I'm a frequent visitor to this area,
and I appreciate the opening up.
The one thing I will say, I think the signage has been much, much better than it used to.
There's still one sign, and maybe you could look into this, the gate to the marina still
has a small sign that says private marina.
So I think that also has to go, but the larger sides are showing that it's public.
That said, I'm prepared for the motion, and I appreciate all the work that you've done
on this.
Thank you.
I'll come back to you.
Commissioner Preciado.
Thank you.
I just wanted to update the record.
I have the other date.
So in my ex parte, I indicated that I received the two communications about the City of San
Diego's opposition to moving forward on the project.
The first one was on October 27th for the Agendized item, and then again on 11-4, which
is when I received a copy of the letter from the Mayor of San Diego, the Council representative
from the area, and the Council President.
I have a couple comments that I'll make.
I think Lindsay and her discussion was able to clarify for me where the disconnect is
with the city of San Diego and for whatever reason I just don't understand why the city
of San Diego doesn't know that the California Coastal Commission is the sole responsible
body for these kinds of planning and CDP approvals and that because of that, because this property
is specifically retained by the Coastal Commission, that there really may not be a need or any
substantive engagement that needs to occur with the city. I'm surprised by that. I'm hoping
that they get some clarity. I wonder what other properties are also not in their purview even
though it's within their city boundaries. So, that's the first thing. The second thing is,
I will explain my opposition to moving forward with the CDP is associated with this correspondence
from the city. I'm very concerned that people at this level, as a local elected official,
I don't sign on to letters and make comments if I don't believe that I need to be involved. So I
will be opposing the approval of the CDP in my voting. Having said that, I do want to acknowledge
that this is an enforcement action. Pardon me, that it was an enforcement action, that this is
responsive to the enforcement action, and that the staff has gone through its due diligence of
looking at all of these programs and projects. I will acknowledge the City of San Diego disputes
the parking study and I will acknowledge that at least one at least one or two members of
the public are concerned with the reinstitution of the tent and surprising these marquee properties
have these kinds of structures. But again, my opposition comes from my acknowledgement
that the local elected officials in this area either did not have enough information or
did not have enough understanding of their role in this process. And as such, sent communications
to us at least on two occasions indicating that they didn't feel they were engaged in the review,
but as Lindsay indicated they have no role in the review. The role is limited to maybe advice,
but the Coastal Commission appears to have full authority to review this project. And
again, my concern for the City of San Diego now is what other properties are not available to them
for their review thank you okay thank you commissioner jackson thank you madam chair um
real quickly a couple questions with regard to the parking my understanding from the report there
are 444 public parking spaces that are separate from the from the private club parking spaces
Is that correct?
That sounds generally correct.
But let me get confirmation from Lindsay.
OK.
She knows the stuff backwards and forwards.
Yes, that is correct.
There are 444 public parking spaces.
And then I believe 462 reserved for guest parking spaces.
And those are separate.
OK, so guests cannot park in the public spaces.
and I'm assuming public space is non guests can't park
in the club spaces, is that correct?
Yes, I believe that's correct.
The guest parking spaces would say,
would be indicated that there are four guests
and the rest are open to the public.
Okay, so in the event that there's a big,
you know, all the hotels are full around there
and you've got a big event and a tent
and that event slash tent slash hotel spillover
impact the parking spaces.
And I ask that question because I think
when a parking study is done is important,
living in a coastal city, you come in February,
it's a heck of a lot different
than if you come between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
So I raise that as a potential concern.
Also the parking, I think if I understand this correctly,
there's gonna be a shift to move the public parking spaces
over by on the North Cove.
Did I, am I understanding that correctly?
Yes, that's correct.
And that one of the concerns on the North Cove
is that drainage pipe discharging into the North Cove.
And I know that when it rains in our city,
and the bottom line is we close our beaches often
when there's drainage from the discharge pipe.
And I'm assuming that that is,
with an emphasis on the North Cove,
my concern just from looking at this is,
there's gonna be more discharge
where we're concentrating the public
and that drainage ditch that isn't going to be moved
will impact the quality of their visit.
So that is correct that there is a discharge pipe
that goes directly into North Cove.
One of the updates that the applicants are making
is revising the lagoon system
and changing that to the freshwater lagoon
will reduce the amount of discharge into North Cove.
We also are requiring them to create
post development runoff plan to determine what other types of runoff
would be going into North Cove and how they can treat that to better improve
the water quality, especially in the beach area. So right now what runoff is
discharging into the North Cove? Is it just rain runoff? Is there some other
sort of drainage from the facility itself, or is it just the rainflow or outfall, whatever that is?
From my understanding, I think it would be the rain outfall and the lagoon system. So it starts
over on the other side where they intake the water from the bay and then it discharges into
North Cove but also I can't see David or Ted right now but if they have any
responses to this if they would like to come up and respond. Thank you Ted
Harris, California strategies. Yes so there'll be a significant improvement in
water quality from the current artificial lagoons, our non-clo system
and discharge into the bay and on the parking, through the parking study BMPs
will be installed and it'll make sure that there's at least as good from
marine runoff as current. If you have other questions I'm glad to respond to
those or I can wait as appropriate. If I yeah my concern is that drainage pipe
that so the focus now is the public on the North Cove Beach where the parking
is going to be concentrated and the drainage currently exists that's not
going to be moved so is the quality of their visit going to be impacted by the
non-movement of that drainage pipe particularly after it rains I know it's
certainly going to be a, is that beach going to be closed or what's going to happen?
Because it shouldn't be closed, I mean so right, it's a 52 acre site and right now folks
are you know, it's so large to get there it's really intended to make it much better accessibility
to have the parking there. But as far as vehicles being there with a modern parking lot it would
be at least as good if not better by putting in BMPs and through the storm water and water
quality plan to address any pollutants come out of that. So it should be a net
increase both from the artificial as well as from the parking. So you're
saying that the drainage will be addressed through this project and that
it will not impact the quality of the water that would impact the quality of
the public's visitation and right to use that area. Yes, there's an expected
improvement in water quality from improving the CDP yes okay thank you
thank you thank you Madam Chair thank you commissioner Lopez yeah I just I'm
gonna be supporting the project today but wanted to be on the record as a
local government guy I'm concerned when you get two letters from a mayor saying
that he's got concerns about a project is somebody who cut his teeth in local
government and knows that that's right sort of ground truth it's also
concerning that we're sitting here today though and they're not in the room to
share those concerns so just wanted to point that out but I will be able to
supported today but I do have those concerns about receiving two letters from
the mayor of San Diego regarding this project and having those open out there
so I wanted to be on the record with that thank you madam chair. Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley. Again move the Commission approved coastal development
permit 624 0 632 certain to staff recommendation and asking for a yes vote.
Thank you. Second. Thank you the motion by Commissioner O'Malley a second by
vice chair Hart they're asking for a yes vote and we have a roll call vote
please. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson yes.
Commissioner Rodoni. Aye. Rodoni yes. Commissioner Lopez. Aye. Lopez yes.
Commissioner not off. Aye. Not off yes. Commissioner Presiado. Nay. Presiado no.
commissioner Wilson aligned with Commissioner Lopez yay Wilson yes
Commissioner O'Malley yes O'Malley yes commissioner Escalante yes Escalante
yes chair Herman yes Herman yes the vote is nine yes one no thank you the
permit is approved okay I think we're gonna trail the statewide item and we
will adjourn for the evening. Thank you all very much.