okay good morning good morning good morning good morning good morning hmm
all right it's 9 a.m. on November 7th 2025 welcome to the third day of the
November meeting of the California Coastal Commission like to start this
morning by with a roll call Vanessa commissioner O'Malley president
Commissioner O'Malley.
Present.
Commissioner Eckerly.
Here.
Commissioner Escalante.
Here.
Commissioner Jackson.
Here.
Commissioner Rodoni.
Present.
Commissioner Notoff.
Here.
Commissioner Preciado.
Commissioner Williams.
Here.
Commissioner Wilson.
Presente.
Vice Chair Hart.
Present.
You have a quorum.
Great, thanks so much. We'll now move to the virtual meeting procedures, Chris.
All right, 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 cowl-span.org. If
you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item, we recommend use the CalSpan website. Those who wish to address the Commission
today can do so in person through the Zoom platform or by phone. The speaker request
Forms may be found on the Commission's webpage. Paper forms and a scannable QR
code for paper lists of middle 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 given up to two minutes speak at
the discretion of the chair. Requests to speak during the general public comment
period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. on each day of the meeting. In order to
provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation you may
speak on a specific topic one time only each month. Those speaking on an agenda
item that is not general public comment are typically allowed two to three
minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. We will accept the 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 Vice Chair, that concludes
the virtual hearing procedures.
Great, thank you so much.
I wanna also acknowledge that commissioners Preciado
and commissioner Lopez have both joined the meeting.
I'm also just to clarify our chair,
commissioner Harmon is not here this morning,
so I'll be chairing the meeting.
All right, can we go to agenda changes?
Mr. Carl.
Yes, thank you.
Good morning commissioners.
Item three is the agenda changes.
The posted agenda changes memo online is all accurate.
All told, there's five agenda changes for today
and I'll run through them quickly.
Item number 8A, this is the city of Trinidad's LCP amendment
that's updating housing provisions.
That item is moved to consent.
Item 11A, this is the city of Pacifica's
post-LCP certification map update.
That item is moved to consent.
Item 13A, this is the Pillar Point Harbor District
CDP application for boat launch improvements.
That item is moved to consent.
Item 15B, this is Santa Cruz County's LCP amendment
that does a series of LUP and code cleanups.
That's also moved to consent.
And item 16A, this is UC Santa Cruz's
notice of impending development
for their Younger Lagoon Beach Access Management Plan.
That item is moved to consent.
And that concludes the agenda changes for today.
All right, great.
Thanks so much.
We'll now open the hearing for general public comment.
And would you let us know how many people you have?
Yes, today we have 12 people
sign up for general public comment.
All right, so everyone will receive two minutes
and we'll start with the folks in the room.
I did let Mr. Ray know he could have an additional minute
as he's been here consistently for three full days.
So do you want to begin with Mr. Ray?
I'm going to go through the procedures first,
and then we'll start with those in the room.
Mr. Ray indicated he wanted to go last of those people
in person.
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 a 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 will 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 on a signup list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you
approach to speak.
There is a raise your hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list.
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.
When it is your time to speak, we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star 6.
So we have three in person.
We'll start with Enri Lala, Evan Sussman, and then Steve Ray.
Enri Lala.
Both Evan Sussman and I are here to testify for the same item.
It's Evan speaking.
Would that be OK?
Is it an item that's on the agenda?
It is not on the agenda, no.
Oh, sure.
That's fine.
But you could each have two minutes.
No, just the Sussman speaking.
Oh, that's fine.
Sure.
Good morning, Madam Vice Chair Hart and Coastal Commissioners.
My name is Evan Sussman.
I serve as the first president pro tempore
of the Associated Student Senate at UC Santa Barbara.
I'm joined by Henry Lala, our internal vice president.
And we're here today on behalf of the student body
to share our common concerns about the safety
at the UCSB Lagoon, and ask that the commission
consider environmentally safe lighting solutions
to the university.
Over the past several years,
there have been repeated incidences of sexual assault,
robbery, and attempted kidnapping
in and around the Lagoon area.
zone classified as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, or ESHA.
As students, we deeply respect the lagoon's ecological importance and the protections
afforded by the Coastal Commission, but we also believe that public safety and environmental
preservation must coexist.
We speak to you today not just because of one recent assault, but because of years of
leaving students in the dark.
With close partnership with the support and support of UC Police Department and Senior
Administration at ECSB, we're reviewing data that shows a consistent pattern of
danger near the lagoon. Dozens of calls related to sexual assault, rape, molestation,
and transient crime have been reported over the past 20 years. The area's
intentional overgrowth, while ecologically valuable, has created blind
spots and enables crime and fear on a college campus. We're not asking for
broad infrastructure changes. We're advocating for small-scale downward-facing
animal safe lighting solutions that protect wildlife and while keeping
students safe at the same time that's why we've come up to Sacramento today
so that when UCSB requests such changes to the lagoon you have heard the chance
you'll have had the chance to hear from students being most directly affected
last but not least we want to invite the Coastal Commission staff and chair to
come to our beloved campus to further this important partnership with our
students. Thank you for your time and your continued commitment to California
that is both safe and sustainable for all. Thank you. Thank you. And then did
Enri Lala, do you also wish to speak? Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you so much
for your testimony and for coming up here. All right, Steve Ray. And then our first
three speakers on Zoom will be Christina Aranguren, Jim Merka, and then Jim Palmer.
well good morning Madam Chair and commissioners staff members of the
public yesterday chair Harmon honored me by thanking me for my service and
recognition of upcoming Veterans Day and Marine Corps birthday I was very honored
to receive that recognition I was kind of embarrassed to be singled out and I
I got a lot of questions.
So to put all the questions to rest, yes, I served.
I was an officer in the US Marine Corps
and Special Forces Unit Force Recon Vietnam.
And I'm reminded daily of my service.
So that answers all the questions I got.
But I want to point back to everybody else,
because I accepted that honor in recognition
of all of the other veterans who are connected
with all of this work out here.
So I want to honor the veterans on the commission,
on the staff, all the members of the public who come here
to protect the environment and save the coast.
I want you to know that if I can speak for the commission
here that we wish everybody a happy Veterans Day
and thank them all for their service.
But I also want to turn it around on the commission here
and thank the commission for your service,
because what you do is invaluable to the state,
to our environment, and to our world.
The work of the Coast Commission is critically important
to saving our coast and protecting our environment.
Just as in the military,
when our job was to protect our residents
of the United States, protect our country,
and to save our democracy,
you're doing the same for the coast.
and by protecting the environment, saving the coast.
Dr. Hart, Peter Douglas, the late great Peter Douglas,
who was the author of the Coastal Act
and was a long time for decades,
executive director of this commission,
was famous for saying that the coast is never saved.
It's always being saved.
And it takes that kind of work and diligence
to make sure that we eventually get closer
to the ultimate goal of saving the coast
by doing it every single day.
And this commission does that work every single day.
So I wanna recognize you and all the work you do
and all of the coastal advocates and citizens like me,
concerned citizens who come here and make the case,
the work that they do is so invaluable
to the work that you'll get to do.
So on behalf of all of us out here,
thank you for your service to the rest of us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
If I just could have one second before we get to Zoom.
I just want to thank you, Steve, for everything that you do.
Overall, the years I've been on the commission,
you're just at constant.
And I know all the work you did on Banning Ranch.
So I just want to, in the same way,
express our gratitude in addition to your service
to the country, your service to protecting the coast.
So I really appreciate you.
You're heroic as far as I'm concerned
in all of your efforts.
So thank you so much for everything.
Thank you.
That covers the last 43 years, I presume.
That's it.
That'll be the last time we speak of this.
Really, thank you.
OK, thank you.
All right, we go to Zoom now.
Thanks.
All right, thank you.
Next, we have Christina Arringerun,
Jim Rooka, Jim Palmer, and then Valerie Mishkin.
Christina Arringerun.
Thank you.
Prior to starting my time,
can you confirm that my PowerPoint slide is up?
It was submitted yesterday to materials.
What was the name under...
Or the...
The email address would have been cmbayaki at gmail.com.
Okay, we're bringing it up.
That's it, thank you very much.
Good morning commissioners and staff.
My name is Christina Ehringern.
I am president of the Institute for Conservation Advocacy,
Research, and Education.
We'd like to bring your attention
to the growing popularity
of mobile wood-burning saunas on public beaches.
This was recently brought to our attention
when private and commercial saunas began appearing
at Big River Estuary in Mendocino-Headland State Park,
a state marine conservation area,
marine protected area,
and ancestral territory of the Northern Coast Pomo.
Recently a special event permit for commercial sauna use
was approved by State Parks.
And while we wait definitive word on the details
of a rather confusing and permitting and approval process,
it appears the agency has reconsidered its decision
and has at least for the time being curtailed sauna activity.
They've since directed anyone witnessing it
to their dispatch.
But the public cannot be expected to monitor in a forest.
This is the job of State Parks.
They are the stewards.
While we applaud the decision,
our concern is that this activity will be pushed
to another beach for sensitive coastal area
and all the problems associated with it.
Visual and air quality degradation,
other environmental impacts warranting,
sea curve review, resource compatibility,
visitor experience, public access, social equity,
and compliance with zoning and coastal app regs.
We urge that the commission fast track discussion
on zona activity and develop policy for the coastal zone.
Commissioner Hart, given your background,
we would certainly appreciate your special attention
to this issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Thank you.
Next, Jim Rorke, Jim Palmer, Valerie Mishkin.
Jim Rorke, you should be able to turn your video on now.
Thank you.
Madam Vice Chair, commissioners, good morning.
My name is Jim Rorke.
I am the immediate past president of the Point Lovelace
Foundation and a current proud member of the Parkett
steering committee. I'm here today to ask for your support of the Parkett project
to provide safe visitor access to Point Lobo State Natural Reserve. This project
is currently in the county permitting stage. Parkett is a coalition of local
residents, state parks leaders, transportation planners, and nonprofit
organizations that have worked together now for years to find a solution to the
increasingly dangerous and unsustainable access challenges at Point Lobos.
What we have today is not safe access. It's too often hazardous. The parking
lots regularly fill by mid-morning, even earlier on weekends and holidays, forcing
hundreds of cars onto the shoulder of Highway 1. The result is a makeshift
parking zone with no rules. No sidewalk, no barriers, no signage, and no truly safe route
to the entrance. Every day, visitors, now pedestrians, must walk inches from Highway 1 traffic,
children, seniors, families, sometimes with strollers. The solution to this problem is
the Parkit Project, a comprehensive community-informed plan that includes a timed entry reservation
system to Point Lois, and a shuttle service that will connect visitors safely direct to the coast
from a nearby off-site location. Please support the Parkit Plan to provide guaranteed safe access
and enhanced visitor experience and better protection of the fragile ecosystem
that we have all been entrusted to care for. Thank you for your time and attention.
Thank you. Next, Jim Palmer, Valerie Michigan, Diana Sandoval. Jim Palmer?
Can you hear me all right? Yes, we can hear you.
Great. I have a one-minute followed by a one-minute video titled Palmer General
Comments, Newport Beach Moorings. All right, we got it.
Great. Thank you for all you do and thank you for this opportunity.
I'm asking this commission to require a CDP to address the Thailand's administration issues
in Newport Beach and require mediation for resolution. Unlike previous city administrations,
current leadership has failed to resolve issues in a meaningful collaboration among stakeholders.
Last July 9, last year, the city discarded decades of collaborations and imposed a phased
conversion of mooring permits to mooring licenses. This changed from relatively affordable triple
net mooring permits to build the suit type mooring licenses is a material change to harbor access
that should go through the CDC process followed by mediation to resolve. The state lands commission
draft report is also concerning while the city's granted broad latitude over Thailand's management
the report accepts discriminatory treatment of Thailand users when justified. The deeming of
apples to apples comparisons of permits to permits for the birthing of boats in Newport Beach is now
how invalid because now apples to oranges compares some permits to licenses and somehow
this justifies illogical discrimination. Please require a CDP for the city ordinance to change
mooring permits to mooring licenses and require mediation to bring resolution. If you could
play the video, I'd appreciate it.
The report's findings also include that the city can reasonably rely on its recent mooring
appraisal to set rates for its mooring permits and that there are clear differences in rate
revisions for moorings and residential peers which may violate the grant statutes and the
California Constitution. And I think what's really appalling in this situation
is that incredible discrepancy between the pier rates and the mooring rates. And
I can also acknowledge or I acknowledge that the amount of tidelands that are
being utilized by those private recreation or residential piers and the
vessels that are attached to those piers is significantly larger than the moorings
and the boats associated with those moorings.
So there is some real definite inequity going on here.
Thank you.
Next is Valerie Mishkin, followed by Diana Sandoval
and then Lila Raynaro.
Valerie Mishkin.
Good morning, I'm Valerie Mishkin.
I'm with Smart Coast California.
Smart Coast California is a nonprofit organization
providing planning advocacy and information
to our coastal communities.
Our mission is to foster a healthy and balanced dialogue of smart land use planning along
our coast.
We focus on education, collaboration, and sharing resources for effective decision making.
We want to include all voices at the table and develop solutions that work statewide,
creating smart solutions to sea level rise with neighborhood scale adaptations.
month, well actually it wasn't last month, it was September. We had the opportunity to present a
dynamic policy summit program where California Coastal Commission Executive Director Dr. Kate
Hucklebridge, Kelsey Duchlo, and Brittany Cozzolino brought forward updates to sea level rise
adaptation planning. We thank you for participating in our summit and collaborating with us throughout
the year. We were fortunate to have Dr. Hucklebridge share her reflections on the future of our
coastline and introduce her team to discuss updates related to sea level rise adaptation
planning. Executive staff included discussion of a recently initiated NOAA project of Special
Merit to better assess beach resilience at a local scale. Our summit dove into legal
issues as well as coastal community, LCP amendments, movement and outcomes, private property rights,
public trust, sustainability, and environmental needs and solutions. We appreciate the efforts
being made to address climate change and sea level rise with a hybrid approach and we look
forward to working with you. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next is Diana Sandoval followed
by Lila Renero and Noah Suarez Sykes, Diana Sandoval.
Hi, is my presentation up?
Yes, we're bringing it up, just give us a second.
Good morning commissioners, I am Diana Sandoval,
a property owner in Santa Barbara County Coastal Zone.
I'm here because a new unpermitted hazardous gas line
was unlawfully installed on my property in Anasha and Creek
to serve an unpermitted structure
at 3215 Foothill Road.
As you're aware by now from the illegal bridge construction
and the unrecorded public trail,
Santa Barbara County has a history of unlawfully exempting this 22 acre property owner
reported to be from a billionaire family from local and state laws and regulations including
the Coastal Act. Slide please. On this slide the photo on the left shows a new
unsupported gas line crossing the Esha and Creek with no emergency shut off valves. The photo on
the right is a close-up confirming it's a new gas line. Slide please. As we will see in the video
Santa Barbara County staff confirmed that a new gas line was indeed installed.
Can you please press play on the video on the left?
It should be a video.
OK, well, I'll play in the next.
Oh, there we go.
We can go ahead and play that.
I wanted to get like the colors, what I'm trying to get.
Yeah.
Yeah, color.
So you confirm it's a new line, too.
Yeah.
So yeah, that's a new gas line.
That's what I wanted to see, see the color between the two?
If this one was old, it'd be kind of the same color.
Yeah, that would fade out to that.
Yeah.
As we heard in the video, that's a new gas line.
and that's Santa Barbara County inspectors for you.
So commissioners and enforcement staff,
please do not allow Santa Barbara County
and this property owner to backdoor channel
yet another unlawful exemption like the illegal bridge
in the Esha, which remains unpermitted
and to date or the unrecorded and blocked public trail.
Thank you.
And thank you.
Next is Lila Reinero, Noah Suarez Sikes
and Samuel Casillas.
Lila Reinero.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, thank you.
Greetings, honorable chair and commissioners.
I'm Lila Roneiro, a concerned citizen residing
in the coastal zone of Pedro Point in Pacifica
and a founding member of Pacifica Homes or Not Hotels.
I provided comments at last month's CCC meeting
regarding the revised short-term rental ordinance
for Pacifica, which has been a put in effect
in the non-coastal areas.
And hopefully we'll be coming to you all soon
for approval in the city's coastal zone.
I'm speaking again today because my family
and our friends and neighbors are continuing to live
amongst the chaos created by living next to STRs
and want to have peace restored to our community.
Our family moved to Pacifica in 2012
because we loved the neighborhood
and its family-friendly vibe.
We used to enjoy a neighborly relationship
with the family who lived across the street
and up the hill from us.
The kind of relationship where we could borrow cups of sugar
from one another and their teenage kids
would babysit our younger children.
Our world got turned upside down
when that house was sold in 2019 to new owners
of a corporation that turned the property
into a full-time unhosted STR.
I'd like to set the record straight
and address a comment made by a pro-SDR host
who said that neighbors who are anti-STR
are lying and making up false stories
in order to push our so-called agenda.
This is false.
I can assure you that we have genuinely had to deal
with many issues and nuisances,
including loud noise, cigarette and marijuana smoke,
illegal parking blocking access for emergency responders,
eyesores of overflowing garbage and property neglect,
entitled guests throwing debris towards our house,
lack of privacy, et cetera.
The owners of this STR even hired a lawyer
who sent us letters threatening legal action
for having called the police
for help with enforcement of these issues.
Nobody wants to have to call the police.
Yet we've had, needed to do so dozens of times
over the past six years, along with many other agencies,
including code enforcement, building inspector,
department of public works, et cetera.
I'll also mention that these are not
low cost accessible accommodations.
There've been times when these listings have gone rented out
for over $1,000 a night.
And they are in no way ADA compliant.
We are thrilled for our fellow Pacificans
living in homes east of Highway 1.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next is Noah Suarez Sykes and then Samuel Casillas.
Noah Suarez Sykes.
Great, hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Tremendous, all right, let's go.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Noah Suarez Sykes
and I'm an organizer at Better Neighbors LA.
A coalition of hosts, tenants, housing activists and community members, we conduct data analysis
and research on the short-term rental industry throughout the coastal zone and its impact
on affordable coastal access and housing.
We believe true home-sharing and hosted-only short-term rentals is the best way to balance
housing accessibility and affordable access to the coast for visitors.
I'd like to speak on general public comment regarding developments in STR regulations
in Pacifica, and how the regulations developed there could serve as a model for STR regulations
throughout the California coast.
Over the last 10 years, as you heard, Pacifica saw a drastic growth of short-term rentals,
primarily driven by luxury short-term rentals oriented towards wealthy tourists.
Between May 2017 and March 2023, the number of un-hosted SDRs more than doubled from 67
to 173, and the cost of the average un-hosted SDR in Pacifica's coastal zone lay between
roughly $235 and $435 a night, which is much higher than the average price of a comparable
hotel room in one of Pacifica's seven hotels at $193 per night.
The expansion of STRs into the community resulted in significant damage to the fabric of the
town.
Corporate entities began buying up swaths of housing, causing significant problems for
neighbors as you heard, and hollowing out neighborhoods.
Some Pacifica citizens were left as the only full-time residents on their streets, surrounded
on all sides by STRs.
The city of Pacifica engaged in a lengthy process of community input and reporting,
which resulted in a powerful set of regulations that provide a model for the rest of the California
coast.
the needs of visitors to the coast with the need to present housing for long-term residents.
The ordinance combines a variety of features from previous commission-approved STR regulations,
a cap on unhosted stays and registrations similar to half-moon bays,
a requirement that STRs be limited to one per natural person, a ban on ADUs as STRs,
and a private right of action that reduces the burden of enforcement on the city, among other
provisions. This ordinance takes a common-sense approach to regulating STRs that allows the
operation of STRs while regulating them to protect the vibrant coastal community of Pacifica.
When the Coastal Commission reviews this regulation,
we ask that you approve it without amendment. Thank you very much!
Thank you. Next is Samuel Casillas, please accept being promoted to panelists.
Thank you. And go ahead.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, I have a couple subjects too. I didn't know it was critical for the first one here, but
As a community planning and development chair for the
Federal Community Association is very
disappointed the Coast Commission staff is
recommending the continued decimation of
Pacifica's visitor serving commercial space.
They continue to put Pacifica in a budget deficit and reduce
the ability of the underserved communities to
access affordable businesses in the coastal zone.
At 1300 Dan Mann,
there was an I appeal to me.
Excuse me, Vice Chair Hart.
This item is going to be reported in the DDS report today.
So if he wants to comment, he needs to sign up for that particular item.
Okay.
This is already going to be on today.
Okay, sorry.
Deputy Director's reports, you could look on the agenda and then please move your testimony
to that item.
Thank you.
So I have a general public statement as well then.
Okay, you still have a minute and a half.
Okay, how does that work?
Just go ahead, sir.
Okay.
On August 11th, the city of Pacifica signed a new STR ordinance that had been pushed by
the citizens of Pacifica because our city manager refused to do so. The ordinance came into effect
on the colso and the non-colso region on September 11th. Most of it followed the model of happen day
with a maximum of 60 days for un-hosted STRs. It is ridiculous insulting that people of Pacifica
have to put up with unmanaged hotels with unlawful behavior for so long. Listen, a handful of STRs are
actually hosts homes shares. Many are dedicated full-time rental properties. So here we are
sitting here with all these STRs and yet we have no ability to convert them into what you guys keep
calling badly needed homes. We have been in the dark as to when the City Manager Kevin Woodhouse
plans to go before the Coles Commission for a hearing date for the new ordinance. At this point
it seems like he is throwing a tantrum because he did not want this ordinance to pass and he is slow
rolling in for the Coastal Commission hearing. If you guys are serious about badly needed housing,
here are 200, at least 200 units that you can put back into the housing stock for families.
The importance of passing this ordinance in the Coastal Zone is to return our community to all
of Pacifica's neighborhoods and bring in new families and to stop the rampant overpriced
hotel commercialization of our residential neighborhoods. Because of these STRs in Pacifica,
Our community has experienced population decline and the loss of families and children in our
school system. We ask the Coles Commission to push for the approval of this ordinance
as quickly as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you. There are no more speakers for
general public comment. Okay thank you so much Chris and thank you so much to everyone that's
here in the room and that called in on Zoom to testify before the commission. We really
appreciate it. All right at this time we're going to go to item five the consent calendar.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart. There's nothing on the,
there's nothing on the item five consent calendar.
There is an item six,
the items that have been moved to consent.
As I described earlier, we have five items that we
moved to the consent calendar.
Quickly identify those so we're clear which ones those are.
One second here. That was item 8A.
This is the City of Trinidad's LCP amendment
that's updating housing provisions.
Item 11A, this is the city of
Pacifica post-LCP certification map update.
Item 13a, this is the Pillar Point Harbor District's CDP application for boat launch
improvements.
Item 15b, this is the Santa Cruz County LCP amendment for LCP, or excuse me, LUP and code
cleanups.
And item 16a, this is the UC Santa Cruz Notice of Impending Development for their Younger
Lagoon Beach Access Management Plan.
note that we did receive two comments raising some objections to item 15B the
Santa Cruz County LCP cleanup amendment so I'd just like to note and respond to
those. First the Sierra Club suggests additional modifications to LCP
coastal hazards provisions but we don't think that those changes are necessary
or appropriate in the context of this amendment and we do note that the
county's in the midst of a coastal hazards update where the provisions in
question are likely to be modified. This is all covered more fully in the addendum
that we distributed yesterday.
And a second commenter takes exception to the certification of this amendment because
they claim that a prior LCP amendment certified recently by the Commission was improper, thus
undermining the analysis of this amendment, and that the mods here violate SB-478 floor
area ratio provisions.
Neither of these allegations are accurate in our view.
This is actually a fairly straightforward cleanup amendment where the mods that we've
identified are intended to ensure internal LCP consistency and county
staff is in agreement with them so again these objections and our responses to
them are also covered in the addendum that was distributed yesterday no other
correspondence was received for any of the other consent calendar items thus in
each case for the items that have been moved to consent the applicants are in
agreement with the staff recommendations we've described the known objections and
comments on these items we've made changes via addendum or explained why
we don't change the why they don't change the staff recommendations where
applicable and we continue to recommend that the Commission approve these five
items through the consent calendar. Thanks Mr. Carl. Alright does anyone have
an ex parte on any of these items that have been removed? The consent calendar.
Alright seeing none are there members of the public that have signed up to speak
on this. Any of these? Yes we have a couple speakers for one for item 11A
Kaitlyn Staudgrass from the city of Pacifica.
Okay.
Two minutes.
Kaitlyn go ahead.
All right. Thank you chair and parliament and commission. My name is Kaitlyn Staudgrass and I'm an associate planner with the city of Pacifica. On behalf of the city I would like to express support for Pacifica's post LCP certification map update, and I would like to thank
coastal staff for their close coordination with the city
over the past few months on this matter.
We look forward to continuing our collaboration
with the Coastal Commission
as we move forward with the implementation
of our newly certified LCP.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And then now for item 15B,
we have one speaker, Mike Guth.
Go ahead.
Okay, good morning Vice Chair Hart and commissioners.
Here representing the Sierra Club,
As you know, I'm co-chair of Sierra Cub California's coastal subcommittee.
I'm also chair of Santa Cruz group.
So this Santa Cruz LCP is right in my neighborhood.
I want to make clear that we do support the staff recommendations, although we've asked
for an additional item.
With regard to the key one that they've captured, they're clearing up an internal inconsistency
with regard to site area determinations.
As Deputy Director Karl may remember, we hashed this out in Santa Cruz County over 20 years
ago.
When you have eroding bluffs and you have subdivided lots that stick out into the ocean 40 feet
because the coast has receded since 1918 when they were subdivided, it's not appropriate
to any longer continue the underwater portions of the lot and the edges of the bluffs as
as part of the lot for density determinations
and floria ratio calculations.
So I applaud that your staff has caught
an internal inconsistency on the update
and we support that fully.
However, we wanted to take this opportunity
to get another change in.
If you see our letter, we have an OUP policy
that talks about siting,
where you have to cite new development
rearward of a hundred year erosion line.
Regardless of whether or not there's a existing
proposed shoreline structure. The top level LUP says only a proposed
structure. Your staff puts in writing at every hearing that that's to be
interpreted as existing or proposed. We champion that for the public and in
support of coastal staff at all the hearings. We'd like to have for internal
consistency that two-word addition existing or added to the LUP at this
point with the cleanup and we think it's a reasonable request given the work we
do on behalf of that interpretation and we ask that you add that in please thank
you for your attention thank you and then for items 13a and 16a we have a
few on zoom available for questions and there are no other speakers thank you
mr. Karl did you want to respond to the public to the comment I would just know
We always appreciate mr. Goose input and we agree with his sentiment about the particular policy
As we indicated in the addendum this commission and staff have interpreted that particular provision as applying to all armoring
So we don't think that there's going to be any sort of problem with it being in this interim period between
When it's currently in place and there's going to be an LCP update for coastal hazards
We don't think that there's a problem that necessitates it being corrected right now
And this particular LCP amendment doesn't actually touch any of the coastal hazards provisions
So we thought it was appropriate to let it to let it go for now
And then we'll look at that again when we get to the coastal hazard update
Great, it's good to know that'll be coming before us
Does any Commissioner which excuse me does anyone want to remove an item?
That's on the consent calendar
Alright in that case and I also want to apologize
I didn't ask if any commissioners had comments on the public comment portion
but I didn't see anyone.
All right, so in that case, I'll entertain a motion
to approve the consent calendar in a second
and request a roll call vote.
All right, motion by Commissioner Wilson,
second by Commissioner Escalante.
And Vanessa, can we have a roll call vote?
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Redoni?
Aye.
Rodoni, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Aye.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Notoff.
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Presiado.
Yes.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Vice Chair Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
OK.
Thanks so much.
Just wait one second.
I want to make sure I maintain the quorum here.
Am I good?
OK.
All right, so now we'll move on to the north coast DDR.
Good morning, Vice Chair Hart and commissioners.
I will be covering the north coast items today.
Item seven is the deputy director's report
for the north coast district,
which includes one waiver and one certification review
for Humboldt County.
With regard to the certification review,
Humboldt County acknowledged and accepted
the commission's suggested modifications
for its signed ordinance, LCP amendment,
approved in July of this year.
This was the amendment that involved new regulations
for all signed types in different zones
and related standards to protect coastal resources.
We have reviewed the county's action
and determined that it meets
the requirements for certification.
Staff is not aware of any opposition to these items
and we are asking whether three or more commissioners
object to any items in this report.
Thanks Ms. Kramer.
Are there any speakers?
There are no speakers.
All right, do three or more commissioners object
to any item on the deputy director's report?
Seeing none, the commission concurs,
and that will bring us to item nine, I believe.
Yes, item nine A is a permit application
from Resource Environmental Solutions,
which will be presented by Peter Allen,
the commission's statewide transportation program manager
and staff ecologist, Tom Wadsworth,
both of whom are in the room.
So I'll turn it over to them.
Good morning commissioners.
Nice to be back.
Item 9A, as you just heard, is an application
by Resource Environmental Solutions, or RES,
for a Mendocino Coast Mitigation Bank.
The purpose of this project is to restore coastal habitats
on two parcels with the goal of providing
advanced mitigation credits for projects
in Mendocino County, primarily for Caltrans.
And here you can see one of the parcels
with the Garcia River flowing through it.
There are actually two actions before you today.
We wanted to approve a CDP for the actual development at hand for the habitat restoration
activities and the second is to approve the commission signing on to a bank enabling instrument
or a BEI that will enable the use of the mitigation credits in the future.
In the first part of this presentation I will describe the actual development before you
and in the second half we will provide some additional background on advanced mitigation
and the BEI.
Lastly, please know that an addendum was published on Wednesday that both replaces Exhibit 5
response to some comments received. Next slide please. There are two sites where
the restoration activities are proposed both of which are located in southern
Minasino County near Manchester and Point Arena. The two sites are known as
the Garcia River parcel and the Crispin parcel. Next slide please. The Garcia
parcel is located east of Point Arena is developed with a house and a barn and
was historically used for grazing. The Garcia River borders the southern
portion of the property. Here, REZ would restore 117 acres outlined in red to be part of the bank.
Next slide, please. The Crispin property is located east of Hobby One in Manchester State Park.
The proposed restoration and bank area outlined in red is 24 acres. The parcel is located along
the upper terrace of Brush Creek, which borders the southern edge. And again, the lands are mostly
undeveloped with that have been impacted by past grazing. Next slide please. Here
we're looking at the proposed restoration activities on the Garcia
River parcel and obviously this slide is quite confusing to look at and has a lot
going on but it conveys the point I think that there's a lot of restoration
happening here. The restoration improvements include creating riverside
channels and floodpane channels to improve hydrologic connectivity,
Renaturalizing drainages affected by historic grazing and erosion and expanding seasonal
wetlands. Various enhancements to river channels will improve habitat and rearing areas for
salmonoids and other native aquatic species. And the restoration effort will also restore various
types of environmentally sensitive habitat areas or eshes, improve habitat for native species such
as the Point Arena mountain beaver and manage invasive species. Next slide. And here you can
You can see many of the same restoration activities at the Crispin parcel, whereas we'll again
undertake re-contouring, re-vegetation, and invasive species management with the aim of
restoring riparian, mesic, and upland habitats on the coastal terrace along with their associated
ecosystem functions.
At both sites, conservation easements will be established to protect the restored areas
and to limit future activities that could impact the ecological benefits of this restoration.
Next slide, please.
The primary application before you today seeks authorization to undertake the just described
restoration activities.
However, restoration of the two parcels is intended to create a Minnesino Coast Mitigation
Bank, which will supply advanced mitigation credits for projects in Minnesino County, primarily
for Caltrans.
Thus, the application before you also requests authorizations for our executive director
here to become a signatory to the bank.
The commission has approved a few such bank operations before, though it has been quite
a few years.
However, advanced mitigation is a concept that we are more actively working on in our
partnership with Caltrans and others to streamline and approve habitat mitigation for transportation
projects.
Finding appropriate sites for habitat restoration is especially difficult along California's
coastline, especially when needed in tight timelines of project delivery and CDP applications.
Advanced mitigation is a key concept to address those difficulties, while also potentially
providing benefits for habitat restoration overall.
To give you quickly a better understanding of advanced mitigation generally, I would
like to turn the mic over to Tom Wadsworth, who's a new member of our ecology team, and
he's also the lead on our various advanced mitigation efforts.
So take it over, Tom.
Thank you, Peter.
Next slide, please.
Good morning, Vice Chair Hart and commissioners.
This mitigation is a way to create mitigation options before projects cause unavoidable
environmental impacts.
Although it is generally preferable to mitigate impacts in the immediate vicinity of where
impacts occur, this is not always possible.
Advanced mitigation solutions can simplify the project review process because mitigation
is already available to apply.
And banks are one of the primary approaches to advanced mitigation.
The basic idea is that bank sponsors acquire land and permits to restore habitat.
When the bank is formally established, credits can be sold to serve as compensatory mitigation
for environmental impacts.
Although a primary benefit of advanced mitigation is streamlining the permitting process for
or the applicant and the commission,
there are other benefits as well.
Mitigation banks can provide large scale habitat
restoration areas with more ecological uplift
than several smaller mitigation projects
scattered across a region.
Advanced mitigation also reduces the temporal gap
between project impacts and habitat restoration.
Banks can be valuable restoration investments
because they are vetted by multiple agencies,
which helps ensure successful
meaningful mitigation. Next slide please. A key concept for mitigation banks is the defined service
area. Bank credits can only be used for project impacts within the service area. For the
Mendocino Coast Mitigation Bank the map here shows the commission's service area which includes the
coastal zone and the southern part of Mendocino County. Next slide please. Another key concept
in mitigation banking is the anticipated credits, which will eventually be used for project
mitigation. One credit is equivalent to one acre of habitat restoration, and this bank
is anticipated to provide about 90 credits across several habitat types. Credit types
here will include Eshes, riparian and seasonal wetlands, and coastal waters. Credits to compensate
for species impacts are not proposed for this bank. The map on the slide here shows some
of the proposed credit types. In this case, Wetland Eschas for the Garcia parcel. I'll
note that the Commission was a signatory to a few other mitigation banks, but this will
be the first bank to include Eschas credits. Next slide please. For the proposed Mendocino
Mitigation Bank, an interagency review team, or IRT, was formed in 2021 to help guide bank
development. Commission staff have been involved since that time. The IRT worked with REZ to develop
a draft bank enabling instrument or BEI which is attached here as appendix B. BEI details the bank
establishment process and it includes plans for restoration monitoring and management as well as
the types of credits that are proposed. The second motion before you today asks you to authorize the
the Executive Director to sign onto the BEI once it's complete.
The Commission staff believes this BEI is substantially complete, however, the IRT process
is not final.
The final BEI will be delivered to signatory agencies, including the Coastal Commission
for review and signature, once the IRT review is complete.
This is expected in early 2026, although this could be delayed by the Federal Government
shutdown or other factors.
Once the BEI is signed and other requirements are met, credits can begin to be released
for potential sale by res.
Importantly, only the commission or a local government with a certified LCP may approve
use of bank credits as mitigation for a project that impacts Coastal Act resources.
Neither approval of the CDP today nor the executive director signing of the BEI will
require future commissions to accept these credits as mitigation, but it does enable
that option. Thank you for listening to that overview. I'll now pass the mic back to Peter
to finish the presentation. Thanks, Tom. We've been working hard to bring
more of these banks to you as a good solution for our future work with Caltrans, but this
is actually the first one we've been able to bring. I want to briefly mention another
related effort. The commission, Caltrans, and other agencies have also been partnering
on a statewide advanced mitigation initiative, and Caltrans has developed an advanced mitigation
program.
Commission staff are participating in work groups and other efforts related to this program,
which is scoping, reviewing, and funding potential advanced mitigation efforts for transportation
projects across the state.
Mendocino Bank before you today is not part of that formal program, however, it is hoped
that the statewide advanced mitigation program will lead to future similar mitigation banks.
And we also hope that the process here with this bank will provide a good example for
those future banks also in the coastal zone.
Next slide, please.
Whoops. Next slide please. That was the family.
Okay, so again, the staff recommends approval of CDP number 1240 890 pursuant
to the staff recommendation as well as the authorization for the executive director
to become a signatory to the Mendocino account post mitigation bank DEI.
The motions can be found on page 5 of the staff report
and this concludes our presentation and we're available for questions.
Great. Thank you so much. All right. So first I'll ask if there are any ex partes on this?
Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Is there an applicant available? Looks like
there is in person. Tina Rosa? Ms. Roselyn, you could just turn it on and just state your
name and let me ask how much time you need and you might need to lift the mic up. There
There you go. Thank you. My name is Tina Rosé. Sorry. Thank you so much,
commissioners. I am with Resource Environmental Solutions, the bank sponsor
for the Mendocino Coast Mitigation Bank. I've worked on this project for about
four years. I'm probably two minutes. Okay, perfect. Thank you. I'm available for
questions if you need more time. Additionally, available, I think, on the
Zoom call is Ashley Zavagno with WRA. She and her team have been involved
in the design and the technical efforts on this project.
So she is available for any questions
from the commission for anything technical or design related.
And then I believe also Amy, when biological,
should also be, I think, on the phone as well.
She helped with the permitting process
with the Coastal Commission.
And so she's available for questions as well.
So I just want to say on behalf of all of our team,
we are really excited about these projects.
We're very passionate about restoration, and we feel very fortunate to have the opportunity
to conduct restoration on these two parcels in Mendocino County.
We also want to thank the commission staff for putting together an excellent staff report,
very detailed, and we fully support within the report, and we're available for any questions
that you all have.
Great.
Thanks so much.
Do we have speakers on this item?
I'm just confirming that we have Amy and Ashley on Zoom.
there are no other speakers for this item all right great I'll close the public hearing
come back to staff for any further comments which I probably don't have no okay bring
it to the Commission for any comments or for I think there are a couple of motions on this
item I think it's a very exciting project and I'm happy to move make a motion sure I'll
speak to the second one that's done sure so we'll have a motion by Commissioner not
Second with a few comments by Commissioner Wilson
Okay, I move that the Commission approve coastal development permit application number one dash twenty four dash zero eight
Nine zero pursuant to the staff recommendation and request a yes vote
I'll second that and I just want to speak to
We have talked about doing these kinds of projects for I think decades actually so
You see one get over the line. I'm just really proud of you guys
I hope we see more of this.
Thank you to our staff and thank you to Caltrans for actually getting this done.
Really appreciate it.
I hope it sets a model for other jurisdictions.
Thanks.
Thanks so much.
And I just want to acknowledge you both, Mr. Allen and Mr. Wadsworth, for all your work
on this as well as Ms. Rosé and your company.
I agree with Commissioner Wilson.
It's really exciting.
See these move forward.
Dr. Hucklebridge?
Through the chair, and I know the Commissioner Williams also wants to speak, but real quick,
we get to this point at the hearing and it's satisfying and everybody's in agreement, but
there was an incredible amount of work that went into this over a period of time.
And as easy as it sounds now, this is not easy work.
And I just want to acknowledge that because, and again, we worked really hard to get here.
involved. The commission, the health trans to everybody. But these aren't easy to do.
They're complicated. It takes a lot of cooperation that's hard to get to sometimes. And I want
to appreciate first and foremost our staff for going through the process. And it's actually
been a much bigger team than you have before you today who's gone through that, including
some folks that have moved on. And our senior ecologist Lauren Garcia Garcia was involved.
So it's been a big team, and so just didn't want that to go without notice because it's,
these are challenging, they're, they're good they're important I think we're still in support
of it but it's, they're hard to do.
So thank you for pushing through.
Thanks to the support of Caltrans, I think that that's pushing us to and I think it's
again if we can make these more doable, it will be better for all of us, but you know,
it just takes some work.
Thanks.
Thanks Commissioner Williams.
Yeah, just a couple of things to add here you know and I think what just to Kate's point
what makes this so complicated is it's not just Caltrans and the Coastal Commission working
on these we got other state and federal agencies that are also involved in these discussions
to really you know get this right and ensure that you know that credits aren't going to
apply differently between the different agencies because that can be very complicated and we've
We've learned a lot through this process and we have many, many other advanced mitigation
projects that are moving forward throughout the state.
This is the first one that is moving forward in the coastal zone and we're looking forward
to hopefully a couple others coming online in the future.
And I think that's, I mean, everyone else has already said everything.
So I don't really need to add to that, but appreciate everybody's time and effort on
pulling this all together.
So thank you.
Thanks so much commissioner and I just yeah I mean it's fantastic to see the
continuing collaboration between Caltrans and the Commission State Parks
and everyone else is such a complicated deal and it's true what you said Kate
it's we zipped through it and it's years have worked to get to this point anybody
that knows these parks and the importance of those rivers it's a big
deal and just one other item I guess I'll just say is that you know and the
point was made earlier as well but going from like post stamp size mitigation sites to these
larger more comprehensive efforts just it's better for the outcomes for the environment
and all the you know resources that are out there so I think over the long term this is
just a better way to go if when we're able to do that and of course you know this isn't
going to necessarily cover all mitigation requirements for all projects there's you
you know, but, but, uh, this will, this will, you know, cover, I think, uh, uh, some of
the core areas that we need when we move forward and identify needs for different projects.
Thank you.
All right.
So we have a motion and a second as per roll call vote.
Please on this first motion.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante.
Yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson.
Yes.
Commissioner Rodoni.
Aye.
Rodoni.
Yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes, yes, commissioner not off.
I not off.
Yes, commissioner Preciado, no.
Yes, that was it.
Do you want to repeat commissioner Preciado your vote?
My vote is yes.
OK, there we go.
Preciado, yes, commissioner Wilson.
Yes, Wilson.
Yes, commissioner O'Malley.
Yes, O'Malley.
Yes, vice chair Hart.
Yes, Hart.
Yes, the vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
All right.
Now we have the motion.
I would note there are two motions for this particular item.
Yes.
We have another motion.
I move that the commission authorize the executive director
to become a signatory to the Mendocino Coast Mitigation
Bank, as described in the staff report
and included as Appendix B dated May 6, 2025,
and request a yes vote.
Second.
All right.
We have a motion and a second on the mitigation bank motion
and asking for a roll call vote.
Commissioner Jackson, aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Redoni, yes.
Redoni, yes.
Commissioner Lopez, yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Notoff, aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Presiado, yes.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson, yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley, yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante, yes.
Escalante, yes.
Vice Chair Hart, yes.
Hart, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Great.
Thank you so much, and congratulations
to everyone that is involved in this.
It'll be great to see the restoration up there.
Now we'll move on to the DDR for North Central Coast,
item 10 after we switch everybody around.
Yes, I'm back.
That brings us to item number 10.
This is the North Central Coast District Directors Report.
Today we're reporting two waivers,
one coastal permit amendment, and two emergency permits.
I'll note that we received an objection
to the material amendment that allows
for a commercial portion of a previously approved mixed use
project to be converted to three additional residential units
for a total of eight mostly smaller units at the site.
This is in Pacifica.
The comments object to the loss of the commercial space.
However, as indicated in the amendment notice,
staff doesn't believe that the change leads to any sort
of significant coastal resource concerns
and that the resulting project is LCP consistent.
In addition, staff further believes
that adding the additional units helps
if only a little bit to address the housing issues
in the city.
So we continue to recommend that the commission concur
on the amendment.
Past that, we're not aware of any objections
or controversy regarding the other matters.
And so the question is whether three or more commissioners
object to any of the items in the DD's report.
And if not, the commission will concur.
Thanks, Mr. Karl.
Do we still have the speaker on this?
Uh, yes, San Francisco, CS and when you're able to please unmute and begin.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Yeah, it was very disappointing that the coals commission staff is recommending
the continued decimation Pacifica is bitter serving commercial space that
continues to put Pacifica and a budget deficit and reduces the ability of
underserved communities to access affordable businesses in the coastal zone.
The most egregious attempt to approve this amendment by staff is it completely
violates Coastal Act Section 30222,
which states use of private land suitable
for visitors serving commercial recreation,
designed to enhance public opportunities
for coastal recreation shall have priority
over private residential.
This amendment is a direct violation of the Coastal Zone.
In the original, also in the original staff report for 2021
for this appeal, it highlights the willingness of the,
the staff highlights the willingness of the applicant
work with the community and dismiss an issue from an earlier appeal in that the planning
commission, CDP approval was appealed to the city. Prior to the city council, the applicant
submitted alternative project designs to address some of the applicant's concern, including a
revised project that reduced the project scope from three to two stories and from six residential
units to four residential units. This amendment is a case of both commission staff and the applicant
moving the goalposts and reaching all confidence of past agreements with the public trust.
Then in the first amendment from last year, staff stated that the remaining 2300 ground floor
square foot would continue to operate as commercial space which would be interpreted as
a condition of approval for the first amendment. The immaterial statement from the executive
director would imply that the first amendment would have no impact on the viability of remaining
commercial space and make the first approved amendment then makes the first approved amendment
a cynical statement yet here we are a year later with staff recommending another approval to remove
the majority of the commercial space for more above market rate apartments that will further
impact environmental justice directive that the commission only seems to pay lip service to while
its actions continue to do the exact opposite while also furthering Pacifica's economy in a
structural deficit. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Korl. I just quickly I would note
that this is just this is general commercial mixed use not visitor
serving commercial mixed use in terms of the prioritization that the speaker
spoke to. This site is also in a pretty residential area and the project meaning
the project the resultant project here is LCP consistent. They've just chosen to
pursue a project that's more residential heavy than commercial heavy so we just
don't see a coastal resource concern here and as I indicated earlier it does
provide some necessary housing these are smaller housing using units that are
being provided they're roughly 500 600 and 800 square feet so there's the
potential for affordability by design so that's other than that available as
always for more questions thank you do three or more commissioners object to an
item on the district directors report. All right seeing no objection the
commission concurs. We're now going to move on to item 12a the appeal the
slant McElroy appeal. I have to move people around or are you ready to go? No
no we're good okay that does bring us to 12a we do have a powerpoint for this
item and Leslie Velasquez who is our analyst who is working on this we'll be
giving a staff presentation. Before we go to that thank you so much could we
hear the ex partes of which I have a couple as well thank you mr. yes in the
packet is next party for me Mark fuel sent me an email on Wednesday October
29th at 1053 and there was four attachments to that email and they were
all in the packet today thank you other ex partes all right I have two ex partes
one with the attorney Mr. Prowse as well as Mr. Buell which is on file and in
detail. I also want to report another ex parte from 8.15 a.m. this morning which
included property owners Chloe Sladden, Kevin McElroy and representative Mark
Massara. The basic discussion which lasted approximately 15 minutes and was
an in-person in the fabulous restaurant here at the Holiday Inn was we discussed the bluff
setbacks and their allegation the discussion on whether they're adequate or not discussion
regarding this stormwater runoff including the addition of a generator as part of the
approval the tree removal whether that occurred or not so those and we also just had a general
discussion about relationships in the neighborhood and that is my ex parte and
I'll give that to put it on file all right so at this time we'll open the
staff report please we do have a PowerPoint for this one oh there you go
thank you great thank you good morning commissioners item 12a is an appeal of
Marin County's approval of a coastal development permit to demolish an
existing home, and to construct a new home with an ADU and related development.
Slide one shows you a rendering of the proposed project.
Next slide please.
Slide two shows you the project's location noted with a red star in the unincorporated
community of Balenas in Western Marin County, just up coast of Stinson Beach.
As you can see, the site is not located along the bluffs of the open ocean, rather it is
above the Balenas Lagoon Inlet.
Next slide please.
Slide three zooms in to provide a view of the project site outlined in red.
As you can see, the site is just inland of Altura Avenue and the Appellant's House is
located on the opposite side of Altura Avenue along the bluff edge near the lagoon inlet,
which is also noted.
The site is currently developed with an approximately 1,500 square foot single family residence.
Next slide please.
Slide four shows the county approved site plan with the existing residents and driveway
shown in red within the footprint of the proposed project including the proposed new
residents ADU and driveway shown in blue where that includes the area of the old house as
well.
The applicant proposes demolishing nearly all of the existing residents and constructing
a new approximately 2,800 square foot single family residence with a 540 square foot attached
garage and a 700 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit.
The project would also shift the driveway to the north and include storm water management
infrastructure, including three 2500 gallon stormwater retention tanks, as well as other
associated development. Next slide please. The appellant's contend that the county incorrectly
identified the bluff top edge and bluff retreat rates by relying on outdated data, and that
the proposed project does not meet LCP bluff setback requirements. The appellant's also
contend that the project will worsen existing erosion by substantially increasing impervious
surfaces and redirecting runoff towards an arroyo north of the
appellant's home, worsening erosion there. Further, the
appellant's contend that proposed stormwater management
improvements will not sufficiently address increases in runoff from
impervious surfaces. Finally, the appellant's allege that the
applicants removed four trees from their property without a CDP.
They contend that this unpermitted development must be addressed before a
CDP for new development be issued and that the tree removal exacerbated
existing issues of erosion. Next slide please. In terms of the bluff top setback it appears
that average annual erosion rates as determined by erosion over the past 60 years or so are
quite low less than three inches per year. At that rate the bluff setback of more than 60 feet
adequately addresses LCP setback requirements and will sufficiently protect the project for its
economic life. At the identified rate even 100 years of erosion would still leave a roughly 40
foot bluff top setback for the home. In terms of runoff and drainage control, the project's
storm water management system should be able to adequately manage site runoff, even with an
increase in impervious surfaces by buffering peak flows and retaining storm water runoff.
The system includes perimeter drains around structures, a trench drain at the driveway,
two catchment basins, three landscaped water retention areas, and three 2,500-gallon storm
water retention tanks, where collected runoff would be directed, held, and used for onsite
irrigation purposes. These features should be sufficient to address any concerns of erosion
caused by runoff. Related to the alleged, unpermitted removal of trees, it appears clear
from the photos provided by the appellants that vegetation was removed, but it is not
clear that such removal required are CDP based on the information available. That is because
not all vegetation removal requires CDPs under the LCP, and there is no conclusive evidence
to suggest that the vegetation removal that may have occurred triggered any CDP requirements.
In any case, the county has not identified any CDP violation nor opened any code enforcement
case related to vegetation removal at the site. Next slide, please. Thus, staff recommends that
the commission find no substantial issue and that the commission declined to take jurisdiction over
the CDP application. The motion to do so can be found on page five of the staff report. These
issues are also fully addressed in more detail in the addendum that was
distributed yesterday that concludes staff's presentation. Thank you Ms.
Velasquez. All right at this time I'm going to open the public hearing I'm
going to allow both the appellant and the applicant five minutes per side and
we will hear from the appellant that I believe is on zoom this morning. Yes I'm
moving Peter Prowse in. Peter Prowse is the appellant's representative. Also with
them on Zoom are Mark Buell, Lawrence A. Stevens, and Clark Stoner. Give us a moment as I move them
all in. Good morning commissioners, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, very good. Good
morning, I'm Peter Prowse. I am representing the appellant this morning. This is a substantial
issue hearing. The burden is on the applicant and staff to demonstrate that there is no substantial
issue and they have not met their burden. What's clear is that there are
substantial disputes between on the one side our experts and the neighbors whom
you'll be hearing from today and who objected before the county.
They will show that this bluff is dangerous and eroding rapidly
and that the applicant illegally removed four large trees that could have helped
stabilize that bluff and mitigated future erosion.
On the other hand there are the applicant and staff who in the face of
this evidence still don't think there's a problem.
They think that there will be only five feet of erosion over the 100-year life of this structure.
Our surveyor, Larry Stevens, has established that there has been 12 feet of erosion in just
the last six years, an erosion problem that has now gotten its teeth into this part of the bluff.
It's pointed like an arrow right at this project and is only expected to worsen with sea level rise.
At this rate, at this current rate, the house you are being asked to approve today will fall
into the ocean within 30 years. Is that really what you want to do?
The new house would be located just 62.4 feet
from the current top of the bluff.
This doesn't even comply
with the county's required 66 foot setback
or with the 115 foot setback
that Coastal Commission staff thought was appropriate
in their initial report
because of the inherently hazardous location of this project.
The substantial difference of opinion, conflicting evidence
and shifting staff opinions and rationales demonstrates
that there is a substantial issue.
Thank you for putting up the slides.
You can see the property here 66 Altura Avenue.
It's at the mouth of the Bellinas Lagoon.
The base of this bluff is subject to significant wave action.
There's a failed revetment at the bottom.
You can see the remnants of previous recent slides
still visible right below the red arrow in the slide,
which points to the approximate top of the bluff at that time.
There are large trees still visible on the subject property.
Next slide.
Here, you can see from 2022, a substantial new recent slide.
It's now eating its way into the roadway, directly in front of the subject property.
The trees are still there on the property.
Next slide.
Here, we've got the new top of the bluff.
It's successfully eaten well into the roadway and it's well on its way towards 66 Altura
Avenue.
This is 2024.
You can see substantial tree removal on the subject property for which there have been
no permits.
And you'll be hearing about the diameter of the trees that were removed from other speakers.
When you say with absolute confidence now that this bluff isn't going to continue to
erode at this rate, that this erosion isn't going to accelerate with sea level rise, that
those trees will remove legally, you can't.
Your staff can't.
I encourage you to not adopt the resolution finding no substantial issue so this matter
can be set for a de novo hearing.
If my time is to be shared with Mr. Stevens and Mr. Stoner, I'd ask you to please first
Go to Mr. Stephens.
Larry Stephens, you're in on Zoom.
You should be able to unmute.
And then we also have your presentation.
Hello, this is Larry Stephens.
Hi, we can hear you, go ahead.
Just one second.
No, so we'll go to two minutes for this speaker.
Can we put up the PDFs that I had provided?
Yes, just a moment, the first page.
go ahead. Yeah, if we could zoom in just a little bit more on that, that would be wonderful.
Exhibit F depicts a 2010 LIDAR mapping project that was conducted by San Francisco State
University and called the Golden Gate Project. And on here if you pan up to the top of that page,
you'll see the top of bank that existed in 2010. In that particular area you will see that 16 feet
where that top of bluff used to be to where the current top of bluff is and I think that was
probably in 2019 as well closer to the site which is only approximately 20 feet away where the
current top of Bluff meets the most
close location to the proposed structure that's being proposed at 66 Altura.
We located that just two weeks ago, physically located it by a survey crew where the top
of Bluff was, and that is where we determined that there was 62.4 feet.
If we go to now I have three different exhibits here exhibit this exhibit shows that the where
the 2010 contours are the subsequent to exhibits show where the 2019 contours existed and then
subsequently the Lidar project that was conducted by Bear Flag engineering where we provided
the control for and where those contours are located.
And on all of these, you can show significant movement of that top of bluff, 12 feet, and
then three feet from 2019 to 2010 to the top of bluff that existed.
Okay.
Are those the two speakers for the applicant?
I'm sorry, for the appellant?
There were four that wish to speak together, but that was the five minutes.
Okay, so let's go now to the applicant.
And they'll have five minutes.
And we have the applicant and representative here in person,
Mark Massara and Chloe Sladden.
Oh, you need, there you go.
Madam Chair, commissioners, I'm Mark Massara,
and I have the privilege of representing the applicant,
Sladen and McElroy family.
They say that pictures are worth a thousand words,
and I'll just commend the appellants for those photographs.
and remind the commission that the red arrow that was depicted is showing the
appellant's property which is located on the bluff face with no setback whatsoever.
The applicant's property is actually well landward of where the arrow was and the project
itself will go no seaward than the existing footprint of the house and in
fact is as staff has determined good for the life of the project at the site.
Appellants make three allegations and we urge that you support your staff and
find no substantial issues. All of these three allegations have been considered by
the county, your staff, and your commission geologist and have been found
to be without merit over and over again now. Erosion is minimal, not catastrophic
as alleged by Appellants. The county's 67-foot setback is, to quote your
geologist, sufficient and more than adequate. 67 feet is not only
sufficient for the life of the structure but also leaves applicant well-landward
both the first public road and Appellant's house. In fact, that house is
on the bluff face with no setback whatsoever. As staff notes, not only are
Appellant's erosion rates suspect and ill-founded, but the consultant making
the claims as a surveyor and not a qualified licensed engineer or geologist.
Regarding the stormwater, rather than stormwater improvements, rather than
causing erosion, these improvements will dramatically improve existing conditions,
allowing applicants to capture, store, treat, and reuse water from 100-year
storm events with backup, something neither appellants nor any opponents
provide. And lastly, this allegation of removal of giant redwood trees has
has been repeatedly debunked by both the county and your staff and again today in staff's
addendum.
Landscaping of non-native yard vegetation is not trees, it's not redwood and it's not
unpermitted.
And appellant's so-called report is nothing more than pictures from outer space and speculation
on the size and type of trees that were allegedly removed and it really all is just mud at the
wall and again we urge that you support your staff analysis. I'd like to introduce the
property owner Chloe Sladen. Good morning commissioners. I'm Chloe Sladen, the applicant.
I'm the mother of three awesome daughters who attend the local Belinas Public School.
My husband and I are full-time residents in Belinas and Belinas is losing families every
year to unaffordability. We've spent five years on this project. We've spent hundreds
of thousands of dollars to meet and exceed code requirements to protect the bluff and
respect the LCP. I'm now an expert on it. We engaged our neighbors extensively with
15 meetings. The county addressed all three of the appellant's contentions, erosion, stormwater
and trees, and they found no merit. Your staff and the commissioner's geologist degree, erosion
is minimal and our project greatly improves existing conditions.
We thank the staff for their diligence.
I'm so impressed by the depth of work that is
represented and we urge you to support your staff. Thank you.
Okay. Does that complete the applicant's presentation?
Yes, we're available.
Okay. You can reserve the additional minute if you'd like.
All right. So let me ask,
is there anyone from Marin County?
I don't believe so.
All right, how about others who oppose the application
at the local level, qualified speakers?
I guess we have one qualified speaker, Dana Taylor.
Okay. And Dana, you're being moved in right now.
And we'll start with two minutes, see if that's sufficient.
And Dana, when you're ready, go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hang on. Can you pull up the video I submitted
and the picture of three trees, please?
Yes, we're pulling that's that's yeah, that's not the one if there's an actual video of the surf
We'll pull up the video and just give us a moment
Sure, sure
Okay, so this was
I'm sorry. I'm out of
This video shows the ocean surf this past Wednesday, November 5th
It's hitting the toe of the bluff that is
considered not
The ocean surf hits here very often and the calculation of this lagoon facing I'm not
sure what that's about.
Now can you please move to the three photographs of the redwood trees?
There's also a second file.
Give us a moment.
Sure, sure.
And then there's some over some above aerials.
I think it's in the other file, and then
there's a second picture.
There's two photos that show from above.
It's in a different file, I believe.
These were all the photos that we received.
Well, that redwood tree, there was two photos with it.
They all came in at the same time.
And it's critical for my presentation.
There was only one image sent with that.
Peter, can you help me here?
If our staff doesn't have the photo, there'd be no way to bring it up.
Okay.
I got him.
I did receive confirmation from you that it was taken.
So I'll do my best to describe this redwood tree is right on the fence line
of 66 Altura, um, on the Mira Monti side.
It has been topped and I walk my dog.
I've gone up on their property.
They had a tree the very same size redwood tree with two smaller
ones behind. Over the weekend in mid June, July of 2024, they cut those down and they
ground the stump out. I saw them. This tree, the two photos that I sent in are going from
Google Earth. You know, when you tilt the picture, you can see the shadows that they
created, the trees that are gone. And you can see this particular tree, the same foliage
as the trees that were cut down,
right on the fence line between.
We could give her another 30 seconds please
because of the time.
So I know for certain that the tree,
that I sent those photos and they were received
because I got confirmation.
I'm sorry that they're not here to show everybody
because, and I don't know if you can give me
some option for this.
They show without a doubt that there were redwood trees
there that were cut down.
I suppose a simpler way would be to get the man who cut them
down to tell you that they were cut down.
This tree that you're looking at is 36 inches in diameter
at my shoulder height.
OK, and I keep speaking.
I think you've used your time, but thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
I would note that there are photos in the staff report
that were presented by the appellant that show the trees.
Yeah, thank you.
There are no other speakers.
OK, no other speakers on this?
All right.
So at this time, I guess I'll bring it back to staff,
then.
It doesn't look like there's more comments from the.
I believe the applicant had a minute reserved.
Right, I'm not seeing that they want to speak anymore.
I didn't see him leap up.
So you have to move fast around here, you know?
I'm sorry, again, Mark Massara for the applicant.
The tree allegations have been deliberated over and over again.
During the summer and the county deliberations,
the very person that was just testifying
was claiming there were two trees removed.
Now it's four.
I think we were just shown a picture of a tree
on a different property.
the aerial photographs just show non-native vegetation removed. It's a
galleon attempt to create a fire but all there is here is just a whole lot of
smoke. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Massaro. I'll close the public hearing at this
time and ask for back to staff if you have anything additional. Yeah just a
couple of things. I mean the key issue here in our in our view is the question
about erosion and erosion rates and setbacks and clearly you have some
dueling experts between the Appellants and the Applicants, and in those kind of cases,
we tend to rely on our own internal experts who have vetted this and have indicated that
the erosion rates aren't as high as have been estimated.
There's a couple of reasons for that.
The Appellant's estimating an erosion rate that's two foot per year based on identifying
12 feet of erosion over six years, so there were some sort of significant events during
that period of time, but as this commission's well aware, average annualized erosion rates
are meant to be calculated over longer periods of time that can take in those discrete episodic
events and just general erosion over that time period to identify a rate that's more
representative of a longer term rate so that you can apply that for planning purposes.
And a time period of six years is simply not the type of timeframe that's used.
the applicants use the timeframe of 60 years,
which was relied on also by the county.
That erosion rate for this particular site
was actually less than three inches per year.
So quite low.
And I would wanna comment,
there were comments by the appellants.
This was addressed in our addendum
that staff indicated that 114 foot setback
would be required for this project.
We did no such thing.
what had happened was the county,
even though there was this three inches per year erosion rate
and site specific data showing that for this site,
the county wanted to be more conservative,
they decided to rely on a 1.5,
excuse me, yeah, 1.5 foot
rate per year for their setback purposes.
And that's basically six times the erosion rate
that the site specific analysis indicated.
And that was based on some data
that was regionalized, general data from the 1970s.
And so that's how they arrived at their setback.
But as we evaluated this, including
with our technical experts, the data actually
showed that it was a very low erosion rate.
And so for our purposes, and again,
when you have these dueling experts,
we rely on our experts.
And that's what we came to the conclusion of.
And this house is plenty well set back
for that sort of a in this particular case.
And as Miss Velasquez indicated earlier,
Even over 100 years, there would still be a 40-foot setback
if it eroded at that rate.
So with that, we're available for any other questions
you may have.
OK, thanks, Mr. Carl.
All right, I'll bring it back to the commission
for any comments.
Commissioner Rodoni.
Thank you, Chair or Vice Chair.
Just to note, this project is in my supervisor district
in Bolinas.
I've reviewed the substantial record, both at the county
and at the Coastal Commission complements both staffs
on the work they did.
I visited this site last weekend
and I cannot find any substantial issue
that arises at this point.
And so I'll be supporting staff's recommendation.
You know, it's common that we have this agreement
among experts and as staff said,
we depend on our experts at that point
and I appreciate the work they did.
But again, I cannot find any substantial issue
with this application and would deny the appeal.
Thank you.
Thanks, Commissioner.
Any other comments on this item?
All right, I've had, as I mentioned,
a couple ex partes here.
I've thought about this a lot.
I've talked to staff about it a lot.
And I have to say that I concur
with my fellow Commissioner Redoni.
This house is well set back.
We're including now, one of the things
that came up in my ex parte with the appellants
was the lack of a required generator.
They noted that stormwater removal is especially important
when the power goes off.
So here we are including now in the addendum,
which, by the way, was excellent,
and I thought addressed all of the issues
that were raised by the appellant.
A generator will be included,
so that will address that issue.
I think one of the main problems seems,
or contention seems to be the location of the driveway,
but in my mind, the movement of the driveway,
and my understanding is gonna be with better type material
that will be semi-permeable,
and it will be moved to a better location.
To me, based on everything I've read,
everything I've thought about,
it just seems to me that this will be an improvement
in the situation, which is what staff noted.
So I have to agree with the finding of no substantial issue,
and if there are any other comments or a motion,
look for that, please.
Yeah, Commissioner Lopez.
So I'm going to look to support Commissioner Redoni down there
and just want to say I've been through a lot of issues
like this.
And I know how taxing they can be emotionally
and how they can really impact a community's interconnectedness
and relationships.
And so as we move past this, I hope
that this neighborhood finds a way to heal.
Because these things are very challenging
and can change a community.
But at the end of the day, we all
love this place that we share on the California coast and I hope that you guys can find a
way to make those bridges again and I know that I can feel the weight of this issue for
those folks in the room and so I look forward to supporting Supervisor Commissioner Redoni
down there and seconding his motion.
Okay.
Chair, I have one.
Oh, we have another comment?
Which is just, it's just a note that in the technical review of erosion rates, we've had
challenge that we've been yesterday or maybe before where we were not
conservative enough and then or too conservative in this case not
conservative enough I'm just want to point out like we get challenged in that
rate in both directions almost on a per meeting basis so I just want to
acknowledge that you know I think our staff really does a good job and and I
I trust the work they've done in this case, thank you.
Oh, thank you.
And Commissioner Madoney, would you
like to make the motion in that case?
I move that the commission determine that appeal number
A-2-M-A-R-25-0040 raises no substantial issue with respect
to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed
under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act,
I recommend a yes vote.
I'll second that.
Thank you.
We have a motion, Commissioner Rodoni, a second by Commissioner Lopez,
and asking for a roll call vote, please.
Commissioner Rodoni.
Aye.
Rodoni, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner not all.
Aye.
Not all, yes.
Commissioner Presiato.
Yes.
Presiato, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Vice-chair Hart?
Yes.
Hart, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
All right.
Thank you so much.
That concludes that item.
So, we're going to take a short break now.
It's 1038.
Why don't we come back at 1050?
Thank you.
Okay.
We're going to resume the hearing.
I am doing so well.
It's 1051.
Thank you.
Okay.
We're going to resume the hearing.
I am doing so well.
Okay, so that brings us to the Central Coast DDR Item 14, I believe.
Yes, that's correct, Vice Chair Hart.
That brings us to Item Number 14, Central Coast District Directors Report.
And today we're reporting two waivers, two coastal permit amendments, one extension and
one emergency permit.
who did receive an objection to one of the amendments
for the Henke residents improvements
in the Carmel Highlands area of Monterey County.
The objection is from the Carmel Highlands Association
who claims they have an exclusive private easement
across the path on the Henke property.
And they claim that the applicant cannot legally offer
to dedicate a public access easement in the same area
and that there's no nexus to require it.
The overall path in question leads from the public road
to Yankee Point Beach and the applicant's piece of the path
is nearest the road.
With respect to the nature of the association's interest
in the path area, staff disagrees
with their exclusivity arguments
and believes that the applicant does indeed
have the right to propose such a public access easement
over the trail and their property.
As to nexus contentions,
the commission is not actually requiring the easement,
rather the applicant is proposing it,
including to resolve various issues associated
with past violations on the site.
As a result, there's no need for the nexus
that the association suggests is lacking.
All of this is covered in more detail
in the addendum that was distributed yesterday,
and we continue to believe
that the immaterial amendment is appropriate here.
Past that, we're not aware of any objections
or controversy regarding the other matters,
and so the question is whether three or more commissioners
object to any of the items in the DD's report,
and if not, then the commission will concur.
Thank you, are there any speakers?
No speakers, just three available for questions.
All right, I'll bring it back to the commission
and ask if three or more commissioners
Object any items on the be a director report seeing none the Commission concurs will move on to what I believe is our final
Item which is 15. No, sorry. It's not 15 a
Yes, it's item number 15 a this is the city of Marina's coastal hazards update and like to ask Kevin Kahn
Who's our district manager for the Central Coast region to give our staff presentation?
Thank you, and there's a PowerPoint
great
Good morning, Vice Chair Hart and Commissioners, Item 15A is the City of Marina's Coastal
Hazards LCP Amendment.
The City of Marina is a community of approximately 23,000 residents that spans some 10 square
miles on the southern half of the Monterey Bay.
As seen here on slide 2, the City is located on the northern edge of the urbanized portion
of the Monterey Peninsula and just south of the mostly undeveloped dunes and agricultural
lands that stretch some six miles all the way to Moss Landing. Slide 3 zooms in on the
city shoreline, which is about a three-mile stretch of coast that is generally sparsely
developed and mostly undeveloped dune. Other than a nearly half-mile node of visitors serving
and state parks development along Reservation Road and Dunes Drive, roughly circled in red
on the slide. As you can see here on the slide, most of the city's urban area is inland of
Highway 1. The limited limited amount of shoreline development in an otherwise
developed city is fairly unique in coastal California and something of
which the city is understandably proud. The Commission originally certified the
city's local coastal program, or LCP, in 1982 and its coastal hazard provisions
have been essentially unchanged since that time. Given its irreplaceable
shoreline environment and the threats to it from global climate change and
Seal of Arise, the city embarked on a coastal hazards update in 2017 with two
grants from the Commission's Local Assistance Grants Program. As part of
these efforts, the city undertook an existing conditions and vulnerability
assessment for its shoreline assets. Among the more pertinent findings, the
assessment found the city currently has no shoreline armoring and is generally
well-suited to address current and future hazard risks through non-armoring
solutions which formed the foundation of the city's proposed LCP amendment. The
proposed amendment would add a new coastal hazards and seal of a rise
chapter to the LCP's land use plan or LUP and a corresponding section to the
implementation plan or IP. The primary goals of which are to maintain the
city's mostly undeveloped shoreline, to keep its beaches open and accessible to
all, and to keep its shoreline free of armoring into the future. To implement
these goals, the proposed amendment includes a suite of provisions that require new development
to be cited, designed, and conditioned to avoid coastal hazards threats in a manner
that does not require shoreline armoring, either now or in the future.
The provisions also require technical studies and implementing measures such as deed restrictions,
real estate disclosures, and bonding and in-loop fees to fund future relocation and clean-up
efforts to accomplish stated policy requirements. For development currently present that may
be at risk, the proposed LEP requires nature-based and green infrastructure approaches, dune
restoration, beach nourishment, and retreat relocation. Perhaps most notably, neither
new or existing development would be allowed armoring to abate any threat, as the proposed
amendment but affirmatively ban all shoreline armoring in the city. Next
slide. Overall the proposed amendment provides a strong regulatory structure
that implements many of the key coastal hazard provisions associated with the
Coastal Act. In fact it includes many of the best practices recommended by the
Commission's sea level rise policy guidance and its supporting vulnerability
assessment and adaptation planning work is consistent with and fulfills the
requirements of Senate Bill 272 at this time. The proposed amendment requires new development
to be set back from the shore to avoid hazard risks without needing armoring, and it includes
recommended best practices such as identifying triggers for phased adaptation, committing
the city to continuous study and future LCP updates as the best available science and
on the ground conditions change over time, and requirements for notice and disclosure
of hazard risks to permittees, including to ensure that they, and not the public, internalize
any risks for coastal development, including as it may eventually extend to cleanup and
hazards abatement. The amendment, through such triggers and other techniques, is proactive
about avoiding these problems in the future, all with the goal of keeping the city's beaches
open, clean, and available to the general public as a recreational public commons and
important natural resource. At this broad level the proposed amendment can be seen as a model
of sorts of coastal hazard management best practices. Next slide. That said, and although
staff can empathize with the intent, the proposal to outright ban all shoreline armoring does raise
certain concerns. While the Coastal Act clearly and emphatically requires coastal resource protection
and clearly disallows shoreline armoring as a general rule, it also includes section 302-35
that acts as an override to require armoring approval in three specific circumstances
for endangered pre-1977 structures, also known as existing structures, public beaches and coastal
dependent uses. The pre-1977 existing structure provision is perhaps the most well-known of these
scenarios and it allows for structures that predate the permitting requirements of the
Coastal Act to be allowed shoreline armoring under certain circumstances because they weren't
necessarily developed in a way that would preclude the need for armoring, as is and
was required of development that post dated 1977.
As to the other two, public beaches and coastal dependent uses are two of the highest priorities
under the Coastal Act and are called out for special treatment with respect to armoring
for this purpose, including because they are necessarily located at the ocean-shore interface.
Put another way, these three circumstances are afforded special rights under the Coastal
Act, and while it is true that LCPs can be more protective than the Act, they cannot
be inconsistent with it. Thus, while honestly a bit counterintuitive, an outright ban on
armoring, including for these three legislative special cases, cannot be found consistent
with section 302-35.
In response, the City argues that its proposal can be found coastal-at consistent and offers
three reasons why.
First, banning armoring and keeping the City's beaches and dunes free from it is inherently
more protective of coastal resources than allowing it.
Second, the City argues that armoring within Marina would never be found consistent with
the 302-35 tests, as there will always be viable alternatives to armoring.
third and related to the first two arguments, the City states that the
Commission could choose to exercise its discretion and approve an armoring ban
via conflict resolution, whereby the Commission determines whether a proposal
is, on balance, most protective of significant coastal resources when there
are conflicting Coastal Act Chapter 3 requirements. However, and as explained in
more detail in the staff report, staff respectfully disagrees with these
assertions. An affirmative ban is simply not consistent with Section 302-35 and would
potentially preclude certain high-priority Coastal Act uses. In essence, 302-35 is already
an override over other Coastal Act provisions to ensure that certain uses are protected
and permissible. There's thus no conflict between that section and other Coastal Act
provisions because the legislature already resolved the conflict within the Coastal Act.
And while it may be true that an armoring free shoreline is generally more protective
of coastal resources, that's immaterial as to what the law requires in the circumstance.
As to the argument that there are no uses that could meet Section 302.35 tests in the
city's coastal zone, and thus an armoring ban simply recognizes that fact, staff respectfully
disagrees and notes that this too is simply too speculative an argument to make.
Sure or not something is consistent with 302-35 is a fact-specific exercise that is undertaken
at the time of CDP application.
And the simple fact is there are some pre-1977 structures in the city's coastal zone and
new coastal dependent uses and public beaches are afforded that analysis.
As such, we simply can't say today that no, under no circumstance will there ever be,
will any under no circumstance will ever occur that there we simply cannot say
today that no circuit under no circumstance will use ever meet 302
3 5's test I got to rewrite that and instead there must be a required
analysis that walks through the analytic armoring at the time of application
next slide the staff recommends that the language be modified to provide for
armoring allowances consistent with Coastal Act Section 30235 tests.
Suggested modifications are also included to clarify
proposed definitions to ensure that relocation of at-risk,
non-resource dependent development is not placed within sensitive dune environment,
and to ensure that erosion triggers and
other adaptation planning measures are incorporated into CDP conditions of approval.
Staff has worked with the city on the suggested modification language,
And while they still prefer to affirmatively ban all armoring in marina as they have proposed,
they indicate they are in agreement with the modification language and the staff wreck.
So as proposed and modified, the city's coastal hazards amendment provides a strong regulatory
framework to ensure the safety, resiliency, and protection of marina's natural and built
shoreline environment.
Staff has worked in close partnership with the city over the years on this amendment
and has had respectful and productive conversations about shared objectives,
as well as certain Coastal Act legal requirements.
We want to reiterate that the commission has a good partner in the city
in advancing innovative coastal resource protections
and appreciates the city's willingness to take on difficult,
but important, coastal management endeavors.
In conclusion, staff recommends the commission approve the amendment if it is modified as identified,
and the four motions necessary to do so are found on page seven of the staff report,
and this concludes staff's presentation.
Thanks, Mr. Kahn. Are there any ex partes?
Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing and ask how many speakers there are.
We have two with the applicant and then three other speakers.
All right, so are those in the room?
Yes, we have Allison Hunter and Dave Ravel.
All right, Ms. Hunter, how much time would you need?
I think about 10 minutes should do it okay for both of you, yeah, okay, that's fine
While our presentations being pulled up, thank you so much to staff that was great
I feel like we don't really need to do a presentation now cuz you that was awesome
But you could restate your name sorry Alison hunter, I'm the planning manager for the city of marina
And I am gonna try to, oh gosh, okay, that one's too small.
Okay, thanks so much.
We're super excited to be here.
City of Marina, LCP amendment for coastal hazards
and sea level rise.
I'm speaking on behalf of the city,
Dave Revel from Integral Consulting is our consultant
and he will also be kind of tag teaming me here
with this presentation.
Next slide please.
it's too small, okay. Just an introduction to the team and thanks to Coastal Commission staff.
Okay, Marina's Coastal, thank you, Coastal Hazards and Sea Level Rise LCP Amendment would not be
possible without two grants from the Coastal Commission. We got started on this in 2017.
something called COVID happened. We had some delay and then we got a second grant to kind
of just continue on and try to finish up this work and special thanks to Kevin and Katie Butler
in the Santa Cruz office and also our really great grant administrators Jasmine Hahn and
Carrie Botha who are tremendously patient with people like me who don't do this grant
money stuff so that was very helpful. The city's team consists of myself and as I said
Dave Revel our consultant also our consultants from EMC planning group Polaris Kinison Brown
she passed away during this process sadly but also Anastasia Aziz and Esme Wall both from EMC
the former planning manager with the city of Marina Kristy Hopper and then myself.
Also, just really pointing out how important the City of Marina's Planning Commission,
City Council, and the public have been in this process.
The community is overwhelmingly supportive of trying to maintain the city's beaches and
coastline as they are today.
So we, you know, unanimous approvals from the Council and Planning Commission on what
you see before you.
slide please. So the project scope, you have this map of course this just kind of shows
you the layout of the coastal zone and the city boundary. We hope to create new policies
and implementation measures addressing climate change along Marina's three plus mile coast
compliant with SP 272. These policies will apply to the city's entire coastal zone but
Obviously, these hazards policies specifically are focused really on the parcel susceptible
to erosion.
And we do have a just very small strip of this, the properties subject to these policies.
We have a very limited development in this area, so we're very fortunate.
And before I forget, I do want to just point out that not only do we not have any shoreline
protection at this point, but just to make it clear for the Commission how important
it is to realize that the existing development that is on our coast already is conditioned.
Their coastal development permits are conditioned to not have shoreline protection in the future.
So once certified and adopted by the City Council, if the Commission approves some version
of this, these policies and implementation measures will be embedded into our larger
comprehensive LCP update that we're also undertaking right now under a separate grant.
Next slide, please.
We have a very unique history and setting.
I've already touched on it a little bit, but we are an unarmored beach with high, you know,
hundred-foot flandering dunes system. A big portion of Marina is made up of
former Fort Ord army base and when the army base was closed and a large portion
of that land was conveyed to the city of Marina the city undertook efforts to
make sure that future development stayed inland primarily east of the highway
there. In 2019, the city of Marina declared the last beach sand mine in the US a public nuisance
in conjunction with the Coastal Commission and worked to close the mine and turn it,
it's eventually going to be turned over to a public trust entity and we are down zoning that
property. So the vast majority of this coastline is going to be open space zone or public facilities
zone as we move forward with our comprehensive update.
And then just talking about our couple of grants that we've already mentioned,
but also want to point out that these policies that we're proposing are really lockstep with
the commission's draft 2026-2030 draft strategic plan that you've just released for public comment.
Our amendment that we're asking for will help the Coastal Commission achieve many of the goals, objectives, and actions.
Okay, okay. Next slide, please.
Okay, this is the City Council's vision and goal that they adopted and I won't read it because I'll get in trouble.
There's our mayor, Bruce Delgado,
just surveying our land there.
But it's clear in the city council's vision and goals that
the number one priority is to protect these coastal spaces.
Next slide, please.
We have several justifications for why we think an exception
to Public Resources Code 30235
should be provided to the city.
Shoreline protective devices cause loss of beach.
I don't think anyone is arguing that,
so we want to protect our beach
to the greatest extent feasible.
And if we lose our beach,
then we will have loss of coastal access
for residents and visitors,
and we know that that's a primary
tenet of the coastal act.
Next slide, please.
This is just a slide showing all of our public engagement
and hearings starting in 2017 and going up to City Council adoption in January of this
year. Next slide. So our proposed policies will protect coastal resources and access
for our diverse historically underrepresented community and perpetuity. And we just want
to acknowledge that we are emphasizing nature-based solutions and managed retreat. So we're not
saying there will be no features,
but that we're focusing on kind of the soft armoring.
Next slide, please.
Okay, handing it over to Dave.
Good morning, commission.
David Rebel with Integral Consulting
on behalf of the city of Marina.
The vulnerability assessment was done,
started in 2017, looking at erosion being the biggest hazard
that the city faces too.
and it primarily would affect dune habitat.
There are a few buildings at the Sanctuary Beach Resort
and Marina State Beach parking lot
and restroom and sewer pump station.
With two feet of sea level rise,
the entire parking lot could be at risk potentially
as well as access roads to the resort
and the Marina Coast Water District.
And then by five feet,
we could be looking at a much different environment
with an erosion of about 150 acres of dune,
26 buildings at the Sanctuary Beach Resort
and the Marina Coast Water District facility.
Next slide, please.
The social vulnerability assessment
was also really interesting to dig in
and that the change from the Fort Ord residential community,
provided more affordable housing
significant visitor serving development. It has the high, Marina has the highest
diversity in Monterey County with a third of the population as low income.
Beach access, free beach access and parking is thus critical. Of the eight
coastal accesses only 10% or within a half mile of the coast. The and sand
mining since it has ceased may provide additional access but we've tried to
integrate all of these into these policies. Next slide please. So our
approach really is kind of a threefold. One, we really are interested in
integrating the triggers in monitoring into codifying it in the LCP amendment
so that we can phase adaptation and be transparent with applicants as they are
Ok, thank you, thank you. Do you need some water? I haven't water.
Ok. I felt bad for continuing to talk.
So we really do want to prohibit coastal armoring.
Since the city, all of the development that has been approved after 1977 has had a condition
of approval requiring no coastal armoring.
We want to take this and codify this for perpetuity.
Since 2017, every vote by the electeds
have unanimously supported no coastal armoring.
Next slide, please.
Managed retreat is not an evacuation.
The city has not said no, bye, get out.
it's saying that we are providing nature-based approaches
and streamlining permitting for those
so they can be implemented quickly in emergency situations.
We are actively developing
an opportunistic beach nourishment program
and getting appropriate environmental review documents in place
so that we can streamline these approaches
when they're necessary.
And we're working with the city of Monterey
as part of a regional program in that manner.
Next slide, please.
So please, we implore you, let Marina lead the way.
Let a local jurisdiction of a constituted of low income,
previously marginalized populations be more protective
than the Coastal Commission.
Please, most California cities hassle you again and again
to let them have their authority over their jurisdiction.
Marina is saying, we will take that and go farther.
Please support the city without the amendments.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right.
I seem to have recovered, so we can't move forward.
So do we have additional speakers on this item, Chris?
Yes, we have three speakers.
OK.
We'll start with Mitch Silverstein, Mike Guth,
and then Anna Christensen.
Each will have two minutes.
Sorry, did you call me first?
I know, Mitch Silverstein first,
then Mike Guth and then Anna Carson.
So Mitch Silverstein, go ahead.
Thanks.
Good morning, Chair Hartman and Commissioners,
Vice Chair Hartman and Commissioners,
Mitch Silverstein's Surfrider Foundation.
Preserving our beaches and public access
to them is core to Surfrider's work in California,
where we stand to lose up to 70% of our beaches
by 2100 due to sea level rise.
Armoring the coast to protect existing development
further sacrifices our beaches,
exacerbating the existential threat that rising seas pose.
LCP updates are key to ensuring local governments plan
for sea level rise in a way that centers
the preservation of coastal resources.
Indeed, one of the stated objectives
in the commission's draft five-year strategic plan
is to ensure LCPs address sea level rise and climate change.
The city of Marina is in a fortunate position
of having no shoreline armoring
and few shoreline developments.
The few shoreline developments that do exist
have either agreed never to armor
or aren't eligible for armoring under the Coastal Act.
Furthermore, the city is incredibly forward-thinking
and has chosen a path that few, if any,
other coastal cities have taken.
Whereas cities often ask you
for special shoreline armoring carve-outs
in their LCP updates, Marina understands the futility
of trying to fight and encroach an ocean.
Whereas some cities' efforts toward an LCP update
have literally imploded over the mere mention
of managed retreat, the city of Marina
fully embraces the concept.
They understand that attempting to hold the line
only leads to loss of beaches
and irreplaceable coastal habitat.
Therefore, they've chosen to disallow armoring
of their coast.
Surf Rider and especially our Monterey County chapter
is 100% in support of Marina's approach
and the LZP amendment they've submitted.
As ironic as the whole situation is,
we do understand the potential inconsistency
with the, inconsistency with Coastal Act section 30335.
Honestly, I do think with a little more time,
the amendment language can be further strengthened
to make it functionally impossible
to improve shoreline armoring
without potential inconsistencies with the Coastal Act.
However, my impressions of the city
would rather not further delay approval, which I respect. So if I would like to thank the city of
Marina and its leaders for their bold and exemplary approach to preparing for sea level rise. Our hope
is that other cities follow their example, and we ask that the Commission holds this LCP coastal
hazards position as the gold standard for other local governments to aspire towards. Thank you.
Thank you. Mike Guth. Thank you. Good morning again, Vice Chair Hart and Commissioners. Mike Guth
for the Sierra Club we've got a letter in the record and I'm in the Santa Cruz
group which is in the Vantana chapter of Monterey Bay. So to start we'd like to
applaud the City of Marina for its bold approach and its LCP which we fully
support and acknowledge their continuing leadership role in coastal
management in the Monterey Bay area. The Sierra Club supports the City of
submission without modification. And I want to talk to you a little bit about
the arguments against that the staff has just presented. You know we just had a
hearing on the mitigation bank habitat restoration and I heard commissioners
talk about it's been decades in the waiting and this is so great and
Dr. Hucklebridge shined in and and here we've been waiting for the same kind of
here and instead we're getting a recommendation for rejection. I mean as a matter of policy today
up is down and down is up. But the argument is made is not one of policy but one of law and
there is a problem with what your staff has said. The staff has said quote has said that this first
of all the city has analyzed through years of work that there's nothing at risk and nothing will be at
risk that needs armoring. With all that work, staff says it's too speculative.
You can't accept that argument because people are going to say that about every
sea level rise plan that's trying to protect stuff because your staff,
because you're gonna, if you adopt that position. Plus they say you have to do
this stuff on a project-by-project basis, you can't do it blanket. That's in
conflict with the whole going to the neighborhood based solutions thing that
Dr. Lester presented to you last year so I don't have enough time to go into it
further, but it's a radical interpretation of law to say that you
can't conflict resolve out and find their approach the most protective and
coastal resources. We urge you to do so. Thank you. Thank you. Anna Christensen. Okay, can you
hear me? Yes we can. Oh good. Sierra Club California supports the approval of the
city of Marina's LCP amendment as written without modifications. The LCP prohibits shoreline
protection devices for hazards abatements for any development in order to protect
city beaches in the long term. Coastal Commission staff interprets section 302-35 as an override
that prohibits the city of Marina's LCP from being most protective of their coastal resources,
further stating that they do not have the legal right to protect proactively ban shoreline
protective devices without Coastal Commission approval. The Coastal Act not only created a
body of laws, it established a system for enforcing them, including the qualifications
for those serving as commissioners. The majority of you are elected officials representing cities
or counties, each with their own priorities, problems, and measures being taken to address them.
In the face of sea level rise, the City of Marina has terminated sand mining and written an LCP
Amendment that bans shoreline armoring in order to be most protective of its own coastal resources.
Perhaps the jurisdiction that you represent may one day take a similar proactive approach
to this or another issue. Does section 302-35 mandate that the Coastal Commission alone
has the power to decide how, when, and where coastal resources are protected,
or can local jurisdictions be permitted to do so within their own boundaries?
the implications of and precede precedent set by allowing section 302.35 to act as an override
of other coastal out provisions and also lcp coastal resources protections
reveals an abuse of authority that is deeply undemocratic as to what this has to do with the
controversial Monterey Peninsula water supply project or other things we cannot say for sure
but it doesn't. It's not good. It's not good to be the king. No kings. Thank you very much.
Thank you. There are no more speakers. Okay, thanks so much.
I don't feel a crown currently. Okay, thanks so much to all of our public speakers on this
item. We'll bring it back to staff for response. Kevin? Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. So just a few
quick comments. So first again we'd very much like to thank the city for their
both their open dialogue with us throughout this amendment process and
these are several year processes a lot of complicated complex issues so it is a
time-consuming endeavor and we thank you for you know your willingness to tackle
and propose some pretty innovative and protective policies and you know also as
I noted in the staff report and presentation there's a lot of good
language in here, and so we don't want to forget that when we're talking about
focusing on the armoring ban proposal, and we just want to make sure the city
gets the recognition it deserves for getting us here today. With respect to
armoring, and I know this does kind of put us in a somewhat awkward position,
and staff certainly recognizes that and has had many internal discussions and
debates about what to do with this thing. I think the best way to conceptualize
the staff recommendation is to ensure that the three types of uses specified under the Coastal Act,
coastal dependent uses, public beaches, and existing structures
are afforded the opportunity for analysis on whether armoring is appropriate or not.
This isn't, put another way, we're not requiring or mandating that armoring be
required, it's simply stating that for these three uses, there's going to be an analysis
as to whether it can meet the 302.35 tests.
And as part of that future analysis, we still certainly may find that armoring is not appropriate
and cannot meet those tests, including that there are alternatives.
And so it's clear we think there probably will be, given the likelihood and that the
likelihood of any kind of large-scale armoring is quite low in the city. Again, given its geography,
given its large lots, the ability to retreat, the ability to
find alternative locations or alternative measures to abate any threat.
But we at least need to provide that analysis rather than closing it off.
With that, we're available for questions.
I guess I would just add, I think Kevin said it all, I we appreciate the just the efforts from the city in pushing these policies forward and and having us have this conversation.
It's it's really valuable and we really look forward to working with the city on finding all the alternatives to armoring and hopefully not needing to approve armoring the city.
We look forward to that outcome, but here this is a this is just a legal question of whether it's consistent with 302 through 5
And in our in this case we felt the need to add the modifications that we did but again appreciate this sort of unique
Dune
Ecosystem here that and and the ability to retreat in certain areas and just really commend the city for their approach here
This is what we want
coastal cities and communities to be thinking about
and they have been forward thinking and we support them
and we will look forward to finding alternatives
to armoring in the future.
So I just want to make that very clear.
This is what we want to see from folks,
this sort of willingness to think about expansively
about alternatives.
And again, I think Marina is in a great position
to there are things that nature-based solutions
and retreat and things that can be done here.
And again, we look forward to supporting that.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Director.
All right, I'll bring it back to the Commissioner
for any comments.
I'll have a comment, and then we'll go to a motion.
Commissioner Wilson and then Commissioner Nottle.
Yeah, a couple of things.
And what I'm really, I think what we understand
is that it's just in the statute, right?
That just basically, it's just plainly worded in the statute
that we don't have the ability to completely ban outright
without some review.
Now, that statute could be changed in the future,
I suppose, and modified by the legislature
to allow jurisdictions to make that request
and allow us to grant them that ability to do so.
And maybe that's something we might
want to consider supporting.
But in this moment, it appears that that statute
doesn't allow that.
and that we sort of have to take the,
we don't have to necessarily,
but I think we lean conservatively
to take the interpretation of our attorneys and staff
who work within the Coastal Act
more than on a daily basis.
So, yeah, I mean, unless anyone on the commission here
wants to review that statute,
and staff could bring it up and we could take a look at it,
my view of it looks pretty clear so I'm going to support the motion as we move
forward and commend the city of Marina for really standing up and doing the
right thing and and your your your photographs of your retreat process
awesome thank you and I can't wait to have you guys speak to this at planning
conferences as we move forward and all the other stuff because I think I think
you guys are really taking it to the next level and where we need to be. I
just I think unfortunately the statute is a bit more conservative than that in
the current context. I was gonna say I'm glad you put up that article in the from
the LA Times because I remember how Marina has been featured as a leader in
in nature-based solutions, and I really commend you for that.
I'm scratching my head because I get,
are there any, there are some pre-1977 structures,
because there's hardly any structures on the coast.
So there's, is the sanctuary pre-1977?
No, that one is not, that was built in the 90s.
As far as we understand, the Marina State Beach parking lot
is existing structure, pre-77.
There's some infrastructure up at the Cemex site
that is pre-77.
And then there's the former Marina Coast Water District
wastewater treatment plant.
So there's not many.
There are some.
And that's why I think as part of any analysis,
we would certainly look at it and explore
all available options, not to armor,
but we need to at least have the ability
to have that evaluation.
Okay, so as I certainly, I'm with the city on this,
but I'm hearing from the city
that the city agrees with the amendments.
So I guess I will support staff on this,
but I'm sorry that we don't,
I'd like to encourage local jurisdictions to do exactly what you're doing and
Yes
So first a note of personal privilege just want to thank you for including Polaris his name
I know taverns a dear friend and so having her name up there just brought me back to
Her loss but also her life and all that she imparted on our community. So thank you
and I to share the
Feelings of my fellow commissioners, I appreciate the city pushing his hard and
Commissioner Wilson talked about the the photos that you're including also that photo of Bruce. It was a great photo
So thank you for including that all the work
He does to put native plants back on those dunes to really restore the habitat
It's really part of his goal and life mission and I see the work here as you're in front of us asking for this as part
Of that work that that entire body does together and so I'll be supporting staff's recommendation
But look forward to opportunities in the future to push this envelope further. Thank you
Thank you madam vice chair, thank you for being here, thank you staff for your hard work
As an old army guys who spent a little time at Ford or and I love I love what you've done with the place
Because I mean quite frankly, I've always wondered I said man, whatever happened to Ford or what's going on at Ford art
I wonder about that all the time, right, and we've got, you know, Monterey and San Francisco
and all these old unbelievably great locations.
I mean, it's interesting, we tend to close the good locations and improve upon the not
so good locations from a military perspective.
But love what you're doing, love the forward thinking.
I mean, I think this is the, you know, the never say never is really what this is.
We can never say never, even though the odds are slim to none.
But appreciate the forward thinking.
Appreciate the initiative.
And there are many other cities that
can learn from what you guys are doing.
So thank you.
Thank you.
I just have a question and a couple comments.
So you just mentioned that the CEMEX plant
has some pre-77 armoring?
Is that what you said, Kevin, or did I miss that?
Structures, not.
Structured.
Right.
OK.
So could you just talk for a second about,
is that going to be removed?
And whether the proposed desal, is it in that same location?
Would it be entitled to armoring?
Could you just address that?
Well, with respect to Cemex, I don't know if Ms. Hagee here wants to speak to that.
That's under a commission order for most of it to be removed.
With respect to Calam, there is actually a no-future armoring condition on its desalination
infrastructure.
That permit has a 25-year term, though, so it's not in perpetuity forever.
One other thing with respect, we talked about existing structures.
it's not just existing structures, it's also prospectively for new potential coastal dependent
development as well. And I think the complicated factor is we just, we can't predict everything
in the future and what type of coastal dependent use might be appropriate and allowable here.
And you know, it could also be something as small as like a public coastal access way
that for whatever reason needs to be located where it needs to be located so
again it's just it's it's just not foreclosing the opportunity even though
we agree with the sentiment okay thank you and I also just want to join my
fellow commissioners to appreciate the city of Marina I've been so impressed
over the time I've been on the Commission going back to the KLM
discussion and everything we learned about Marina and now just it being
reinforced I so appreciate the diversity of your community the inclusiveness and
this is just a wonderful proposal for your LCP amendment. All right so at this
time I'm going to ask for there are going to be four motions I believe is it
Commissioner Wilson? I'll take a shot as well it's up in front of me so let's do
it. And again this does not foreclose the City of Marina's ability to remove
or relocate those infrastructures that are at risk,
that are under your control now.
I mean, they're just, by all means,
get them out of the way and make future armoring a mute subject.
So, I move that the Commission certify
Land Use Plan Amendment, LLCP-3-MRA-25-006-1,
as submitted by the City of Marina,
And I recommend a no vote.
We have a second?
Second.
OK, we have a motion by Commissioner Wilson,
a second by Commissioner Lopez.
I need a roll call vote, please.
Remember, it's a no, guys.
Commissioner Lopez?
No.
Lopez, no.
Commissioner Notoff?
No.
Notoff, no.
Commissioner Presiato?
Presiato, no.
Presiato, no.
Commissioner Wilson?
No.
Wilson, no.
Commissioner O'Malley, no.
O'Malley, no.
Commissioner Escalante, no.
Escalante, no.
Commissioner Jackson, no.
Jackson, no.
Commissioner Rodone, no.
Rodone, no.
Vice Chair Hart, no.
Hart, no.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
All right, next motion.
I move that the commission certify a land use plan
amendment number LCP-3-MRA-25-006-1 for the City of Marina.
If it is modified as suggested in the staff report,
and I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
All right, we have a motion to second.
We'll call the vote, please.
Commissioner Notoff?
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Presiano?
Yes.
Presiano, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Rodone?
Yes.
Rodone, yes.
Commissioner Lopez?
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Vice Chair Hart?
Yes.
Hart, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
I have Commissioner Wolf.
All right.
I move that the commission reject the Implementation Plan Amendment,
LCP-3-MRI-25-006-1 as submitted by the city of Marina,
and I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
All right.
We'll call, please.
Commissioner Presiado?
Yes.
Presiado, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Rodoni?
Yes.
Rodoni, yes.
Commissioner Lopez, yes, yes, Commissioner, not all I not off. Yes, Vice Chair Hart. Yes, Hart. Yes
The vote is unanimous. All right, final motion. I move that the Commission certify LCP amendment number LCP-3-MRA-25-0006-1
as submitted by the City of Marina if it is modified as suggested in the staff report and I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
All right, roll call vote, please.
Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson, yes. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley, yes. Commissioner Escalante.
Yes. Escalante, yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson, yes. Commissioner Rodoni. Yes. Rodoni, yes.
Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez, yes. Commissioner Notoff. Aye. Notoff, yes. Commissioner Presiado.
yes presiado yes vice chair heart yes heart yes the vote is unanimous
all right thank you very much that concludes that item i now want to return to uh wednesday's
statewide items i think the only thing we need to take action on is the approval of the minutes
those are the minutes from july and i think that's it oh is september on there oh it is
I'm sorry. Thank you, Vanessa. July and September.
I move approval of minutes from July and September 2025.
Okay, we have a motion and a second. I believe we still need a roll call vote on this. Yep, we do.
Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley, yes. Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson, yes. Commissioner Redoni. Yes. Redoni, yes. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Notoff. Aye. Notoff, yes. Commissioner Presiado. Aye.
Presiado, yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson, yes. Vice Chair Hart. Yes. Hart, yes. The vote is unanimous.
Great. Are there any reports on the statewide items from the AG or any other reports?
No, all right in that case that concludes the business part of the meeting today, and we'll go into closed session
Does anyone need a break or can we just?
Okay
We take oh yeah great so ten minutes is that appropriate five to ten minutes, and we're gonna stay in this room
All right great welcome back to
The hearing open session the California Coastal Commission. We'd like to report out on closed session from our council
Louise Warren
Thank you
Commission met in closed session and received litigation information and advice and took action on city of Trinidad
versus
Versus the Troy ancestral society at all I will double check the name in that case
The city of Fort Bragg versus Mendocino Railway
Friends of Oceania June's versus
California Department of Parks and Recreation at all and space exploration technologies Inc
versus coastal commission it also received litigation information and
advice on stable corporation versus coastal commission and that concludes my
report with the exception that it's city of Trinidad versus cherry ancestral
society happen again it right thanks all right great thanks so much sorry about
that all right the meeting is adjourned thanks everybody see you next month in
Imperial Beach.