okay good morning everyone welcome back to the February meeting of the
California Coastal Commission we'll begin today's session with a roll call
please Commissioner O'Malley present Commissioner Eckerly here
Commissioner Escalante is not on some today okay Commissioner Hart present
Commissioner Jackson here Commissioner Kelly here Commissioner Kunkel here
Commissioner Lee here Commissioner Lopez present it Commissioner Kalmyk here
Commissioner not off here Commissioner Moreno present Commissioner Wilson here
and chair Harmon here okay thank you I'm now we'll move to the virtual meeting
procedures please good morning this California Coastal Commission is
occurring both in person and through zoom. This meeting also is being webcast
and can be viewed online at Cal-Span.org. If you have internet access then wish to
watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak on an item, we recommend you use
the Cal-Span website. Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so
in person through the zoom platform or by phone. The speaker request form may be
be found on the Commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittals
are available on the Commission staff table
just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures
on the Commission's agenda webpage,
which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking
during general public comments may be given up to two minutes
to speak at the discretion of the chair.
Request to speak during the general public comment 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 a general item that is not general public comments are typically allowed
two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular general item up until the chair opens the
hearing on that particular item. If you have internet access please go to the
Commission webpage and click on the link to fill out a speaker request. If you do
not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone please call the
Commission staff at 562-477-9089. Again that number is 562-477-9089.
staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number and instructions for how
to participate and provide testimony by phone. We will make we will manage
speakers coming in and out the meeting through a meeting organizer. When it is
your time to address the Commission the organizer will invite you to turn on
your video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone.
Madam Chair that concludes the virtual hearing procedures. Thank you very much
Simone okay now we'll go to agenda changes please mr. Schwing thank you
chair Harmon and good morning to the Commission and to everybody who's
joining us today we did post the agenda changes sheet on Friday it remains
accurate except for one item that I'm going to add this morning starting with
item 11 a that's the Newport Beach LCP amendment on their housing opportunity
the overlay district that's postponed. Item 12A, the Raina appeal is postponed. Item 13A,
that's applications 5, 24, 899, the Steble application from San Clemente that's moved
to consent. Item 13B is application 525.283 that's postponed. Item 13C the side and sticker
application from Dana Point that's postponed. This morning we're adding item 16A, the ocean
Inside downtown density for the sixth housing cycle is moved to consent.
Then item 16C, the city of Carlsbad's zoning code cleanup for 2024, that's moved to consent.
Item 16F, the city of San Diego's 2024 land development code update, that's moved to consent.
Item 16g, the city of Carlsbad's LCP update, that's an LCP time extension only.
That's moved to consent.
Item 17a, that was a map adoption for the San Diego unified port district that's postponed.
And item 18a, which was an appeal out of the port of San Diego, FR San Diego LLC, that
was withdrawn.
that concludes the agenda changes this morning. Okay thank you very much. With
that we will move to general public comment. For members of the public I
will be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite you to
speak when it's your turn. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes during the
general public comments at the discretion of the chair. In order to
allow for live video testimony on Zoom we will be bringing you in as a panelist
As we bring you in your zoom will reload. This may take a moment to speed up the
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 we you will
be moved back to attendee mode. For members of the public present in the
room I will call your name in the order that they appear on our sign-up list. When
you hear your name please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself. When
you approach to speak. There is a raise hand function that will help us find you
in the attendee list. If you are using the 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
you are able to do so please raise your hand now. When it's your time to speak we
We will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
So first up, we're starting with in person.
So we have Scott Machlis, followed by Sabrina Breenen,
followed by Judy Taylor.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Scott McLeese.
I'm here today to express my opposition to the proposed development at
San Point Road in Carpinteria. I've been coming to Carpinteria and especially
San Point Road every year for the last 70 plus years. This coastline is not
abstract to me, it's personal and I've watched it change. Recent king tides
defined as tides over seven feet gave us a clear preview of what the future
holds. In November, December, and again in January we saw significant coastal
flooding and erosion. The 7.3 foot tides in December 4th and 5th were especially alarming.
Portions of Sandpoint Road were submerged under 4 to 6 inches of standing water. Waver
Fraction flooded the driveway at 539 Sandpoint Road, leaving debris scattered across its
some tire width. At 501 standpoint erosion accelerated on what little land
remains. We do have some slides here to take a look at. Oh I'm sorry if you would
that's the property at 501. There's the road that's been covered in six inches
plus of water and here's the edge of the 501 property and through for next one
There's the wave refraction coming in. Tides of this magnitude already occur
four times a year and with sea level rise and climate change they will only
become more frequent and more severe. When a king died coincides with a storm
bringing elevated stream runoff and large wave energy, the flooding and
erosion will be dramatically worse. These events will rapidly increase
erosion at this site. It is not difficult to imagine the residents who approve
surrounded by water refractive wave crashing and into many caissons
requiring to support it ultimately limiting or prohibiting access along a
very narrow entryway. Thank you sir. Sabrina Brinan followed by Judy Taylor
and then we'll go to zoom and we'll go with Adam Leveres followed by Vivian
Marques, followed by Dan Silver and Ann Stenton. So please be ready to be moved
to panelists. This video documents ongoing. Good morning Chair and
Commissioners. My name is Sabrina Brennan. I'm the Director and Legislative
Advocate for SURF Equity and Co-founder of the Committee for Equity and Women's
Surfing. I'm here to raise awareness about serious concerns regarding a
federal beach surveillance system. The City of San Clemente approved an
agreement with US Customs and Border Protection to allow the agency to
install a maritime surveillance tower and cameras overlooking the city's
coastline. The system would be placed on city-owned land. While framed as a
public safety measure, this approved system fundamentally changes the
nature of California's coast. It creates a climate of monitoring and suspicion,
particularly for marginalized communities, and risks deterring people
from accessing beaches. The full rationale behind the surveillance is not
fully transparent, yet it's clear that publicly accessible beaches will be
monitored and may deter equitable use. Since we sent a letter to coastal staff
on January 26th, allied organizations including Salted Roots have
communicated with us regarding concerns about the negative impact this
surveillance will have on coastal access. This is a shared worry across
communities who rely on these beaches for recreation, sport, and cultural events
including athletic competitions. I urge the Commission to request that staff
review San Clemente's approved surveillance program to determine
whether it's consistent with the Coastal Act's public access and environmental
equity objectives. Public beaches should remain accessible, welcoming, and free
from monitoring that may discourage or exclude anyone from enjoying them. Thank
Thank you for your attention.
Good morning commissioners, Judy Taylor, 52 year coasty now and I want to thank you
all for bringing the nice weather with you.
It's much appreciated.
I'm here today in two roles, one on behalf of Smart Coast California, I just want to
reiterate again how much we appreciate being a stakeholder and an ally, particularly at
our last summit, the presentation by Brittney Casalino, as she is local grown, so it was
really nice personally to see her do a fabulous presentation.
Now onto the personal, just want to ask you guys while you're here, if you have not seen
the Hyatt site, and if you've not seen Seal Cove, if you get a little bit of time, I was
in Monterey last week for meetings, and so I know when you get out of here, you just
want to get out of here, you want to go home.
I totally get that. But if you have the time either on the way to dinner tonight or on
your way out of town tomorrow, both sites are very close by. Seal Cove is literally
in spitting distance and the Hyatt site is at the south end of Half Moon Bay. Seal Cove
is 170 homes isolated, geotechnical issues, sea level rises causing bluff failure, aging
structure, and it's a pocket of homes. It's an established neighborhood. And so it's kind
of a microcosm of what managed retreat and climate change on multiple levels is going
to be doing to us over the next 50 years. The Hyatt site, y'all have said for as long
as you've been here, we want that site to be a visitor serving gateway to the community.
building is going to block the views. So just take a trip down there, that's where
the James Ford is, you can just make the loop down and get yourself back to 92
really easily. But just take a look and see what this site is to the community
and what the real options are because I know the developer has worked
assiduously to meet the requirements for you folks. So anyways, welcome again,
bring you the good weather every time you come. Thanks. Thank you. Next is Adam
Leverance. We've already moved you to panelists. Go ahead and unmute yourself.
Good morning again commissioners and staff. Adam Leverance speaking from
Newport Beach. There are more reasons why CDP should be required for the city's
mooring permit to license conversion than I can cover in the time allotted.
but some of them the city began converting mooring permits to city-owned
short-term mooring licenses without a CDP in late 2023. They started with 14
permits confiscations. They're now up to 17 and they intend to do all 1200
mooring permits. Also they've got a potential project of a helical anchor
upgrade and that's 11 and a quarter million dollars or $7,500 on both ends
for a double point mooring which will add $15,000 of expense. It's another way
to price out undesirable people like me from the harbor who aren't multi
millionaires. This is changing access. The city will tell you that this
is to enhance access but the costs over time are even relatively short amounts
of time are severely compounded, which forces a lot of people, including me, out.
And interestingly, at the Harbor Commission meeting this past month, the Harbor Department
has indicated that they've deployed two helical anchor systems, and quote, arrangements are
in place to deploy additional anchors later in the month, including two city moorings.
Public resource code 30106 defines development, and the city tries to sneak things in under
the radar incrementally a little bit at a time. They're removing mooring weights and
substituting drilling into the bottom of the seafloor anchors without permission, without
a permit, little bit at a time, and then they try and con state level staff or deceive state
level staff into rubber stamping it. I've seen this happen over and over again. And
a CDP at least being looked at, the city should not be afraid of analysis. Thank you, Bob.
Thank you. Vivian Marquise, if you are available please use your hand function
on zoom, we don't see you at the moment. Next we're gonna go to Dan Silver,
followed by Ann Stenton, followed by Hein Austin, followed by Chely Hilkima and
George Hilkima. We'll be moving you guys to panelists so please accept. Good
morning honorable commissioners. I'm Dan Silver with Endangered Habitats League.
League. I'm also speaking on behalf of Orange County Coast Keeper. We would like to call
your attention to the plight of the critically endangered Pacific pocket mouse on the Dana
Point Headlands. In 2003, my group worked with the city, your commission, and the developer
to put in place the Headlands Reserve. However, the area of occupancy for the mouse has shrunk
and there are frightening fluctuations in population.
The LCP requires the property owner and manager,
Center for Natural Lands Management,
to operate public access so that the mouse is protected.
However, the city has blocked implementation of the LCP,
including a plan that balances recreation
with biological needs.
Note that your agency scientists,
the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
all concur with CNLM on the access plan.
Your commission's first corrective notice to the city
was over two years ago.
An immediate enforcement order is needed this March,
as the breeding season is upon us in April
and protections are urgent.
Again, please agendize this protection order for March,
before it is a point of no return.
Please move quickly on the enforcement order.
Thank you again.
Thank you, and Stenton Hine-Austin,
Chey-Lee Hilkema, and George Hilkema,
and then Samantha McDonald.
Good morning.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, we hear you perfectly.
Thank you.
Good morning, Coastal Commissioners and staff.
Before I begin my comments on the moorings in Newport,
I just want to quickly congratulate
this body of people for the work that's
been done over the past 50 years to protect
the coast and our access to it.
I also want to recognize the hard work of enforcement staff
and actions taken by commissioners
yesterday regarding protection of critical wetlands
and tribal lands in Humboldt County.
Thank you.
My name is Anne Stenton.
I'm with the Newport-Moorings Association.
And I come before you today to urge the commission
to require a CDP for development of moorings in Newport Harbor.
As a little background, in 2022,
city officials attempted to raise shore mooring rates
by 1,000% in Newport
while leaving other Thailand's user rates untouched.
It seemed like an effort at the time
to price certain people out of coastal access.
Luckily, they didn't succeed that time,
but in 2023, the city started another development plan
that would also effectively push working class boaters
out of the harbor.
What came to light was a three-part series
policy changes, which would carry some implications for a subset of permit holders in the harbor.
Many of whom like myself don't and can't afford to live in the city and don't have
a voice in local elections.
The plan included, one, an attempt to push working class moorings closer together, which
this commission correctly saw as unsafe and highly problematic for a number of reasons.
Unfortunately, parts two and three of this plan are still very much in play and include
and attempt to increase already competitive mooring rates,
300 to 500%, which would price out, again,
working class voters, and attempts
to take or confiscate mooring permits from members
of the public while other Thailand's users retain
their permits and turn them into high-cost, limited access,
city-owned mooring licenses.
Please help ensure that any development of moorings
undergo proper review with coastal development permit
process of the Coastal Act and in principles
of environmental justice are upheld.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hine Austin.
Thank you.
Please bring up my slide.
Can you hear me OK?
Yes, we're hearing you.
Give them a minute for your slide.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Hine Austin, and I'm a live abode in Newport Harbor
who advocates for due process.
This slide shows a state lands comparing moorings and docks
in Newport.
State land says that the city's decisions
relating to the residential peers appear
to be political in nature, lowering the peer rates
and reducing the area over which they pay fees.
On paper, Newport Beach says it supports coastal access,
but under the banner of fair market value,
the city repeatedly targets moorings,
the only truly affordable coastal access
left in the harbor.
The city's solution to years of unequal treatment
between docks and moorings wasn't equity.
It was elimination via permit confiscation
and extreme rate hikes.
That's not equitable management.
That's math with a sinister motive.
The State Lands Commission recently released its report,
as you are aware, on tide lands management in Newport Harbor,
but has clearly stated that it does not set rates
for the tide lands users.
A setting rates falls squarely under the jurisdiction
of this commission.
Please require the city to go through the right steps for coastal development and require
coastal development permits for any changes related to mooring management.
Please don't allow the last sustainable cost-effective form of coastal access to be sacrificed for
the benefit of a few elite waterfront constituents and a handful of yacht clubs where past and
present city leaders, hold equity yacht club memberships.
Thank you for your commitment to equitable coastal access for all.
Thank you so much. Thank you Nexus, Shaylee
Hilkema, George Hilkema, Samantha McDonald's,
Jennifer Creston, followed by Chris Bliss and Mary Dee
Thompson. Good morning commissioners. My husband George and I, like other
morning permit holders in Newport Harbor, have been subjected to discriminatory
policies regulated by the city of Newport Beach.
Recently, we were threatened with a double whammy
and singled out to have our permit transferability revoked
and our fees increased three to 500%,
while thousands of other permitted boat owners
who store their boats at private residential dock piers
and private yacht clubs haven't been jeopardized.
Instead, they will continue to enjoy preferred user status
and the luxury of the city's financial favoritism.
Though we all use the same public tide lands,
the city unfairly burdens those of lesser means.
For some it will be even worse
as the city wants to revoke all live aboard permits
which will cause many senior citizens
and other members of our community
to lose their harbor homes.
From my perspective,
the city is using strategic financial maneuvers
to commodify the tide lands
to force mooring permit holders out
so it can further gentrify Newport Harbor.
Currently mooring permit holders pay higher fees
than most like users in the harbor
and we don't have exclusive use rights to our moorings.
So when they're empty, the city can rent them
to members of the public and keep the fees.
In contrast, those residential peers pay nothing
to store their boats at their private docks
and they pay a fraction of the fees we pay
for a much larger footprint on the tide lands.
They enjoy exclusive use rights of their docks
and the city allows them to rent dock space
for their private gain which can amount
to many thousands of dollars of profit per year.
This unequal treatment of like-user groups
makes evident the mismanagement of the tide lands
by the city of Newport Beach,
which is duty bound by the Beacon Bay Bill granting statute
to make no discrimination in rates for any use or service.
And the California Constitution,
which forbids the making of any gift of any public money
or thing of value to any individual.
Oh, I see my time is up.
Please require the city of Newport Beach to get a CDP
for any changes it intends to make.
to the new Port Harbor. Thank you for your good work.
Go ahead, George.
Go ahead, my name is George Heilkema, and I'm 90 years old. I've
been a board member of the Newport mooring Association for
35 years, and I've had my sailboat on a mooring in Newport
Harbor for 40 years. I'm generally not one for regrets,
but I must tell you that I wish I could get back the
uncountable hours that I've spent addressing the issues of
mooring permit fee increases and mooring permit revocation.
The fact is that Newport Beach has biased policies
that favor residential peer permit holders
and burden mooring permit holders.
Both moorings and private residential peers
are self-installed and self-maintained,
and both are used to store boats when they're not in use.
We are like Thailand users,
but those with private docks pay a fraction of the fees
we pay for their docks and pay no fees at all
for the boats tied to them.
In July of 2024,
Executive Officer Jennifer Acuzzi
of the State Lands Commission reminded the city
that it is required to both manage its granted lands
for the benefit of the statewide public,
not for purely private or local interests, end quote,
that it is obligated to do so quote,
fairly and equitably without discrimination
on users and rates, unquote.
But just one year later,
right before the 4th of July weekend,
the city decided it would raise only mooring fees
as much as 500% and revoke only mooring permit transferability.
Voting on the public tide lands is the use
that is consistent with the public trust
in the California Coastal Act states,
quote, recreational voting use of coastal waters
shall be encouraged, unquote.
Please don't allow the city to continue
its unfair treatment of mooring permit holders
and required to get a CDP for any changes
that it intends to make in the moorings of Newport Harbor.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next is Samantha McDonald, followed by Jennifer Kristin,
followed by Chris Bliss and Mary Dee Thompson
and Terri Welsh.
We have about 21 speakers left.
Hi, everyone.
Samantha McDonald Live Abort in Newport Beach.
Like everyone else here,
we really are asking for a coastal commission
to require a coastal development permit from Newport Beach.
Next slide, please.
I first really wanna emphasize
from the perspective of Live Aborts,
how much we are recreational vessels.
Every boat in Newport Beach
is a navigable sailboat or motorboat.
There's no houseboats.
They aren't allowed in Newport Beach.
And we really use these as forms of living
to be closer to recreation
for things like kayaking and fishing and dinghy sailing
and diving and cruising.
Next slide, please.
Liveaboard in Newport Beach are fishermen,
they're delivery captains, they're boat mechanics
and charter captains and harbor tour guides.
Imagine trying to have these jobs
and live in one of the wealthiest cities in California.
I can guarantee you that most of us
would not be able to live where we work.
And more importantly, the state has made it clear
that residents of persons that maintain the harbor
and commerce and fishery navigation,
we're not only consistent with but in direct aid
of basic trust's purposes.
And allowing the city to remove all live aborts
will be removing jobs that are in direct aid
of the basic trust and recreational opportunities
and support.
Next slide please.
Under the new license program the city is implementing,
vessels absence cannot exceed six months.
Even if a boat needs a lengthy repair
after a nasty Santa Ana storm,
or if the vessel is cruising and waiting
for a weather window to return home,
the city can take away your mooring permit without appeal.
The harbor commissioner has said that he can give excuses
and help people with this,
but that's not written and coded
into the rules and regulations,
and it can be taken away from you.
And our friends like Dale and Don,
you can see pictured on the left,
just sailed to French Polynesia, in fact,
last season with their daughter and crew.
And their apartment could just be taken away from them
under a new city license program
because they decided to fulfill a life dream.
Next slide.
The CCC also says that they prioritize and take seriously affordable housing.
And I really want you to help protect us and protect our neighbors.
This means so much to us.
And please consider a CDP.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jennifer Creston, followed by Chris Bliss, Merida Thompson.
We're looking for you.
Hopefully you might be iPhone.
We'll find out later.
Okay, I have a slide, please.
My slide.
Give them a minute, please.
Oh, okay.
Sorry.
Thank you.
All right.
Let's go.
Okay.
There we go.
Thank you very much.
First of all, thank you very much for having me again.
This picture, the slide before you, highlights what State
Lands Commission Executive Officer, Lou Casey, called,
quote, appalling rate inequity, end quote, in Newport Harbor.
If you're lucky enough to be in a position to own a multimillion
dollar home on the bayfront with some current listings on redfin.com ranging
between 11 million and 59 million dollars. You're lucky enough to have the
lowest Tidelands permit rates rates in the harbor and lucky enough to continue
to transfer your Tidelands permit to others and profit from renting out the
water space while paying pennies on the dollar into the Tidelands fund. On the
other end of the spectrum, mooring permit holders continue to pay
significantly higher fees for much more difficult access. This has gone on for
years.
The inequity is poised to become far worse, though.
Some would like you to believe that mooring rates must increase exponentially and that
suddenly the ability to transfer our permits to other members of the public trust must
end because we, quote, may, end quote, be profiting.
Who's really profiting here?
It looks much like the firing fiasco in 2012, when local authorities tried to use their
power to better control who can access the coast in Newport Beach.
Please uphold the Coastal Act.
require the city to obtain a CDP for any future developments to the moorings so
these issues can be properly reviewed with real input from the community. Thank
you very much. Thank you. Next is Chris Bliss followed by Marie Thompson followed
by Terry Welsh followed by Aziz Sheriff and Peter Cass. Chris Bliss, if you can
unmute yourself. I see you unmuted. Can you hear me? Yes we can hear you. Yes. Yes. Good morning.
Thank you for all you do. I did submit a video regarding the Newport moorings that I would like
to play please. Over 1,000 middle class boaters rely on these moorings for affordable boating
in Orange County and these are the private peers owned by Bayfront homeowners. Private peer
owners have numerous amenities such as
fresh water, electricity, walk-on, walk-off
access, and equipment storage, making
boating easy and convenient. The mooring
users, on the other hand, have no such
advantages. Even accessing your boat is
inconvenient and challenging. Private
peer owners often rent out space at
their docks, which are over the state
tide lands, for high rent, often making
tens of thousands of dollars per year with little or none of that going to the
Toddlins fund. Moring permatees are not allowed to rent their moorings. If their
mooring is vacant the city can rent it out and keep the proceeds with nothing
going to the permatee who owns pays for and maintains the mooring equipment. Both
the Peters and the moorings are within a few feet of each other and share the
same title and space. Both have the same function, which is a place to park a boat. Both require
a permit and pay fees to the city, yet the mooring users are required to pay multiple
times more than the peer users, despite the inconvenience and lack of amenities. This
outrageous inequity and discrimination has been happening for decades. The Newport moorings
of the only affordable coastal access for boaters in Orange County. Now, the city plans
mooring rate hikes ranging to more than 500% which will ultimately make boating in Southern
California unaffordable to all, but the very wealthy. The Newport Moorings have provided
affordable coastal access for middle class families for 100 years. Please help protect
invaluable resource. Thank you. Next we found Marie. She's gone now. Okay, we're
going to move to Terry Walsh. Excuse me. Terry, if you can unmute yourself.
Terry, go ahead and unmute yourself. Star six. Terry dials star six. There we go.
Thank you very much. My name is Terry Welch, and I'm the president of the Coastal Corridor
Alliance, formally known as the Banning Ranch Conservancy. And for me, it has always been,
and it still is a great honor to speak before this commission. Now, many of you may know
that because of the work of many, many people and a very generous donation from Frank and
Joanne Randall, Banning Ranch became publicly owned, permanently protected coastal open
space in 2022. And I could talk all day about this, but this morning, I'm here speaking
in support of the conservation effort of the Pacific pocket mouse at Dana Point. Now, it's
It's always a juggle balancing public access versus protecting important habitat, but at
the Coastal Corridor Alliance, our philosophy is it's always best to err on the side of protecting
the habitat.
These species have nowhere else to go, and in many ways, we're going to the same thing
right now at Randall Preserve.
We're developing a resource management plan that prioritizes protecting Natcatcher habitat,
burrowing owl habitat and vernal pool habitat is we like to say you don't want to see places
like Dana Point or Randall Preserve who loved to death.
So, in conclusion, as a big fan and supporter of the Coastal Commission, I beg and plead
with you to support the conservation effort for the Pacific Pocket Mouse at Dana Point
and please try to see that this is part of the margin agenda.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Ozzy Sheriff, followed by Peter Cass, followed by Robin Davidoff, followed by Jim Palmer and Nathan Brenner.
Good morning commissioners. Thank you so much for the opportunity.
My name is Dr. Ozzy Sharif, Executive Director of Wildlife Jewels.
Since my last testimony, our Eyes Engage Your Eyes for Sea Life Program team has continued monitoring at La Jolla Cove
beyond the 450 plus hours previously reported. We are still documenting repeated violations,
including dogs in closed areas, people approaching sea lions, nighttime disturbances, and increasing
debris. These behaviors continue to flush resting wildlife, disrupt sea lions, and create serious
public safety risks. I also want to raise a related concern at the children's pool. From May 15 through
September, our team spent over 200 hours monitoring Western galls. Western galls
are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and US Fish
and Wildlife Service lists them among birds of conservation concern. During
that time, we documented repeated harassment, adults flushed from nests and
interference that resulted in egg loss, nest failures and chick mortality, putting
nearly had chicks at risk. We also repeatedly observed children and visitors running along
the cliff edge to chase birds and their chicks, tripping and nearly falling creating a serious
public safety hazard. These are not isolated incidents, they reflect a predictable pattern
during sensitive seasons that can be prevented with proactive management. For these reasons,
Wildlife Jewel strongly supports the Seal Society's request for enhanced on-site management
at La Voya Cove. We also urge a seasonal plan of action for children's pool centered
on enforcement monitoring and webcams in place ahead of May 15th. Thank you so much for your
time.
Thank you. Peter Katz, Robin Davidoff, Jim Palmer. Peter Katz?
Good morning, I have a slide call, thank you so much.
Good morning commissioners, my name is Peter Katz.
Thank you very much for your hard work.
In 2012, the city of Newport Beach
using the air quality management,
using the air quality management district
attempted to justify the removal
of public beach barbecue firings
because they attracted the wrong kind of people.
This 2018 cases study report read in part
that quote, open quote, the fire ring band
would effectively crucial recreational access to the beach
for anybody not lucky enough to own coastal property.
This was a public controversy driven
by the local authorities and affluent property owners
who felt entitled to determine which people deserve
to enjoy local beaches.
In the issue of the Newport Beach Fire Ring,
the Coastal Commission was able to challenge
the local power structure and defend beach access
by invoking the Coastal Act. Close, close code on food. Trinity today we see a very similar situation with the current plans to remove the morning permit in Newport Harbor. Please protect coastal access for those of us not wealthy enough to own a waterfront.
home in Newport please require the city to obtain a coastal development permit
for any changes to the moorings. Thank you so much for your hard work.
Thank you Jim Palmer, Nathan Brenner, Lindy Aponce, and we have about 10 speakers left.
Jim Palmer, we can unmute yourself.
Can you hear me now?
Yes we hear you.
And I hope, do you have a slide to pull up if you could please under Palmer and me moorings?
There it is, thank you. Good morning and thank you for what you do. I am Jim Palmer,
a mooring pin holder in Newport Beach but not a city resident. Like 60 percent of mooring permit
holders, I cannot vote locally or rely upon this commission to protect our interest. I respectfully
ask for your help and that you require a CDP from the material changes to tide lens access and
management resulting from the city's mooring to permit license conversion program. A mooring permit,
which you know is like a triple net lease where the permitting pays rent and bears all the
development and maintenance cost. Moring's license is like a bill-to-suit lease where the license he
pays rent but the landlord, in this case the city, bears development maintenance cost. This is the
material change for the management to the harbor. After over 100 years of permits, the city recently
changed 18 permits to licenses without a CDP and passed an ordinance to phase another
thousand publicly available morning permission licenses also without a CDP. State Lands
Commission gives a lot of leeway latitude to help the city manage its tight lands. In October of 24,
then executive director, executive officer, Lou Casey, called the situation quote-unquote
appalling. State Lands in December of 2025 report highlights the city may not be compliant with the
granting statute and their tightlands assentances appear to be political in nature. It is puzzling
and contrary the evidence that state lands decided that the city politics are somehow
not relevant to mooring permits. If I could uh I got a few minutes left here jump a few moments
left jump to the uh the slide. I need to jump to um the section b here about the asymmetrical
tide land fawn contributions. There's talk about 1200 moorings in the harbor. Well there's actually
about 900 moorings affected here because 205 of those are either yacht club moorings or their
homeowner association moorings exempt from the city's actions. Um so there's 900 moorings are
we're doing about a million five in Thailand fund support,
where there's 3000 boats on private residential piers
contribute about $285,000 to the fund.
We already talked about precedent for the firings.
We talked about precedent for the mooring refiguration
that the sea does access to the strict access.
And just one comment here is the role of transferability
is a hot topic.
Yes, it's a hot topic.
Yes, it's political,
but there's also valid reasons to keep it.
Thank you very much for your attention to this.
and please ask for a CDP
for the Permit to License Conversion.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next is Nathan Brenner, followed by Lydia Ponce
and Nancy Barron and Gary Walsh.
Please guys, if I asked to move you to panelists,
please don't decline.
We want to hear your opinions.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Nathan Brenner with the Sierra Club Seal Society.
I'd like to show a video of the present conditions
at the La Jolla Cove,
followed by a presentation later by Robin Davidoff.
If you could please start the video.
This video documents ongoing Marine Mammal Protection Act
violations at La Jolla Cove throughout January, 2026.
Despite repeated public comment,
there has been little to no meaningful improvement.
People harass sea lions at close range,
block their access to the water
and prevent normal entry and egress from haul out areas.
These actions cause chronic stress to the animals
and create serious public safety risks,
including aggressive interactions and potential injuries.
What you are seeing here is not isolated behavior,
it is consistent, predictable, and entirely preventable.
This situation will be dramatically magnified
in the coming months.
Summer brings a double impact,
exponentially increased tourism and puffing season.
Sea lion pups are born at the cove
and their survival depends on uninterrupted access
to their mothers who will abandon them
leading to their deaths.
At the cove, approximately 78% of pups born here die
from what we believe to be human related stressors.
Because just around the corner at the closed rookery where people are excluded, pup mortality
is closer to 10%, which is the normal range.
The difference is not environmental, it is management.
This level of pup mortality is not acceptable and it is not inevitable.
We are asking for zero pup deaths in 2026.
That goal is achievable, but the window is closing.
We have 87 days to implement meaningful protections before the peak of pupming in summer crowds.
Without immediate, consistent enforcement, education, and physical management measures,
violations documented will continue and the consequences will repeat. However,
here's the good news. This is what it looks like when volunteer docents are
present, but our role is not crowd control, it's education. And on the rare
occasion that Rangers come to the sand, it is so effective. We need more of this.
This is a solvable problem, but it requires action now. This is not
acceptable. This is what it leads to. This is an emaciated pup who is harassed off
the stairs preventing a rescue. We have 87 days.
Commissioners, we need Rangers on the beach at La Jolla Cove. Thank you for your time
and consideration. Thank you. Next Lydia Ponce, Nancy Barron, Gary Walsh, Michael Brandon.
Good morning relatives. Thank you. Good morning relatives. It's Lydia Ponce from Venice. I
just came out of a LA park and rec meeting to provide testimony to the problem we're
having and this is my update. We need support at Oakwood Park to make it to People Park only
because people are taking advantage of it. We've had children bitten, children knocked down, broken
arms, food snatched out of their hands and recently a child was bitten and the owner of the dog off
leash because that's the problem is off leash they're not abiding by the law said get over it
to the family as the child's bleeding no assistance no nothing. Well within this Venice area
A 94-year-old elder, Mrs. Lodge, was knocked down by a dog off leash, and it's prevalent.
It's just people think that they're above the law.
And the elder was knocked down and broke her hip.
And she survived her surgery, but she has a big knot on her head, and I haven't heard
a medical update.
So we have the perfect brew of racist, classist people intending on throwing out their taxes
is that they pay and everybody pays taxes.
And it's become such an environmental justice access issue
that there is a dog park about four and a half,
five blocks if you count them west
from the very park that I'm speaking of.
Help us become a people only park.
We're gonna put through the press release about Mrs. Lodge.
And I'm really, really asking
since we are in the dual jurisdiction
and Oakwood Park is in that range,
we really need some justice.
seven to 11 families gave up their homes back in the day
to provide eminent domain.
It was a gentleman in eminent domain,
the first I've ever heard of,
to provide the community with that park.
And that park is the only green space east of the beach.
And that was, ladies and gentlemen,
the time when post-emancipation proclamation
that Jim Crow laws set and our black relatives
could not cross between one street and the other.
And I'm asking you,
I'm gonna be sending you the press release
and sending you the updates for Mrs. Lodge.
We need some prayers for this elder, thank you.
Thank you, Nancy Barron, Gary Walsh, Michael Brandon.
Nancy Barron.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Oh, thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Nancy Barron.
I'm a resident of the Carpentaria Valley,
a biologist, senior fellow at NCs,
and I do eBird counts for UCSB's
carpentry assault marsh reserve.
I'm here to express my opposition
to the proposed development of 501 Sandpoint Road
in Carpentaria, and I wanna inform you
of a significant new biological finding.
Next slide.
Recently, the carpentry assault marsh ecosystem
welcomed a new resident, a burrowing owl,
that's on this very spot of the proposed development.
The burrowing owl is a shy bird only six to eight inches tall,
but its presence here is huge.
While burrowing owls are rarely observed
due to habitat loss, it's native to the area
and is known to overwinter here.
It is listed as a bird of conservation concern
at the federal level and is a candidate to be included
in the state endangered species list.
This owl was first observed on December the 5th
and has been seen daily since.
In fact, this is the only burrowing owl observed
in Santa Barbara County this year.
Next slide, please.
Brewing aisles have previously been documented
in the carpentry assault marsh,
including at this exact location.
In fact, this vacant lot provides proven, preferred
foraging habitat within Dune and coastal Matt, Esha.
Development would significantly impact this rare species.
In addition, USGS scientists show that this location
a hot spot for coastal birds with the greatest abundance and diversity in the entire salt marsh
reserve. As you know this is one of the last slivers of coastal wetlands left. Please reconsider
this project and require a full environmental impact report. Given the rarity of this habitat
and the absence of comparable sites in southern California, this project warrants the highest
level of scrutiny to protect our vanishing birds. Thank you. Thank you, Gary Walsh, Michael Brandon,
then Patricia Kuhlman and Herman Kuhlman and Kent Allen. Gary Walsh. Hello, I'm Gary Walsh from Save
Our Beaches SC and I'm here today to speak to you about OCTA's Orange County Transit Authority
approval request for an emergency permit what they call area four down in San Clemente.
We've spoken before about this but first I'm going to tell you a little story a mechanical
story and then I'm going to tie it in with that. I had my headlights on my older car I have were
not generating enough light I could barely see out of them so I took it to mechanic the mechanic
said hey we need to replace your alternator we'll put in new spark plugs and we'll replace those
headlights. But then in between, I thought, well, that's a lot. It's over $1,200. I went to call a
friend and he said, hey, try this guy. Guy came out, polished out the headlights. They worked fine
for $75. Now, why do you think that mechanic would have done all that? It had wanted to charge me
$1,200 for all that work because by polishing him out, he wasn't going to make any money. That's
That's not what he does.
Well, this is what OCTA has done
with their proposal to put in a seawall.
They hired an engineering firm
to come up with solutions to protect their tracks.
So naturally their solutions require a lot of engineering,
a lot of things that are get,
keep them well involved in this and lots of money.
What they've never done is come put out a proposition
for somebody to come in and just put sand down
in front of this area.
And so the difference is that they could put sand down.
Make them put in a request for this emergency permit
with only sand.
Keep those engineering firms out of this
so that they are not involved
because they just want to build stuff.
They can put sand down just as easy.
Force OCTA to put a sand only permit request in.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Michael Brandon.
We keep trying, but he keeps declining.
Let's try this again.
Oh, here he is.
Okay, surprise, surprise.
Okay, Michael, Brandon,
if you can go ahead and unmute yourself.
And then after that, Patricia Kuman,
Herman Kuman, and Kent Allen,
and then we should be done.
Good morning, excellent Chair Harmon,
commissioners and staff.
My name is Michael Brandon,
and I'm here to speak about
mooring permits in Newport Beach.
My fellow boaters and I are simple people trying to do what we love, but we're in the
middle of a mess that Newport Beach created.
My understanding is that government should not be punitive towards its citizens.
The role of government is to provide opportunity.
The State Lands investigation clearly discovered that the pressure that Newport Beach is applying
only to mooring permittees is political in nature and obviously inequitable with respect
to other users in the tightlands.
My fellow boaters have shown you many examples of this today.
This California Coastal Commission is our last fail-safe to protect the right to access
the water with sailboats and powerboats, not only for us, but for all Californians now
and into the future.
You know more than anybody else that rates directly determine access.
So please inform the city of Newport Beach that they need a CDP if they want to increase
are mooring rents and change coastal access. They need a CDP if they want to confiscate
all permits and change them to licenses. They need a CDP if they want to replace our mooring
weights with helical coils. They need a CDP if they want to condense us into unsafe mooring
densities. Please, please, please tell the city of Newport Beach, send them an official
letter that they need a CDP to do these things. Thank you so much for your time
and thank you for hearing all of us today. Next is Patricia Kuman and Herman
Kuman. Can you please accept? And this is why we say in the general public comment
procedures that we ask for you guys to accept ahead of time so we don't have to
wait. Okay we'll go with Ken Allen. Ken Allen go ahead and unmute yourself. I
I believe I did can you hear me yes okay good morning commissioners my name is
Kent Allen I'm a proud 40-year resident of Hermosa Beach where I served 12 years
on the Planning Commission I'm speaking this morning to apologize to all of you
on behalf of our little Beach City I know you take your work very seriously
just as you should so you can imagine our embarrassment at seeing our
representative from our city attended December's meeting dressed as Santa's
little helper. Mr. Jackson is a constant struggle. It's a struggle for public attention, and
we are sorry that his narcissism has become your problem, too. You will learn in time
that he also struggles with conflict and disagreement. If you disagree with him all too often, you
will be called a racist, a misogynist, or probably both. In recent weeks, our city
council at our city council chambers. He called one of our council members a racist prick
and then referred to that person in the city manager as butt buddies. Yes, that's right. Butt
buddies. That's what he said. This made a number. He's also made a number of references about another
council member's genitals and the size of his genitals. So our problem is now your problem that
that you share with us.
We suggest you humor him, post with selfies with him,
as that seems to calm his temper.
If you could find a few more subcommittees
for him to serve on, we'd appreciate it.
Anything that takes him to Half Moon Bay, San Diego,
is more often good for us in Hermosa Beach.
He loves a committee title.
Make him president or chairman of something trivial.
That should calm him down for a few weeks.
Just don't ask him what he keeps
in this unpermitted ADU garage
or what he keeps under his hat.
He'll get really mad at you
and you will be labeled a mega racist before lunchtime.
Thank you again from Hermosa Beach.
Have a good meeting.
Okay.
Patricia Kuman, Herman Kuman, John Dow, Scott Thomas.
We see a couple of people that weren't online or back.
So we're gonna try again with John Dow.
You can unmute yourself.
John Dow.
Hello, can you hear me?
okay yes okay good morning commissioners i'm john down with save our beaches this slide is south
San Clemente years of emergency rip rap dumped by morning county transit authority has produced
total beach loss and the elimination of the public trail between two state parks next slide
and the same outcome exists in north San Clemente next slide from north beach to cottons 80 of this
three-mile coastline is already armored or planned to be armored by OCTA. The next target
in OCTA's crosshairs is San Clemente State Beach, one of the most popular state parks
in the state. Next slide. OCTA is proposing a seawall extending up to 60 feet seaward into
the tidal zone for nearly the entire length of State Beach. Seawalls are even more erosive
been rip-wrapped and once built the beach will not come back. Next slide. This slide shows the
footprint, though it's not evident there, of the seawall if approved it would result in permanent
irreversible loss of state public beach trust. Next slide. Here it is. Next slide. And here's
the irony. What protects the beach also protects the rail line. Recent shutdowns were caused by
by bluff saturation and internal collapse, not waves.
Hard armoring does nothing to stop subsurface water.
OCTA's own filings show that past rock projects
failed to prevent track movement
and required repeated additions.
Hard structures don't solve the problem.
They make it worse.
Next slide.
There is a better path.
For over a century,
Wide Sandy Beach naturally protected this rail line.
The San Fur strategy supports
the City Army Corps 50 year project,
sand dags regional program,
and other ongoing sediment management efforts,
all of which hard armoring would undermine.
And with over 300 million already secured,
OCTA has the resources to restore the beach
and meet its near-term rail stability needs.
I'm asking the Coastal Commission to deny any hard structure
for Area 4 and require OCTA to pursue a sand first solution
to protect both the rail line and the public beach.
Thank you.
Thank you, next is Scott Thomas and Patricia Kumman
or Herman Kumman would like to accept.
That'd be great.
Scott Thomas.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Scott Thomas.
I'm the Vice President of Seeing Stage Audubon Society.
We've been working to protect the resources
at Dana Point Headlands for over 30 years.
To keep time short, I'll reiterate what Dan Silver
and Terry Wolf said about the Pacific pocket mouse,
except to really reemphasize that
That is one of the most critically endangered species
on the coast, if not the most endangered,
with populations in the low hundreds
only existing in three places, about 15 miles apart.
And two of those locations are on Camp Pendleton,
military-based, where they face
their own threats consistently.
We worked hard to get protections for access
on reserve at Dana Point Headlands.
They really are, what's in the LCP is the minimal,
that's needed to potentially protect that mouse.
We really hope that you'll get this on the agenda
next month in March.
As people pointed out previously,
the Coastal Commission sent a request to the city in 2023
asking for clarification and a resolution.
As far as we know, there's been no answer
and the city continues to not comply with the LCP.
In addition, I just want to point out that that property also holds another endangered
species, California Natcatcher, a very remote population, small population, that benefits
from the same protections that should be occurring in the LCP.
So again, thank you, and we hope to see you in March on the agenda.
And one last note, thank you very much for 50 years of protecting the coast.
Audubon appreciates it very much.
Thank you.
Thank you, Latsus Pat Coleman, can I mute yourself?
see you just can't hear you. I mean, okay. I'm sorry I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes.
I'm so sorry I was having some technical issues on my side. My name is Patricia Kumins. I'm a
retired boat captain living on my boat in the mooring in Newport Harbor. The moorings have worked
for all of us for 100 years. We either rented or you had to purchase. The rule was if you wanted
to live on your boat you had to own it. The city guided me through the process. They took their
transfer fees, they charged the extra live aboard fee, I agreed to the rules and the yearly
expectations. Now they want to take it and make me a renter at a very high fee. 500% plus increase
I pay now. And they also said there it looks like there'll be never-ending
increases because they're going to tie it to the cost of some fancy new marina here. One of the
the rules they have is if you're a renter you can't live on your boat, they
keep changing the rules and it has us all in fear having our homes taken away
from us as there's about 50 or so live-a-boards we are mostly over 60s
some vets some grandparents with family in the area this will also stop younger
people from ever being able to get into the boating world the harbor's supposed
to be an affordable place and this will keep the middle class all out of boating
And it just seems to be so unfair.
We did everything we were supposed to.
And now to have us reapply as a renter on a monthly,
it just doesn't seem fair.
That's all I had to say.
My husband's here if you want to start with Herman Clunhams.
He was next.
Yes, we can do that.
If you want to finish your two minutes, or we can move to him
And he can have his two minutes.
Yeah, I can move to him, so.
Okay, so we'll start the time back at two minutes again
for him now for Hermon-Kuhman.
The floor is yours, Mr. Kuhman.
Thank you, good morning.
My name's Hermon-Kuhman's, a boater most of my life,
even having sailed to Australia.
We are now a retired blue collar workers
living in the harbor.
We budgeted with reasonable
and I highlight reasonable cost increases
when we bought our boat.
We live on a 47 beautiful power boat,
very comfortable for living aboard.
It's our choice to do this,
but these increases are extremely disruptive to our budget.
When it was first announced,
I wondered as I sat here drinking coffee,
what the homeowners along the shore pay.
And when I found out I was shocked,
it's nearly 10 to one in their favor over us.
Implementing the mooring license to conversion,
further highlights stark disparities between Tideland users with mooring licenses being
charged astromically higher fees and being subject to far more restrictive terms than the
city's favored groups including over 1,000 residential peer permit holders about 152
exclusive members only yacht club moorings as well as multiple affluent homeowner associating
moorings. We're all the working class on the moorings, pretty much, but when teachers, and I
have the highest respect for teachers, can't buy an older boat and have a place affordable to park
it, that's a big problem, I think, in society. We're the bleacher seats of Chicago's stadium,
or maybe even the sit on the hill outside the stadium to watch the ball game. Why we should
pay more than the box seats is beyond reason thank you for your time thank you and that
concludes our speakers david hahn we didn't see so we're done okay thank you very much i i really
appreciate it and i i do feel compelled to make a just a quick statement here uh the vast vast
majority of public commenters we have at this body are incredibly informative. They bring
important information to us, and we're so grateful for their testimony. But personal
attacks, communication that is not rooted in the Coastal Act within our purview, has
no place here. And those kinds of comments won't be tolerated moving forward. I want
to apologize to the public and to my colleagues for not catching that earlier
and just urge us to continue to move forward in the spirit of respect and
love for our coast that we have always worked in and it's one of the incredible
hallmarks of being part of the Coastal Commission and seeing the real
partnership that we have with the public and one another so I encourage us to
continue to move forward in that spirit. With that said, I will turn to my
colleagues to see if there are any comments or questions. Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I want to speak to the question of the cameras that were being installed in
the San Diego area. I'd love to learn more about that and see if there's any
jurisdiction that we have. Have we already looked at that or is that
something we can get additional information on? Thanks for the question
Commissioner Lopez. We have been researching this issue as soon as we
became aware of it and appreciate the public members of the public have
pointed it out to us. We are still looking into it. It does appear from our
initial research that the lease that was provided by the city's outside of the
coastal zone. So that's worse but we're still we are still researching and don't
yet have a conclusion as to whether there's anything that we can weigh in on.
Thank you and then the on the moorings I know we hear it often just curious if
we have any status update on that I know we frequently hear about a mass for
updates I would love one now if there is one. Thank you Commissioner Lopez. So you
know what what we're in here is is a bit of a process. The the issues that have
been raised pretty much every month in front of this Commission having to do
with the moorings you know when those were raised with the the city and the
State Lands Commission embarked on a review of the city's processes and that took some
time.
It just concluded the end of last year and State Lands adopted basically a report with
some concerns and recommendations that they've delivered to the city.
So at this point, what's going on is that the city and State Lands, they're working
through the issues that were raised in the recommendations
and of course we're also remaining engaged
with both the city and state lands on these issues
but that's gonna take some time
and we don't have an actual formal proposal in front of us.
So that's what we're sort of working towards at this point.
Much appreciated, thank you.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you Chair.
Just briefly, I was maybe wondering
if we can get a little bit of update
on the Dana Point Pacific Pocket Mouse
and the letter we sent and some of the issues
that were raised, please, thanks.
Thank you, Commissioner O'Malley.
I just wanted to reassure you that we are very concerned
about the species at this site,
and we've been working to try to figure out options.
And we're also aware of the timing,
that there's a critical timing component.
And we are hopeful that we can work something out.
have a meeting set up with that we're talking to the city again next week and
we realize that there's a balance between protecting the resources and
public access here but we believe that we need to be consistent with the LCP
which has specific provisions to protect the resources and habitat here and these
animals are very rare and only found here only found in three spots and it is
it's a great concern to us. Thank you Ms. Gage. Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks. I want to also reiterate the question around the potential nexus
between the surveillance systems and the Coastal Act. I mean I know you guys are
talking about it like or it was brought up as by a specific incident but I think
there's a bigger question there and so and this was in regards to San Clemente
I think but in Humboldt County when I was supervisor our Sheriff's Department has
installed the flock system in several locations. I think there might even be in
the coastal zone but it's you know that's a automatic license plate reader
system and we're even currently dealing with a situation on scenic drive which
is of course by Trinidad where a private residence that resident has installed a
flock camera and we're dealing with it because it's it appears to be on on
county property so there's an issue around that and so there's some concern
and from neighbors, just in the people who live there,
but then also people who are visiting.
So I wanna also associate that with,
or with their recent announcement,
that Ring cameras are now associated with,
they have come to an agreement with flock cameras,
and there's concerns around data sharing arrangements,
including potential connections with ICE and other agencies.
And so I just wanna, what I'm getting at is like,
I don't know where we jump in or jump off
in relation to the Coastal Act and what we're seeing.
So I just wanna recognize that there's a debate
between the potential public safety benefits
and the significant concerns
about an expansion of a surveillance state.
Again, in conjunction with or in association
with access to the coast and how we perceive that,
it's not clear to me.
I don't know what the answer is to that,
but I'm hoping that staff will have some internal discussions
about that because we're gonna,
what I'm getting at is we're just gonna see more of this.
So, anyway, I just appreciate you guys starting that,
down that road, thanks.
Thanks, Commissioner Wilson.
And just to note, this is actually, it's not a new issue.
It is something that the commission has grappled with
in the past.
It's looking different, as you pointed out.
It's evolving.
So as we are having internal conversations
and we'll continue to do so and understand
what under the Coastal Act is our purview in various cases.
So thank you for the comments.
Okay, thank you very much.
With that, we will move on.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
So that does take us to item 5A,
the administrative calendar for all districts
and units on the agenda today.
There's one project from Newport Beach.
Conditions are acceptable. The applicants were not aware of any opposition on that item and on this we're looking for
Whether four or more commissioners object to the issuance of the permit. Thank you any ex partes
Any public comment?
Thank you. Do four more commissioners object to the issuance of the permit?
Seeing no objections
So approved on to the consent calendar, please
Thank you. So item 6 is the consent calendar for all units and districts on the agenda. Both items are from Orange County
We aren't aware of any we weren't aware of any controversy on these items leading up to the hearing today
I understand there is somebody signed up in opposition to one of the items, but
It's our understanding the issues aren't Coastal Act Center, but so we are continuing to recommend both items
Be approved on the consent calendar today great. Thank you. Are there any expertise?
Okay, seeing none public comment, please
Yes, we have a total of five. We have three available for questions. We have Tom coolin who is on
Zoom
I'm sorry. We're gonna do the mayor first. Excuse me mayor city of Oceanside Esther Sanchez who should be here
Good morning, Madam chair. That's better
and honorable commissioners and
and staff. I'm here to answer questions. I understand that we have one item 16A on consent.
So if you have no objections, we are very supportive of staff's recommendation. And
we do have our city manager here as well as our director for development services. Thank
you. Thank you. And then we have on Zoom Tom Cullen. Good morning, commissioners. My name
name is Tom Cullen. I am a neighbor on the Davis project. I respectfully request that
this item be moved to the, removed from the consent calendar for the following reasons.
The project before you today that you're being asked to approve is not the same as the project
the city of San Clemente approved in concept. As you can see on this slide on the right
hand side upper right it's the approved in concept slide. The decks on the back of this
home have changed substantially since the applicant received approval from the city.
I'm not sure whether the Coastal Commission is aware of a concept approved is not what
is shown here today. Let me show you a few slides as an example. On the first slide,
you can see that the city of San Clemente approved in concept. The lower elements are
essentially Juliet balconies. They do not substantially protrude from the structure
and function more like guardrails at doors than true usable decks. The second slide,
which we're seeing now, also shows that the city approved in concept. You can clearly see the
upper deck is much smaller and does not go the full length of the home. The bottom balconies
are clearly Juliet styles, sitting right at the facade and not projecting out as usable deck space.
Slides three and four, now on slide three, you can see that it was in front of the Coastal
commissioned today, those Juliet balconies from the city's concept approval have been transformed
in almost 10 foot deep cantilever decks. The upper deck also extends much further along the rear
facade, running nearly the full length of the home instead of stopping like the city approved.
This is very different building envelope and deck program than what is represented to the city and
the end of the neighbors approved in concept.
Also, if you go to slide five,
finally the applicant's string line analysis,
next slide please,
uses an adjoining deck as the end point
to claim neighborhood consistency.
The deck is unpermitted and non-conforming.
Under the commission's own enforcement policy,
unpermitted development should be removed
or brought into compliance,
not used as a precedent to justify expanding new decks.
using the illegal debt to establish
criminalizing the federal rewards code violations.
That completes our public comments.
Great, thank you much.
Thank you very much.
I'll return to staff if you have any comments.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As far as the proposal that is in front of us
and that has been evaluated in the staff report,
there are certain requirements in terms of setbacks
from the canyon and the project fully conforms
with those setback requirements
in terms of the living space and the decks.
So that's generally our main concern with projects
in San Clemente along the canyons
and they are in conformance with those requirements.
Okay, thank you very much.
So I will return to the commission for comments,
questions or a motion.
Just as does the city have any response
to the difference between the setbacks and the balconies?
Because that seems to me that that is a material difference,
the juliet balcony versus these big decks.
Some of these issues will, I mean,
once the commission approves the CDP,
this project will have to go back to the city for whatever
approvals that they continue to require,
building permits and whatnot.
And if there are issues under the city code
that need to be addressed, they would be addressed at that time.
OK, I'll entertain a motion.
I'll move consent.
Thank you.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson,
a second by Vice Chair Hart.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the consent calendar is adopted.
We'll move on to item seven, please.
Thank you.
So this is four items moved from regular calendar
to consent calendar, again, for all districts and units
the agenda today we've got five items starting with item 13a application 5
24 8 9 9 9 9 the stable a application in San Clemente item 16a the city of ocean
sides downtown density LCP amendment item 16 see the city of Carlsbad's a
zoning code cleanup for 2024, item 16F the City of San Diego's 2024 land
development code update and item 16G the City of Carlsbad's LCP update time
extension just the time extension not the full item. We're not aware of any
opposition on these items and we're recommending these matters get moved to
consent and approve for the staff recommendations. Great, thank you. Any
ex partes? Any public comments? Yes, we have Jonathan Barrego, he should be here
for item 16a and then we were looking for Eric Joyce but we don't see them on
zoom right now and then the rest are available for questions. Greetings
Jonathan Barrego, city manager for the city of Oceanside. My understanding is
since this has been moved to consent I'd really don't have any offer I don't
have any comments to offer at this time but certainly available to answer any
questions so thank you very much thank you sir so that'll conclude it because
we don't see Eric Joyce who's supposed to be on zoom okay great thank you then I
will return to the Commission for comments questions or a motion I'll move
that we approve items move to consent motion by Commissioner Wilson a second
by Vice Chair Hart. Any objections to unanimous approval? Seeing none, so adopted. Thank you.
And I'm going to suggest we move through item 8 before we take a brief break. If that works
for you, Mr. Toyfel.
Sounds great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. That brings us to item 8 and the Deputy Director
Report for the Energy, Ocean Resources and Federal Consistency Division. We have two
negative determinations to report and an immaterial amendment for your
consideration. That is a request by the California American Water Company to
amend its permit to allow an existing test well to remain in place and in use
for another year. This is an item that is historically
generated broad interest so I'd like to invite our senior environmental
scientist Deanna Christensen to provide some brief background and a general
update on the associated desalination project. Ms. Christians. Good morning commissioners.
We did receive correspondence that was posted earlier this week regarding the cemetery amendment.
The letter from the Ag land trust asserts that the commission should deny the extension
request for the test well in order to removal. They cite evidence presented in a pending
lawsuit regarding Callum's alleged lack of groundwater rights. However, we'd just like
to note that this lawsuit is currently pending and is not yet resolved, so it would be premature
to draw a conclusion as to the litigation outcome, which is expected sometime later this year.
We also receive correspondence that raise issue with Callum's larger desalination project.
However, they do not allege any coastal resource impacts associated with maintaining the test
well for an additional year. We would note that the amendment involves no changes to the previously
approved development and would cause no additional effects on coastal resources or public access.
The test well would only operate a few hours per month for equipment maintenance purposes
and during this additional year. So it's expected that the issues related to the pending litigation
regarding groundwater extraction as well as
CPUC, Water Board and other required agency authorizations
for this larger project will be likely resolved within the next year.
I'd also like to provide you with a brief update as to the status of the
larger project approved by the Commission in November of 2022.
Staff did provide a thorough project status informational briefing
last February that largely remains relevant, so I'll really focus mainly on the main progress that's
been made since then, specifically on several special conditions that must be met before the
permit can be issued. Given the complexity of the project, the commission allowed CalAM up to five
years instead of the standard two years to meet the prior additions conditions. First, special
condition 1 requires several other agency permits and approvals be obtained and CalHAM has been
making progress. A lease of state lands from the state lands commission for the slant wells
is in progress and a hearing on the lease application is expected this spring. A permit
from the regional water board to allow the project's discharge of brine through an existing
outfall is currently under review by board staff and a hearing on that is expected this summer or
fall. Approval from Monterey One Water who owns the ocean outfall, Callum would use and an amendment
to their outfall coastal development permit to make it suitable for Callum's discharge is needed.
Callum and Monterey One Water have been working on a permit amendment application
and they expect to submit that to us in March. And last August the Public Utilities Commission
issued a decision on water supply and demand estimates for the project and found that there
is projected demand for additional water for the desal project that would be provided by the
desal project, and other parties in that proceeding have requested a rehearing of that decision.
However, the CPUC has not yet acted on that rehearing request. Special condition one also
requires resolution of the groundwater-related issue that is a subject of the pending lawsuit
I previously mentioned. In this lawsuit, the court is being asked to decide whether Callum
has the legal right to extract groundwater from beneath the site of its intake wells.
And as part of this, the court referred several technical and legal questions
to the state water board and that office completed its report for the trial court in June of last
year and the court will now independently decide the case likely sometime later this year.
The CVP also includes special conditions related to the mitigation CalM will need to provide to
address the expected habitat impacts from the project. One of these special condition 10
requires a habitat mitigation and monitoring plan, and Cal M has been working with commission staff,
local agencies, and landowners to select appropriate sites for the required mitigation
activities and to develop a draft plan for our review. Two additional special conditions related
to monitoring, one of groundwater conditions and another of nearby wetlands and rural ponds.
CalAM has submitted initial versions of both monitoring plans last year, and the independent
review of them required by the Commission is ongoing. Two further important conditions,
numbers 16 and 17, relate to environmental justice issues. Water from the project is expected to be
more expensive than water from other sources, so special condition 16 requires CalAM to prepare
and implement a program meant to offset the cost to low-income rate payers. That work is in
progress by Callum. Special Condition 17 requires implementation of a community engagement plan
to provide opportunities for residents of Marina, particularly members of the Environmental Justice
communities, to help identify needed public access amenities in the city that Callum would fund.
This engagement plan is meant to lead to Callum's development of a public access and amenities plan for the city
to implement public access improvements with Callum funding.
Callum completed the community engagement effort last year and the city of Marina also completed its own community engagement process.
Callum is coordinating with commission staff on developing a draft public access and amenities plan that is based on the results of both their own and the city's
Engagement efforts with the community
Commission staff will continue our coordination with calam as well as the city on this effort
so in closing
Progress continues to be made by calam towards satisfaction of the pride ocean special conditions of the permit
And yeah, i'm available to answer questions or provide more detail as well. So, thank you
Thank you diana, I believe we also have
representative from the applicant sign but to speak on this item and following
that I would ask whether three or more commissioners object to the immaterial
amendment in the deputy director report. Great thank you. Yes, DJ Moore in person.
Mr. Moore. Good morning Chair Harmon and commissioners. Before I get started I'd
just like to request an additional couple of minutes. I just wanted to
supplement staff's update to you on the larger D-cell project just given how
significant a matter this has been before the Commission over the years.
Five minutes would be great. Thank you so much. DJ Moore, Paul Hastings, outside
counsel to California American Water. We appreciate and agree with staff's
recommendation that the test well CDP amendment be approved as an immaterial
amendment. As staff mentioned, Calam and its team also are actively engaged on a
daily basis to clear the complex conditions included in the project's
separate CDPs in order to move the diesel project forward and bring a much needed water
supply to the Monterey Peninsula.
There is a lot underway, as you heard, before several state and federal agencies, and we've
been working very, very closely with your staff on condition compliance, and expect
to be back before you later this year on other aspects of the project that require commission
input per the already approved CDPs.
slide please. There we go. As you heard from staff, the commission originally approved
the test well CDPs in 2014, so that CalAM could obtain data to inform the feasibility
of subsurface slant wells as an intake well network at the Semex Sand Mining Facility
in Marina, the 4AD cell facility. CalAM operated the test wells until February 2018, and the
data the test well provided confirmed that locating slant wells here for a
desalination facility would not cause adverse impacts to groundwater. Since
then CalM has performed intermittent maintenance pumping of the test well for
four hours per month in order to keep the screens functioning. This limited
maintenance does not adversely affect coastal resources and nothing about
CalM's request has changed from prior commissioner approvals to extend this
test 12 CDP while we're clearing conditions on the larger desalination project.
Next slide, please.
Briefly, I would like to update the Commission on two litigation matters related to the desalination
project.
The first is actually the lawsuit that challenged the Commission's approval of the CDPs from
2022.
The trial court issued its decision in May upholding the Commission's CDPs in full.
The appeal in that case is pending with briefing anticipated
to begin this spring.
The second lawsuit Ms. Christensen mentioned
challenges CalM's water rights for the project
and its potential impacts to groundwater.
In June of 2025, the State Water Board's
Administrative Hearing Officer issued a report concluding
that the Slantwell Network would not infringe
upon the City of Marina
or Marina Coast Water District's water rights
or impact the water district's ability
to extract groundwater.
Trial, in that matter, began in November
and is expected to conclude in early 2026.
Next slide, please.
As Ms. Christensen mentioned, Special Condition 1
contains some of the most time-consuming requirements
in the CDPs.
I'm just going to run through those processes quickly.
First, as Ms. Christensen mentioned,
the CPUC issued its decision in a phase two water supply
and demand proceeding.
Last year, the CPUC confirmed the need
for additional water supplies to serve CalAMS district.
The CPUC's estimate demonstrate there will be a deficit
of over 2,500 acre feet per year by 2050.
That is approximately three times greater actually
than the deficit the commission identified
when the CDPs were approved in 2022
and further confirms this project is needed.
CalAMS has also been working closely
with State Lands Commission staff
bring its lease application for the Slantwell Network to hearing, which is now anticipated
in April of 26. CalAM is also anticipating its hearing before the regional board later
this year for the project's NPDES permit. CalAM's marine scientists have been collecting
data for over a year and are preparing a marine life mortality study that is required by the
California Ocean Plan. Finally, CalAM has been working with M1W to prepare a CDP application
to the Commission for Modifications to the Ocean Outfall associated with CalAM's project
and we hope to submit that to you in the coming weeks. Next slide please. Staff mentioned
that over the last year CalAM has continued to perform exhaustive analysis. For ESHA mitigation
we've looked at over 40 sites and are working very closely with your staff. Next slide.
CalAM did submit both a groundwater monitoring program to staff in September of last year
and a Vernal Ponds monitoring plan in 2024.
We understand that Commissioned Staff's independent consultants are reviewing both of those plans
which are necessary to implement the project.
Next slide, please.
As to rate payer relief, CalM has been implementing multiple strategies as part of its general
rate case with the CPUC and has been documenting those with Commissioned Staff for public access
and amenities.
The executive director approved the community engagement plan about a year ago.
And CalAMS Independent Facilitator and the City of Marina conducted workshops last year.
Based on the results of both of those workshops, we have prepared a public access and amend
this plan that commission staff is reviewing.
We appreciate your time.
It's a very complex project.
As you can see, there are a lot of balls in the air.
We look forward to being back in front of this body later this year.
And of course if you have any questions, we're here to answer them.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
Okay.
Return to our staff, any further comments?
No further comments.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Any ex partes?
I don't remember if I asked or not.
Okay.
Seeing none, any public comments?
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
I'll return to the Commission.
Comments or questions?
Okay.
Okay, I do three or more commissioners object to any items in the Deputy Director's report.
Okay, seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Okay, I'm going to suggest we take a break now.
If everyone could please be back promptly at 11.
That's exactly when we're going to get started.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you, everyone.
Good job being back on time.
All right, so now we're going to go on to the next item.
Forgot which number it is. Thank you
Thank you chair Harmon that brings us top item 9 and I'd like to invite Holly wire
The lead of the Commission's offshore wind planning team and supervisor of our energy ocean resources and federal consistency division
to start the informational briefing
Good morning chair Harmon and commissioners
We're here today to provide a briefing on Commission staff's work related to offshore wind energy development
Specifically development of the statewide strategy for coexistence of California fishing communities and offshore wind energy
Offshore wind has the potential to be developed off the coast of California.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has issued five leases off our coast.
The Coastal Commission has a central role in reviewing offshore wind energy projects.
Through our Federal Consistency Authority, we review lease sales, site assessment activities,
consistency certifications for construction and operations plans, and federal waters.
Through our Coastal Act Authority, we review development in state waters that would be associated with or related to these projects,
such as seafloor power cables, cable landings, port development, and landslide transmission.
While we're seeing some slowing due to policy changes at the federal level,
we're continuing our work to prepare for offshore wind development.
These potential projects have long lead times and the more we can prepare for our review of future projects,
the better we can ensure coastal resources are protected.
Our work includes planning for environmental protection, fisheries resilience,
best practices for monitoring, and learning from the experience of other states and countries.
It also includes planning for potential future Port or Harbor development projects, specifically
in Humboldt Bay and Long Beach.
With that in mind, I'd like to invite the Commission's Environmental Justice Manager,
Javier Padilla, to provide some brief comments.
Thank you, Holly.
As you have heard, offshore wind represents a major opportunity for renewable energy and
economic growth.
It also raises questions about potential environmental justice impacts.
the Commission's review of the federal lease sales in 2022, Commission staff continues
to evaluate and consider those potential effects. These efforts include meeting and listening
to those communities that may be affected so that their concerns can be centered from
the very beginning.
I'd like to share some of the common themes we've heard. One is that the majority of
potential environmental justice impacts from offshore wind will occur through port development.
adjacent populations are often environmental justice communities as they are disproportionately
burdened by pollution and health risks and are often low income populations of color
and more vulnerable.
Understandably, these communities are concerned that poor activity could worsen these conditions
and not include clear benefits to them.
We've heard concerns that an influx of workers could further strain on housing, put a further
their strain on housing and affordability,
and lead to rising cost of living and displacement.
We've also heard from tribes,
those voicing concerns such as murdered
and missing indigenous peoples crisis,
which can worsen with large temporary workforces
arriving to work on port infrastructure and manufacturing.
To proactively address these issues,
we've co-created monthly environmental justice meetings
with various EJ organizations,
and expanded them to include additional state agencies
and regional representatives.
These meetings provide space for open dialogue, updates,
and collaboration.
We see this communication as critical in anticipation
of future reviews of port and onshore infrastructure projects
associated with offshore wind.
We're taking advantage of this opportunity today
to share and bring attention to these concerns,
reaffirming our continued commitment
to meaningful engagement, and ensuring equity remains central
California moves forward with offshore wind. Thank you Javier. The remainder of
our briefing will focus on the statewide strategies development and contents. The
statewide strategy we are presenting today is the culmination of two years of
extensive collaborative work with the California offshore wind and fisheries
working group. As a reminder for the public this is an informational briefing
we are not asking for a decision on the strategy today. The Commission first
called for the development of this strategy and working group as one of the
conditions of its concurrence with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management lease sale in 2022.
This condition was later codified and refined by State Senate Bill 286, which was authored by
Senator McGuire. The Commission saw a need to create a cohesive approach to address fisheries
impacts before it begins to review individual wind energy projects. Consistent with State Senate
Bill 286, during the next two months the Commission staff will review the recently completed statewide
strategy for consistency with the Coastal Act, accept and evaluate public
comments on it, and bring forward a recommendation on this adoption for the
Commission's consideration. We intend that that recommendation that
recommendation to come before you at the April meeting in advance of the
legislative deadline for adoption of May 1st. I'd like to note that we are
accepting written comments on the strategy through February 23rd and we
will provide a response to comments as part of our materials for the April
In closing, I want to acknowledge that we would not have been able to reach this milestone
today without the contribution of many people and organizations.
I specifically would like to thank the Packard Foundation, the leaseholders, the California
Energy Commission, and the Ocean Protection Council for their support funding various
parts of this project.
I'd also like to thank the working group members for the hours and hours of time they committed
to developing the strategy, our agency partners for all of their advice and support, and the
many tribes that consulted with and engaged with us to develop the strategy
last year. Finally I'd like to thank the California Fisherman's Resiliency
Association for all of their work to support fishermen's participation and
make this process possible. In a moment I will turn it over to two of our
offshore wind team members to provide the staff presentation, Heather McNair
an environmental scientist in our energy division and Margaret Campbell a NOAA
coastal management fellow. Following the staff presentation we will have public
comment from the working group members who are here today and then comments
from others who wish to speak on this item. And with that I will turn it over
to Heather. Thank you. Good morning Chair Harmon and commissioners. It's an honor
to provide this informational briefing on the statewide strategy for the
coexistence of California fishing communities and offshore wind energy.
This is intended to be a living document guiding the development of offshore wind
in a manner that recognizes and protects the economic, commercial, and recreational
importance of fishing activities. Next slide. California has committed to
expansion of carbon-free energy generation, including through the
harnessing of offshore ocean winds. Development of these offshore wind
resources would occur in a shared ocean space and is expected to effect to
to affect other existing uses, including commercial and recreational fishing.
Five leases, totaling 582 square miles, have been issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management and the federal waters off of the California coast.
Two leases are off of Humboldt County and three leases are off of San Luis Obispo County.
To ensure the leasing of these areas was consistent with the Coastal Act's commercial and recreational
fishing policies, the Commission required the formation of a working group to develop
a strategy for addressing impacts to fishing.
This working group and the contents of the strategy were further defined and codified
in Senate Bill 286, passed in 2023 and sponsored by Senator McGuire.
The key goals were to develop a strategy to lay out process and guidance from early development
planning stages through construction, operation, and decommissioning.
The first steps and priority in the strategy is avoiding of adverse impacts where possible
and then minimization of those that cannot be avoided.
Following minimization, the strategy calls for mechanisms for fair and reasonable compensation
to offset impacts.
The strategy is required to prioritize fishery productivity, viability, and resilience.
These goals became the seed that was developed into the strategy by the Offshore Wind and
Fisheries Working Group.
Working group members were selected from nominations based on their connection to the community
and demonstrated experience collaborating in a group with differing interests.
The working group consisted of fisheries representatives with knowledge of the different fisheries
and gear types that overlap with the lease area, members of California Native American
tribes with fishing expertise, and representatives from the offshore wind developers that hold
the five existing leases.
The working group was supported by a professional facilitation team and staff from a number
of state and federal agencies.
The working group first met roughly two years ago and over the course of eight multi-day
working group meetings and at least 60 subgroup meetings with many of hours of work in between,
the working group developed, revised and refined the statewide strategy that is now public.
As a true sign of the collaboration, the end product has the fingerprints of all the members
and has evolved in response to extensive feedback and discussion from all parties.
Members brought their knowledge, experience, and expertise to this process.
Offshore wind developers brought their experience with fisheries mitigation for other projects.
Fishermen and commission staff brought their experience with coastal development and fisheries
mitigation in California.
Through knowledge exchange and discussion, we took the lessons learned and highlights
from all those previous experiences to create this strategy that found the narrow working
space for an actionable plan that was supported fully or with qualification by all working
group members.
Working group support followed only after careful deliberation on each of the chapters.
In particular, the idea of a direct industry-to-industry agreement received extensive discussion.
along with the socioeconomic methodology, the framework for compensatory mitigation, and template agreements.
Throughout our work, there is a consistent push and pull on the level of detail to include and how prescriptive to make the language of the strategy.
We strove for a middle ground. The strategy lays out a road map with guard rails and allows for the actionable details to be identified when specific project plans are known.
The public draft of this strategy reflects the resolution of all these deliberations.
The language has been extensively discussed and specifically chosen by the working group.
Next slide.
There are some key organizing principles that are helpful to keep in mind as we dive into
the contents of the strategy.
First, the document offers a statewide approach to provide consistency across wind projects,
but the strategy is implemented on the project-specific scale.
is a guidance document and not regulatory in nature. We expect it to be
consulted and heavily used as part of future development and review of these
projects. Inclusion of particular guidance in the strategy will depend on
the specifics of a future project and the strategy is tailored to address the
development of the offshore wind leases. For example, it does not cover the
development of harbor or port districts and it is a living document that can be
modified and updated as we gain knowledge and experience. If appropriate
this may include reconvening the working group. Next slide. The chapters of the
statewide strategy for the coexistence of fishing communities and offshore wind
build on each other, beginning first with the practice for avoiding and
minimizing impacts and building to compensatory mitigation. The contents of
the strategy reflect the scope provided in condition 7c of the Commission's
concurrence and Senate Bill 286. I will give a brief overview of each of these
chapters but would like to note while the first chapter is dedicated to
communication, communication became a central theme throughout for addressing
impacts and implementing the strategy. Next slide. Effective communication is
critical for long-term coexistence of offshore wind developers and fishing
communities. This chapter provides a set of best practices for adaptive, inclusive,
and responsive communication to avoid and minimize conflict.
It first provides principles of effective communication.
For example, that communication should prioritize
information related to safety, that it should occur early,
be transparent and responsive to feedback,
and foster mutual respect.
These principles are put into action through objectives.
For example, understanding the fisheries
in the project area, and building long-term relationships.
It provides a set of methods for communication,
and ends with an overview of the roles
that can help build relationships
and facilitate effective communication
between developers and fishing communities.
Next slide.
To aid in planning and collect environmental information,
a developer conducts a variety of site assessment activities
in their lease area, and along potential cable corridors
from the lease area to shore.
The best practices in chapter three
designed to avoid and minimize disruption to fishing during these site assessment activities.
The chapter further details what should be considered when learning about the nature
and operations of fisheries in the project area, including identifying gear types, fishing
seasons, and spatial use patterns.
The chapter provides a table of site assessment activities and corresponding best practices
that can be tailored by project and fishery.
For example, if static fishing gear is expected in the study area, pre-survey scouting should
be conducted.
The chapter ends with an overview of best practices for the claims processes run by
each developer for any lost or damaged fishing gear due to offshore wind development activities.
Chapter 4 suggests ways to integrate fisheries considerations into planning and permitting
for offshore wind projects.
The chapter presents a series of tables organized by project phase, site assessment and design,
construction, operations, and decommissioning.
Additional tables for measures that could be effective if implemented by other entities
are included at the end.
Each table lists potential impacts, the fisheries that may be affected, and the measures that
could be used to avoid and minimize that impact.
These measures should be adapted and adopted based on the local fisheries and environmental
conditions of the specific project design.
Next slide, please.
The next chapter picks up with an assessment of the cost from impacts that remain after
avoidance minimization and mitigation measures are adopted.
Chapter 5 lays out a method and a process for assessing the project level socioeconomic
impacts to commercial and for hire recreational fisheries.
The methodology was developed by Northern Economics
with input from the Working Group.
It's designed to be flexible
and incorporate best available information
and stakeholder input.
At the broadest level,
the methodology includes three iterative components.
First, estimate the potential impacts to income.
Second, understand the dependence importance of the area
to different fisheries and communities,
which will provide estimates of community
and fleet vulnerability.
and third, explore the uncertainties,
refine the estimates of income and distribution impacts
using best available information.
Developers,
developers, state agencies, and fishing communities
each play a distinct role in ensuring
that the socioeconomic analysis
accurately captures potential impacts.
Developers lead the analysis
Developers lead the analysis, seek and incorporate feedback.
Agencies, including the Coastal Commission, review and evaluate the analysis and facilitate engagement.
Fishing communities contribute local knowledge, identify data gaps,
and review the assumptions going into the analysis.
Because of this crucial role for the fishing community, the working group felt
that there was a need to formalize and structure some of this engagement.
To help provide input both to the developer and to the commission,
the commission staff will convene a fisherman's task force.
It will include fishing community members
from potentially impacted fisheries and areas.
Ultimately, the output of the socioeconomic analysis will
guide discussions between the developer and the Coastal
Commission on fair and reasonable compensatory
mitigation to offset impacts.
Next slide, please.
Chapter 6 provides guidance on establishing fair and effective
programs for compensation to fishermen and fishing communities.
Once compensation is negotiated with advising feedback from the fisherman's task force,
the statewide strategy envisions implementation through two distinct mechanisms.
Direct compensation to offset losses experienced by fisheries businesses such as vessel owners,
operators, and seafood processors, and resiliency funds to offset broader community-level impacts.
Next slide, please.
Direct compensation would be administered through a claims-based program by a fund administrator.
The framework provides guidance on defining eligibility for direct compensation, selecting
a fund administrator, and establishing transparent reporting and appeals processes.
The programs are expected to be fair, efficient, and accessible with minimal administrative
burden for claimants.
Next slide, please.
For resiliency funds, the statewide strategy envisions the establishment of a resiliency
program for the state.
A resiliency administrative entity would manage the funds as its judiciary and perform administrative
duties.
The Regional Resiliency Committee, composed of local fishing community members, would
make decisions on the use of resiliency funds.
The program structure is flexible.
It would begin with one administrative entity and one resiliency committee with the potential
to add committee or administrators based on location of wind projects and fishing community
preference.
The chapter covers the program structure, selection and convening processes and duties
for the administrative entity and resilience committee.
The chapter also includes potential uses for resiliency funds.
To help implement the compensatory mitigation framework, the strategy provides outlines
for three agreements that would be executed as part of the commission's action on a given
wind project.
The framework for the resiliency funds emphasizes transparent fishing led decisions on the best
use of funds to promote resiliency in effective and equitable ways.
Chapter seven is dedicated to providing guidance on unique considerations for avoiding, minimizing
and mitigating impacts to tribal fisheries.
Tribal fisheries are represented throughout the statewide strategy and are highlighted
in this chapter.
For the statewide strategy, we borrowed a definition created by the state water boards
and tribes, which defined tribal fisheries as including commercial, recreational, and
substantive fishing activities conducted by tribes and tribal members.
With this definition in mind, this visualization shows how tribal fisheries are included throughout
the strategy.
Everything in this image depicts the statewide strategy as a whole.
The dark blue on the left is representative of all the chapters, whereas the light blue
right circle is just the tribal fisheries chapter.
As you can see, there is overlap.
There is overlap because the whole statewide strategy applies to tribal members that participate
in commercial and for hire recreational fisheries.
The area of non-overlap in the right light blue circle is for the Tribal Chapter.
This chapter focuses on the substance and non-commercial fisheries.
This chapter was developed by a subgroup of the working group consisting of tribal representatives
and leaseholder representatives including their tribal liaisons.
However, the group decided that it was important to get a broader perspective on potential
impact to tribal fisheries and effective avoidance and minimization measures.
To do this, we sent letters to all California Native American tribes in the state inviting
them to a series of roundtables and inviting consultation.
We held two in-person roundtables near the offshore wind lease areas and one virtually
as well as consultation meetings.
Next slide, please.
The tribal fisheries chapter begins with an introduction, which clarifies what is in the
chapter and defined tribal fisheries similar to how I just shared the definition and Venn
diagram, as well as some background information about tribes in California and tribal fisheries.
Next is the communication protocols, which describes how best for developers to communicate
with tribes. Following that is the potential impacts and avoidance and minimization measure
section, which is similar to the commercial and recreational fishing chapter broken into
tables by phase but is really focused on communication. Next is a socio-economic
impact methodology and this section begins with a brief introduction to the
methodology and then the actual methodology can be found as Appendix B.
It recognizes that data availability for tribal fisheries varies widely and takes
many forms. To address the wide range of data availability for tribal fisheries
the methodology is meant to be generalizable and flexible with deference
to tribes. Following the methodology is a template for an agreement addressing tribal
fishing interests. This section provides guidance on how to form an agreement to address tribal
fisheries. The template agreement is a basic outline and guidance document to serve as
a resource for tribes and developers if they wish to pursue an agreement. And lastly, there
is an annex of broader tribal concerns that came out of our consultation and outreach.
We heard many comments about offshore wind that didn't necessarily apply to the statewide
strategy but thought it was important to document these comments to be used by the Commission
during review of future projects.
Next slide, please.
We've only had time to share the core components of the statewide strategy today.
The detailed text of the document reflects the dedication, thoughtfulness, and hard work
of the last two years.
The statewide strategy will be put into use on a project-by-project basis.
Developers will use the statewide strategy when developing construction and operations
plans and Coastal Commission staff will refer to the statewide strategy during
federal consistency and permitting review. We expect that we'll learn more
over time as knowledge and technology evolves. This document is intended to be
responsive to that evolution and should be updated as necessary to remain useful.
Next slide please. Today's informational briefing is intended to provide
information to the Commission and the public early in the public comment
period. Following this meeting, commission staff are hosting a series of virtual information
meetings. Next week, on February 9th, there will be a tribal roundtable for tribes and
tribal members. Additionally, there will be two fish and community meetings on February
18th and February 20th. These two meetings will cover the same information. There are
QR codes on the slide here that interested parties can scan for each of the meetings
to register. You may have to zoom in on the specific meaning you are interested in. Sign-ups
for each of these meetings are also on the Coastal Commission's offshore wind webpage.
Once you register, you will receive a meeting invite in your inbox. Commission staff will
accept and review public comments on the statewide strategy up to February 23rd and consult with
tribes through March 3rd. We are interested in comments on the effectiveness of the statewide
strategy in recognizing and protecting the economic, commercial, and recreational importance
of fishing activities. Additionally, we are interested in the effectiveness of the statewide
strategy in providing a guiding framework to avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts
to tribal fisheries. Commissioned staff will carefully consider comments and revise the
strategy as necessary prior to bringing it back to the Commission for consideration at
April meeting. The materials will be posted on the Commission's April meeting agenda.
Next slide, please. In closing, we are honored to present the statewide strategy for comments
and discussion today. This is the culmination of the working group's work to create a roadmap for
coexistence. The strategy lays out information and guidance for how projects can be designed
and reviewed to recognize and protect the economic, commercial, and recreational importance of fishing
in California. It promotes equity, resilience, and collaboration between fishing communities,
which includes California Native American tribes, and the offshore wind industry to
enable a long-term working relationship. Thank you for your attention and we are happy to take
questions. Additionally, there are technical experts on the socio-economic methodologies
from Northern Economics Online, as well as working group members from both the offshore
wind developer and fishing sectors to give public comment and answer questions.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, well before we move to comments,
I will ask if there are any ex partes to report.
Okay, I have one.
This past Monday, the date was February 2nd.
Around 9 a.m., I spoke via Zoom for approximately
15 minutes with representatives
from the commercial fishermen of Santa Barbara.
We talked about their involvement in the process,
generally and their gratitude for being included and how the process has been
run and generally speaking about long-term concerns around the
resiliency fund in particular and hoping to see that fund beefed up but
generally quite a positive conversation and my appreciation to Dr. Selko and
Mr. Voss in particular who I know both from work here and work in the city of
Santa Barbara. Okay. With that, I will turn it over to Simone, or to Chris, excuse me.
All right. Thank you. We have the working group members here on Zoom. We will start
with Mark Fina, followed by Rick Robbins and Jay Statton. Mark Fina.
Yes. Good morning. My name is Mark Fina. Three minutes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear
Okay. My name is Mark Feeney. I'm with the California Wet Fish Producers Association.
We're a trade association that represents coastal pelagic fisheries. Squid and sardine
are the ones that you would think of first. I was co-chair of this committee working with
both Heather and Holly, who kind of traded off as co-chairs throughout the process.
I just provided a little bit of background
and a little bit of context
for some of what happened with the group.
We got off to a very slow start, I thought.
It took a long time to get rolling.
That was largely because there was not much consensus
on some of the foundation,
what's the underlying legal framework,
as well as what the possible impacts might be.
So it took us several meetings to get rolling.
The group stuck with it.
As you heard, we came to a consensus
that was supported by all committee members
with some qualifications.
And I guess I really want to thank everyone involved,
the staff, the facilitators,
the members of the working group
all deserve credit for this product.
So thanks and kudos to all of them.
I guess a couple of things I'll say
are that if you read the document,
I went back and read it after it had been finally
put together.
It's pretty tortured language.
And I guess my high school English teacher
probably would have given me a D if I turned that in.
And I know that from experience,
but I would suggest that it not be tweaked and edited.
There are reasons why every,
the committee went over words very closely.
And I just think now is not the time
to kind of play with wording.
I think it's worth letting this document rest for a while,
let people digest it.
We know no developments are happening
in the very near future.
There might be technology changes
which make us want to make changes.
There may be impacts that we understand better
that may suggest that we want to make some changes.
And some fresh eyes later after this is settled for a while
was probably better than trying to tinker with it now,
especially given the agreement we got from the committee.
I think the one thing the document does,
which is especially important,
is it provides a good set of rules of the road
that establish expectations between the two sectors
as to how you proceed when a development does start
in terms of dealing with each other.
it has good ground rules and will guide expectations and actions.
And I just want to say that I think we've accomplished what was expected in that sense.
There's as much detail I think as we can provide given where we are and thank you all for the
opportunity to participate in this and the opportunity to comment.
And I'm happy to take questions of any, if anyone has them.
Thank you.
Next is Rick Robbins, followed by Jay Staton and Ken Bates.
Rick Robbins, we seem to be having trouble moving in as panelists, and it seems we're
unable to unmute you as an attendee.
We will move on to Jay Staton really quick.
Jay Staton and then Ken Bates.
Go ahead.
Good morning.
Yeah, my name is Jay Staton.
I'm an environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
I'm based in Eureka, where I work as part of our offshore renewable energy team.
I served as CDFW's lead representative on the fisheries working group and appreciate
the opportunity to share a few reflections on that experience.
Under the leadership of the California Coastal Commission, CDFW collaborated with other state
federal agencies and facilitators to support the fisheries working group and the development of the
strategy for coexistence of California fishing communities and offshore wind energy.
I want to thank all the members of the working group and specifically recognize the Coastal
Commission staff for their leadership and persistence and hard work throughout this process.
This document is a culmination of over two years of commitment by the fisheries working
group to develop the strategy that provides a guiding framework for offshore wind development
to proceed in a manner that recognizes and protects fishing communities and facilitates
a long-term working relationship between the fishing and offshore wind industries in California.
We look forward to continuing to collaborate and coordinate with our partner agencies,
with tribal commercial and recreational fishing communities, and the offshore wind industry
as offshore wind develops in California. Thank you. Thank you. Ken Bates, Amy Vieira and Sam AC.
Ken Bates. Yeah, good morning Chair Harmon, Commissioner's staff. My name is Ken Bates.
I'm the co-director of the California Fishermen's Resiliency Association
where it's a 501 C6 nonprofit. Our membership association, Fishermen's Association,
extends from Crescent City down to San Diego, and we're funded by Ocean Protection Council
to serve as a point of contact for California Fisherman's Associations
in their collective efforts to coexist with ocean industrialization energy projects.
A total of nine CFRA associates participated in the seven-seat process, both as primary
and alternate fisheries representatives. I'd like to point out just a couple of things.
The federal guidelines for mitigation of impacts
to commercial and recreational fisheries
created by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
begins with the following disclaimer.
So I'm gonna read it.
The contents of this document do not have force
and effect of law and are not meant
to bind the public in any way.
The document before the commission today
is also presently voluntary guidelines.
This is not a reality that the fishing industry
and commercial fishermen live with on a daily basis,
much to the community's credit,
fishing is heavily regulated by Fish and Wildlife
or Resources Board, Federal Fisheries Management Councils,
Immigration and Customs Coast Guard,
health requirements, all of those things.
I believe it'll be the responsibility
of the Coastal Commission to enlist the information
in the statewide strategy document
in order to form permit conditions
that do have the force and effect of law
and minimize impacts to fishermen
and fishing communities from these projects.
Permit conditions should include robust funding
for long-term fishing community resiliency
in light of the unreplaceable fishing ground loss
the footprints of these budgets take out.
I would point out, and it's one of the things
that I have been very happy about the Coastal Commission
is the Coastal Commission is the only state agency
with specific provisions for protecting
and enhancing commercial fishing activities
within the commission's charter.
And lastly, I would thank all the staff,
the staff's time, the facilitators,
the fishermen that showed up to these meetings
and the developers that listen to us
during our conversations.
And hopefully this document will end up helping us
deal with these projects in the future.
And thank you for your time today.
Thank you very much.
Well, it's my great pleasure to welcome to this hearing
Senator Mike McGuire, a man who needs no introduction,
but I'll just say very succinctly
that he has been a real champion and leader on this issue
and advocate, and partner with this commission.
Senator McGuire, we're so grateful
for your presence in this hearing
and look forward to hearing from you.
I'll turn it over to you.
Well, thank you so much.
And good morning, Madam Chair.
Good morning to the commissioners.
I'm honored to be here.
Director Hucklebridge, it's wonderful to see you.
I wanna say thank you so much for allowing me
to take part in today's hearing.
I'm gonna be honest,
when we started this whole process back in 2023,
we set a target date of establishing a statewide strategy by January 1 of 2020, 26. And Madam
Chair, commissioners, I can't thank you enough for nailing this. And I know that there's
more work to do, but having this critical conversation here today, I am deeply grateful
to you, Madam Chair, and to each of the commissioners for sticking to your word and moving this
policy forward. What we all know is that this legislation brings together a myriad of organizations
and individuals, which you have all been talking about here today, but most importantly, bringing
together the fleet, bringing together tribal leaders and local voices to make California's
offshore wind policy the strongest and most effective in the United States of America.
Here's some really important parts that I think is going to come out of this process. Number one,
we're going to knock years off of the permitting time when it comes to deploying offshore wind
here in the state of California. We're going to develop a policy that protects California's
storied fishing fleet and fishing grounds as we just heard from the concerns of Mr. Bates and
appreciate his advocacy and focus. It's going to bring forward tribal leaders and have tribal
leaders at the table every step of the way. It's going to recognize local impacts and bring in the
voices of local community members and elected leaders. I appreciate the focus of standardizing
communication and data collection and really developing the compensation mitigation formulas
that are going to be needed long term to help local communities, tribal governments, and of course
California's storied fishing fleet. But most importantly, this working group has developed
a framework that will ensure California expedites offshore wind right, and bringing in all voices
to this process in the front. The fact that every stakeholder has stined off thus far on this
strategy tells us that the process that you've established is working to ensure that California's
fishing fleet is protected along with bringing in tribal voices and protecting resources to benefit
coastal communities and spur family sustaining jobs in some of the most rural parts of this state.
Madam Chair, again, I am so incredibly grateful to be with you to each of the hardworking
commissioners. I'm going to end it right here. I know that there's more work to come in looking
forward to seeing the outcome in April after the roundtables and the community meetings
are taking place. The state of California continues to invest in offshore wind in proposition
for five hundred million dollars. It's going to be invested in improving port infrastructure
to be able to prepare for this next presidential administration. Everybody in knock on wood.
In addition, I just got to say, and I won't be too political here, Madam Chair, but look,
The Trump administration today is saying that they're going to put out an executive order
to keep coal alive here in the United States of America.
We know that the United States of America and the majority of its residents have already
moved on.
Renewable jobs outpaces fossil fuel and coal jobs by three to one here in the United States
of America.
And I am grateful to this commission, to your amazing staff for the work that you are doing.
we are preparing and laying the groundwork to ensure that offshore wind is a bright point
in our renewable energy future once the fascists are elected out in the Trump administration.
I'm really grateful for your time today. Thank you for allowing me to be here. And I look
forward to our continued partnership together, Madam Chair. You're the best. Thank you so
much. Thank you very much, Senator. We're so grateful that you joined us today and for
all of your work. Okay. I will return it to Chris. Thank you. All right, thank you. And we will
continue with Amy Vieira, then Sam Acy and then Danielle Mullaney. Amy, go ahead. Good morning.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners. My name is Amy Vieira and I'm a senior environmental
scientist with the California State Lands Commission and a non-voting member of the working
group. I'd like to give you a little bit more flavor for how big of an undertaking
the development of the statewide strategy was and the degree to which the offshore wind industry
and the fishing industry really stretch themselves as they work to accomplish the mandate of SB 286.
First, the scope is enormous. It covers commercial and tribal fisheries and contains chapters on
communication protocols, surveys, mitigation measures, methodologies to assess socioeconomic
impacts, and governance structures to ensure that mitigation funds are used in the manner
that they are intended. Development of the statewide strategy required an advanced
understanding of state and federal laws including the California Environmental Quality Act,
the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, just to name a few.
The representatives of these two industries again really stretch themselves to get to where we are
today with a strategy that both industries support, even though they might not have gotten
everything that they wanted. The negotiations required patience, perseverance, creative thinking,
and a lot of hard work. I feel very fortunate to have watched this process from the 50-yard line,
if you will. And the statewide strategy will be a critical part of the development of offshore wind
off of California but also serves as a model for other potentially conflicting uses of our ocean.
Finally, I'd like to recognize your staff and the professional facilitators who did a really
amazing job. In particular, I'd like to recognize Holly Wire, Heather McNair, Margaret Campbell,
Annie Rosen, and Jo Street, and of course all the members of the working group. Thank you for this
opportunity to provide these comments. Thank you. Sam Acey, Danielle Mullaney, and then Steve
Scheidblauer. Sam Acey. Thanks very much. Good morning, everyone. My name is Sam Ashy. I'm the
the fisheries manager for Golden State Wind.
I'm a relatively new joiner to the seven seat process
having only started back in June of 24.
So really just speaking to my experience with the group.
I have a background in engagement
with the commercial fishing industry.
I can say firsthand the challenge.
It can be sometimes to get folks with similar viewpoints
into a room to talk about an issue.
I think that that is incredibly compounded
when you add different viewpoints
different stakeholder groups. And then when you extend that timeline out to almost 70 meetings
over the course of two years, it's really quite impressive. I also just want to speak to the
diversity of the group just acknowledging, you know, having vast experience from
fisheries stakeholders, tribal affairs, state and federal regulators, and offshore wind developers.
Everybody comes from a different walk of life. Everybody brings a different viewpoint to the
table. And I think when you have this kind of wide ranging expertise all in one room at the same
time, it can be a little challenging to not get so far down to the weeds to the point where it's
not productive. I think that, you know, sometimes it's really challenging to figure out where the
line is between the discussion that's going to result in comprehensive guidance versus that that
is going to be overprescribed. And I think that one of the best outcomes of this strategy is that we
we were able to find that sweet spot where we took a step back and said, you know, there's a
lot of things that we just don't know how it's going to play out. Why don't we give ourselves
room to work with this in the future, either when we have better information or some of these
projects are farther along. And I think that that's really the biggest strength of the strategy is
that it highlights the shared priorities of the working group, but it also enables us to continue
having the discussion in the future as more information comes available to us.
I just want to say that there's, you know, I mentioned the the challenge in getting groups
like this together to be productive and I just want to do a big shout out to all the coastal
staff that were involved, especially Heather, Holly and Margaret. You and many others shepherded
this colossal undertaking through and I think you should be very proud of yourselves. This is a
a great product. I also just want to say that in touch with Rick Robbins here, he's been trying to
join as a panelist and I think he's still having trouble. I know he's really eager to provide a
comment so we could help that out. That'd be great. Thanks. Thank you. I'll try Rick again.
We will continue with Danielle Mullaney, Steve Scheiblauer, and then Rachel Muller. Danielle.
Good morning commissioners. My name is Danielle Mullaney and I am a program specialist for
offshore renewable energy planning at the California Energy Commission. I had the opportunity
to participate as a state agency representative within the fisheries working group and throughout
that process I observed the extensive time and effort that participants dedicated to
negotiating and developing the statewide strategy. I want to express my support for the statewide
strategy and the process that the Coastal Commission staff executed. The Assembly Bill
The IL 525 offshore wind energy strategic plan
that the Energy Commission adopted in 2024
identified the need for a coordinated approach
to addressing fisheries impacts
from offshore wind development.
And the fisheries working group
demonstrated a coordinated approach
and brought together diverse perspectives.
And the result is a statewide framework
that can be used as guidance to avoid minimize
and mitigate impacts to fishing communities.
In addition to providing guidance
for addressing impacts from future offshore wind projects.
This statewide strategy can also inform several
of the energy commission's offshore wind energy mandates,
including the Assembly Bill 3 Seaport Readiness Plan,
which considers potential impacts to fisheries
in seaport siding and planning for offshore wind energy.
I appreciate the opportunity to be part of the working group
and the leadership of the Coastal Commission staff
that love this effort.
Looking forward to seeing the statewide strategy move forward
through the next steps in this process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Thank you.
Next, Steve Scheibler.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
I'm not sure why that video won't work, but here I am.
I'm Steve Scheibler.
I represented the Central Coast Fishing Nonprofit,
the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
on the Seven Sea Working Group.
Alliance members are comprised of commercial fishing
associations from Monterey Bay south to and including Santa Barbara. I want to
acknowledge and thank the Coastal staff for their two years of determined work
in support of the working group. There were no magic wands to address the many
impacts of offshore wind on fisheries, fishing communities, and on the
environment. Executive director Hucklebridge and her staff took the task
considering the interests of the state's fisheries to hurt. Please consider
several items in the proposed strategy. First, I draw your attention to the two forms of compensation
that the Commission heard about. The first is to provide direct payments or impacts to individual
fishery participants. The other will establish a resiliency fund for the 35 years of the life of
the projects. The purpose of the Resiliency Fund is to keep people fishing despite displacement
and to keep seafood products being landed. This supports deckhands, fish buyers, supply stores,
and the visitor-serving seafood businesses. Fisheries participants who qualify for direct
payment should receive it. The Resiliency Fund is also important for the very existence of
California fisheries. Thus, resiliency funding closely aligns with the Coastal Act, which calls
for fishing to be protected and enhanced when feasible. Second, both the Coastal Act and SB286
contain strong affirmative language to protect fisheries. Words like shell and will are found.
However, in many places in the strategy, this is softened to may or may consider.
I hope I think I speak for most fishery participants on the working group in the
request that the strategy contain a lot more shells and wills.
Last, the 7C process evolved from one which conceived of a negotiated agreement between
the two industries to one that has coastal staff negotiating for fishery interests with the
developers, project by project. I have great respect for the coastal staff and believe that
that they have the fishery, fishery interests,
best interests at heart.
That said, the state's many distinct fisheries
are complicated and fishermen have decades
of on the water observations.
Even if fishermen are not at the negotiating table,
I hope the commission negotiators will consult
on the major points of the compensation agreement
early and often with the fishing representatives.
Thank you.
Thank you. And now we were able to get Rick Robinson. So Rick,
you will be next followed by Rachel Mahler and then Chris Boss.
Rick Robbins, go ahead.
Yeah. Thank you very much. Chair Harmon and members of the commission.
Good morning. I'm Rick Robbins, director of Marine affairs with RWE.
Our canopy offshore wind farm lease was located offshore Humboldt County,
and we sincerely appreciate the opportunity to have participated in this
forward looking process as a lease holder.
We want to thank the coastal commission staff and other participating agencies
as well as all of the working group members
for the significant effort that went into the development
of the 7C Statewide Strategy.
We recognize the time and extensive coordination
that was required, and we appreciate the staff's
clear commitment to a thoughtful and inclusive process
aimed at achieving a positive outcome for tribal nations
in the offshore wind and fishing industries.
The strategies presented to the Commission today
is a consensus document.
The fact that the working group was able to develop
a strategy that all members could ultimately support
represents a major success.
Although no party received everything they sought,
the document reflects the shared priorities
of the offshore wind and fishing industries.
To the credit of everyone involved,
this consensus was made possible by the good faith effort
of all working group members to listen,
adapt and compromise,
building understanding, knowledge and trust
as we work through the two year process together.
We all learned a lot from each other across the caucuses
as we developed the strategy
and it really would be hard to overstate
how much effort went into the process.
The strategy provides clear and practical guidance
to support the responsible development
of offshore wind in California
and to promote successful coexistence
with the fishing industry.
Importantly, this strategy clearly defines roles
and responsibilities for developers, fishermen,
and regulators throughout the development process,
helping to set appropriate expectations
and reduce conflicts as projects move forward.
The strategy benefits from an integrated approach
to fisheries compensatory mitigation
by including both direct compensation and resiliency funding in the framework.
This ensures a coordinated approach to developing these complementary mitigation measures for
impacts to fisheries that may remain after avoidance minimization and mitigation measures
are implemented.
The proposed guidance includes a leasing decision, a leading decision-making role for the fishing
industry in the distribution of resiliency funding through regional resiliency committees.
The strategy is well-informed by lessons learned.
One example I'd like to highlight is in the best practices for impact avoidance during
site investigation or offshore survey activities.
This chapter recommends that developers conduct a fisheries characterization to ensure that
the project developer has a detailed understanding of the fisheries that may interact with the
project area.
This characterization relies on direct engagement between the developer and the fisheries, curating
and then leveraging local knowledge to promote impact avoidance and coexistence.
This provides an important foundation for successful deconfliction and coordination
throughout the lifecycle of the development process.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this process and to comment on the strategy
today.
We certainly look forward to continuing to work with the Commission as this process moves
forward.
Thanks again.
Thank you.
Next, Rachel Mahler, Chris Voss, and then Abby Mohan.
Rachel Mahler.
Yeah.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name's Rachel Mahler.
Rachel Mailer. I'm the fisher's liaison for Golden State Wind. I've had the opportunity
to be involved in the 7C process from start to finish. I endeavored to attend every meeting,
contribute to the statewide strategy, thoughtfully, and learn from the tribal and fishing community
members. I'd just like to take a moment to share some insights I witnessed over the last
two years. This process meaningfully brought together tribal members, fishermen, leaseholders,
and agency staff in a way that allowed for honest dialogue, shared learning, and relationship
building across industries that do not often
have the opportunity to work directly together.
I've seen trust grow, perspectives brought in
and practical understanding develop on all sides,
which is essential for responsible offshore wind
development in California.
I want to commend the Coastal Commission staff involved
in this process directly for the significant time,
care and leadership invested in this process.
The Commission staff created a space that was grounded
in mutual respect and presented a genuine commitment
to collaboration.
I'm really proud to have been part of the 7C Fisheries
working group, and grateful for the tribal representatives
and fishermen who continue to work hard
and provide their valuable time and valuable input.
The relationships built through this effort
will have lasting benefits beyond this single working group
and have had a positive impact on me personally.
I just wanna thank all the members again
for their hard work and commitment to the STEM&C process,
which serves as a strong foundation
for future collaborations on building offshore wind
in California responsibly.
Thanks for your time.
Thank you. Chris Foss, Abby Mohan, and then Emily Rochan.
Chris Foss.
Good almost afternoon.
My name is Chris Foss
and I'm president of the commercial fishermen
of Santa Barbara.
Chair Harmon, thanks for your comments earlier.
Commissioners, I wanna reiterate all the praise
to the coastal staff for having supported
a fantastic process.
The facilitation team at CBI was exceptional
and I am also very proud to have been a part of this.
With that said, I still have some serious concerns
about the effects offshore wind,
serious adverse effects offshore wind will have
on commercial fisheries, the marine environment
and the rate payers in the state of California.
Fishermen will be directly displaced from their grounds,
which are shrinking on a regular basis
in the state of California.
So where we're allowed to fish
is constantly growing smaller.
In addition, the uncertainties around upwelling impacts
due to offshore wind farms
and the potential for electromagnetic fields
causing issues in the marine environment,
as well as the survey process
having detrimental effects on fisheries.
Plus the extent of the footprint
the leases alone we have cable corridors and then port side impacts that are kind of the port side
and impacts are outside of the this framework's purview so that's a concern. In addition the most
significant thing I think all of us should be concerned about in a state that already has some
of the most expensive electrical costs of any state in the union. Another centralized electrical
distribution system that can't help but be one of the most expensive ways on the planet to generate
electricity. There's so much uncertainty associated with the scale of these projects and the cost
associated with the electricity that they will generate that we should all step back a little
bit and evaluate that reality. I understand we absolutely need to decarbonize our energy
system. Absolutely. But we have to do it wisely and thoughtfully and not recklessly in ways that
end up costing a fortune in maintenance and, you know, initial outlays to create gigantic
centralized electrical distribution systems. That's what's gotten us into a problem in
California to begin with. So, again, let's consider cost-benefit analysis that includes
what ratepayers may end up having to deal with when it comes to paying for this kind of electricity.
There's cheaper alternatives that are renewable with photovoltaic. Thank you for this opportunity
to comment. Thank you. Next, Abby Mohan, Emily Rochan, and then Mike Conroy. Abby Mohan.
Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Abby Mohan and I am providing public comment on behalf of
the Ocean Protection Council, where I am the Senior Offshore Wind Program Manager.
Over the past couple years, my colleagues and I have had the privilege of participating in
the 7C Working Group, and OPC strongly supports the statewide strategy that has resulted from
this collaborative effort. As state agency participants, we were available to answer
questions and provide technical assistance, but we primarily observed the exemplary facilitation,
organization, and respectful dialogue that characterize this process.
The working group effectively balanced in-person meetings, virtual sessions, and subgroup
discussions, which allowed for substantive conversations while maintaining mutual respect
for all perspectives. OPC supported the development of the strategy by funding the work of Northern
Economics, an external economic consulting group that contributed to the economic components of
the strategy through research, consultations with subject matter experts, community engagement,
and outreach, in addition to participation in the working group subgroups. OPC also supported
the inception of the California Fisherman's Resiliency Association and expansion of their
organization, and CFRA really served as a critical point of contact and provided logistical support
that really enabled meaningful participation by commercial fishermen in this process.
The working group process yielded valuable lessons and effective strategies for navigating
complex topics, building consensus, and achieving collaboration. These approaches will be directly
applicable to OPC's future work alongside our state agency partners, offshore wind developers,
and fishing community stakeholders as we establish a West Coast Science Collaborative
for offshore wind in the coming year. We look forward to advancing the next phase of offshore
win and using the structure of this group as a framework for future collaborations across
agencies and industries. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
Thank you. Next is Emily Rochon,
Mike Conroy, and then we will return to the room for the general public. Emily Rochon.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Commission. I am Emily Rochon,
Senior Manager of Strategic Implementation at Vineyard Offshore. Vineyard Offshore holds a
lease for lease area 562 which is located off the coast of Humboldt County. We appreciate the
opportunity to offer comments on the seven seat process and the statewide strategy. First I would
like to echo many of the speakers that have gone before me and sincerely thank Coastal Commission
staff particularly Heather, Holly and Margaret, partner agencies, the facilitators and working
group members for the extraordinary effort that went into developing this strategy. Over two years
agency staff and working group members have invested countless hours and engaged in extensive
discussions to tackle complex and sensitive issues. The result is a thoughtful, practical
framework that represents a meaningful first step towards long-term coexistence amongst
California's tribal nations, the offshore wind industry, and the fishing community.
The 7C process facilitated open and candid discussions, allowing many hard conversations
to be had up front and early in the offshore wind development timeline. No other state in the U.S.
has done this to this extent. This early investment in relationship building and in developing mutual
understanding and consensus uniquely positions California to advance projects successfully.
This cannot be underscored enough. In our view, the seven C process was effective because it
built consensus over time on the strategy's key elements and it reflects alignment on core
principles even where perspectives differed. This outcome would not have been possible without
sustained engagement and a willingness by all parties to listen to each other and work through
disagreements constructively. Importantly, the strategy is designed to align with and operate
within the extensive permitting and regulatory framework governing offshore wind projects.
It also incorporates the experience, input, and key concerns of California's fishing industry
while maintaining a workable, flexible framework that can evolve alongside the offshore wind
industry. It also offers a dedicated, respectful framework for engagement with California Native
American tribes that recognizes tribal sovereignty, cultural practices, and data sovereignty.
In closing, the statewide strategy provides a practical, collaborative foundation for long-term
coexistence. We commend the Commission for its consistent support of the residency process
and appreciate the opportunity to serve as a Working Group member and to provide comment today.
Thank you. Thank you. Mike Conroy. Confirming you can hear me. Yes, we can hear you.
Perfect. Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners, and staff. I'm having bandwidth issues that will
spare you from having my video feed turned on. My name is Mike Conroy and I was a Fisheries
Association rep on the working group. At the outset and like previous speakers, I wanted to
express my sincere appreciation to Holly, Heather, Margaret, Kate, and other commission staff with
their efforts in shepherding a diverse group of folks through a process that was at times difficult.
There are many others from other state agencies that that deserve to be thanked. Amy, Jay, Danielle,
Abby, thank you very much. Similarly, the folks at Kerns and West and CBI who help facilitate
the process, we couldn't have done it without them. I also agree with the folks before me
who spoke to the benefits derived from being a member of the working group, from relationship
building to perspective understanding, all of those proved invaluable. I agree that the statewide
strategy establishes a process and a framework to ensure that fisheries and offshore wind
coexist should offshore wind projects be developed about the California coast. It is critically
important and I think Marc alluded to this in his initial comments to remember that this is a living
document but one of the more significant issues that I wrote during our many meetings was the
sheer amount of unknowns that accompanied the potential industrialization of the marine space
with hundreds of floating offshore wind turbines and other infrastructure necessary to support those
covering 500 plus miles of important fishing grounds and habitats. Unfortunately, there are
no examples anywhere of floating offshore wind developments of the size and scale
that may be coming off of California. As more research is undertaken, some of the unknowns may
become less uncertain. I am comforted that West Coast states are working to identify data gaps
and research needs, and as those are filled, we will likely be better positioned to identify
impacts to fisheries so that our projects are deployed, the statewide strategy can be revised
to comply with SB 286's mandates of ensuring that offshore wind energy projects avoid and minimize
impact ocean fisheries to the maximum extent possible avoid minimize and mitigate those impacts
to fishing in fisheries in a manner that prioritizes fisheries productivity viability and long-term
resilience and fairly and reasonably compensates persons engaged in commercial and recreational
fishing industries and tribal fisheries for economic impacts to ocean fisheries resulting
from offshore wind energy projects. And with that I'm done thanks. Thank you and thank you all to
thank you to all the members of the working group. We also have Melissa Arendt and Diana Perry from
Northern Economics online and available for questions after and then we have the only one
one member of the public who wishes to speak, Carly Ann Johnson, who is here in person.
And we'll be doing two minutes for general public speakers. Please turn the mic on. And
there we go.
Is it on?
Yes.
All right. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and Commissioners. I'm Carly Ann Johnson
with CJ Environmental. I've been in consulting in the offshore energy business, both in the
U.S. and internationally, for the past 30 years. I did, however, for full transparency,
for two developers these last five years,
but I'm not speaking on their behalf.
I'm appearing here today as an offshore sailor
and a concerned citizen of our ocean resources.
First, I want to congratulate Commission staff
and working group members on this tremendous achievement,
getting consensus for these recommendations.
I haven't completely finished reading it,
but what I've seen so far is it is a good document
to guide this work into the future.
I was pleased to see that most of the recommendations
already reflect a lot of the best practices that offshore wind developers routinely apply
to their projects or are currently required to do so by law. It is well understood by
those of us who do any work in the coastal or offshore areas that any impacts to marine
resources and fisheries must be avoided or minimized to the extent possible and if these
impacts can't be avoided then they will be compensated. Given this is a strategy for
or coexistence between two industries
that work in our blue economy.
I hope staff will consider
some additional recommendations that I have.
There are a number of best practices listed in table one
that I would recommend the fishing industry implement as well
to avoid adverse impacts
on proposed renewable energy facilities.
That includes when and other
that we have in the marine environment.
Or to our ocean resources directly.
For example, it's been very concerning to see data from NOAA Fisheries on the number
of whale deaths that have substantially increased just over this past decade off California
dude gear entanglement.
Understand the impacts from lost gear by clearly marking the owner's name, which can be found
in the document in table 4.1, recommendation number 2.6, would provide important data is
currently lacking about who lost this gear and where it was lost.
lawsuit I'll submit my comments more fully thank you thank you we have no
more speakers madam chair great thank you so much and thank you everyone for
your testimony I will return to staff to see if they have any closing comments
for us thanks take your time I'd like to briefly speak to a theme you've heard
come up in several of the comments from the working group members and we talked
about this a little bit in our staff presentation as well that there's a lot
push and pull on how prescriptive the strategy should be. And I just wanted to say we've
developed this strategy with the intention of creating a consistent approach to fisheries
mitigation across the state and across multiple projects that are happening on multiple timelines.
So to do that, we need to allow the flexibility for future projects to apply the recommendations
that are applicable to them and the fisheries that are impacting. Additionally, because
these current leases are in the early stage of planning and site assessment, we don't
have the project details we need to require all aspects of the strategy.
And that being said, the strategy does provide a clear pathway to creating a project that
is consistent with our enforceable policies related to fishing activities.
And when projects come before us for federal consistency review, commission staff will
use the statewide strategy to assess how fisheries impacts are being addressed by the project.
As you've heard, we've put a lot of effort into developing the strategy and we're expecting
that it will be used by leaseholders as they develop their projects.
Using the strategy will allow for more certain outcomes and more efficient project review.
Thank you.
And if I may, just to build on Holly's comments, I wanted to provide a little bit of context
about how we got here just very, very briefly.
You know, this working group had an incredibly difficult task.
And part of that was, you know, we really made an effort, and when I say we, I include
our staff but also staff from other agencies that, you know, all around the state, really
trying to get our heads wrapped around if the state is going to and the Feds are going
to go forward with offshore wind, how do we do this in a way that's responsible, that
protects our marine resources, protects our fishing industry and communities, and that
we're not making some mistakes that we've made before as a state.
Well, we made an effort to kind of learn the lessons
that others have learned in this space.
We actually, you know, California's often
first out of the gate on a lot of things.
In this case, we weren't.
The other parts of the world have developed offshore wind,
not floating, but have developed offshore wind
in their ocean space a lot, you know,
have had those kinds of facilities out
for a lot longer than we have.
And then the East Coast, of course,
is developing offshore wind.
And so we really use that as an opportunity
developing offshore wind.
And so we really used that as an opportunity
to try to learn how things were done
in other parts of the world and the country
and understand kind of what went well
and what didn't go well.
And if you're first out of the gate,
you're always gonna make mistakes.
And so we wanted to learn those lessons.
So the idea of building the strategy
came out of that understanding.
And knowing that one of the challenges
has been these two industries, the fishing industry
and offshore wind industry,
being at different ends of the spectrum
and not finding a good path forward
on how to talk to each other.
And so it's been challenging in a lot of places.
So we took that and tried to come up
with a different outcome.
And the other thing we really strove for
as Holly said was consistency.
So we have a lot of, we have five leases
in two different parts of the state
and we wanted there to be some consistency
in process and frameworks so that people were treated fairly
in whatever the outcome was.
And so that's just to give you a little bit of the context
of how we got here.
So again, a huge task though.
When we started this process,
we had different working group members
with wildly different ideas of what the outcome
would look like and what the products
of this working group would produce.
But through a lot of dedicated hard work,
We were able to build relationships,
we were able to come together and listen to each other,
and I just have to commend all the Working Group members
for their willingness to really show up and do the work.
Everybody put the time and the effort in,
and I think the result that we have today is because of that.
So, you know, I first wanna say thank you
to Senator McGuire for his vision and the collaboration
and getting us even to the point of having a Working Group,
And then the working group members themselves,
representatives of the commercial
and recreational fishing fleets, tribal representatives,
representatives of the five offshore wind leases,
and then our agency partners.
Everybody showed up and found a way to get to a product
that everybody could sign off on, which is really impressive.
And so again, I wanna thank them
for really being willing to stretch,
because that's what everybody had to do here.
I also really want to thank our staff.
They did a fantastic job working through this process
and really creating an environment where we could
have this kind of an outcome.
So huge kudos, Heather, Holly, Margaret, also to Annie and Joe
and everybody else who's been involved,
because I think part of the thoughtfulness around how
to set up the process helped.
So just as a reminder, this today is an informational item.
So we are not done yet.
We still have some public comments
that we will be accepting.
We're gonna do tribal consultation
and then we will be bringing this back
for adoption in April.
So we'll have another hearing on this
for an official adoption.
But I think what you've heard today
is an indicator of, again,
this consensus that we've reached.
It was hard won and we're really proud
of the work we've done here.
We'll see where we end up with public comment.
There may be some changes.
But again, I'm just really proud to be standing here
in front of you and meeting the timeline.
That's another not insignificant point to make
that we actually met the timeline,
the very aggressive timeline
that Senator McGuire laid out for us.
But we also of course welcome your feedback.
So if you have any feedback, whether today at the hearing
or after, and please let us know.
We're, we of course welcome it
and want to consider it as we move forward
and bring you a document for adoption in April.
So with that, I'll conclude
and turn it back to you, Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, so I will bring it back to the commission
and we'll begin with Commissioner Nada.
Thank you.
Thanks to everyone for participating in the work group.
And I wanted to just reflect that commercial fishing industry
has been longtime partners in fighting
to protect California's coast and ocean
for the last several decades, working
to protect the coast from offshore oil and gas
drilling and fossil fuel development.
I want to thank them for that.
And now, as we're moving away from dependence
fossil fuels, it's critical that they remain partners in how do we take the next step.
As Senator McGuire referenced, I view this as agreement among these parties is just front page
news everywhere. These days, this type of agreement is really cause for celebration and
you all have rightly received a lot of kudos for that and I'll add mine to that.
But I did want to just express the importance of having.
I love the concept of industry to industry agreement,
the balance that is reflected in that type of approach
is long overdue.
It's not something that we've seen from the oil industry,
for example.
So I'm glad to see that as we are
moving to this critical next step of moving away
from fossil fuels with renewable energy
that we have that kind of mindset.
And this is a huge step forward.
And I probably would not have happened
without Senator McGuire's leadership.
But it's meeting the deadline.
I did want to put a point on that.
That was quite awesome as well.
So thanks for that.
And I look forward to see the next steps.
Thank you.
Commissioner Eckerly.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to acknowledge that this was an incredibly heavy
lift, extend my thanks to commission staff,
to the fishermen, tribal members, the lease holders,
and agency partners who really brought this success to us
today.
Consensus, that's huge.
So I want to just recognize and thank you all for that.
I also just wanna acknowledge that there is so much
uncertainty and concern about this new industry
and what we don't know and the potential impacts
to the environment, to livelihoods and communities.
And I think the value of this process
is that the commission created space
for fishermen and tribal members
and others to come together and share those concerns
and to be heard.
And the product of that is this thoughtful
and thorough summary with solutions
and best practices that we can pull from.
So thank you for creating that space
for making sure people's voices were heard
and giving us a place to build
from the lessons learned on the East Coast
so that we can try to do it right here.
Commissioner Lopez.
Deep appreciation for everything that's gone in.
I just, for me, having been through a lot of instances
like this where you take a really tough issue,
you build as big a table as you can
and try to catch as many voices.
I wanna tell the community right now,
on the record, this isn't perfect.
And it's not gonna be, we're gonna iterate.
As we learn lessons, as projects roll out
and things are discovered, we will come back to this.
This is, as was said before, a living document,
that I think it needs to be emphasized,
only because some will assume
this is ready to go, perfection,
and we still have two hearings left, right?
As this document rolls out here mid-February,
there's gonna be two more opportunities
for the public to give us input
before we finalize this document in April,
and even then, it will not be done,
and I think that's important.
Everybody that sees a project hears promises of perfection.
I've been through that several times
as a member of the Board of Supervisors in Monterey County,
but I want everyone to hear today that we're committed
to continue to revisit these documents as necessary
to make sure that we improve upon them time after time.
And so thank you again for the work that's gone in thus far.
I think the table you built is meaningful.
I appreciate the focus on the EJ communities
within the document, the recognition of the socioeconomic
needs of the coastal communities who are dependent
on our fisheries, including Monterey among them,
and here in San Mateo as well, and so just a deep appreciation for the work that's gone
in so far and a continued commitment from me to help bring more people to the table
in the future.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks, and as was mentioned, my community was mentioned many times in this in this discussion
and certainly the communities that are working on this and being impacted by this need to
their voices heard and be at the table and so I want to thank everybody that's
been involved in this, everyone's been a leader and everyone's been a participant
in I think a very fruitful way. It's going to continue and it's
important that it continues and I think the work needs to be done. Just I have
to remind myself when we're in these processes remind myself that we're pursuing offshore
wind and specifically floating offshore wind to address a crisis, and that crisis will
impact the ocean that we're talking about all these systems working in where the crisis
isn't just sea level rise, I wish it was just sea level rise.
sea level rise, we'll be dealing with impacts to fisheries
and their associated nurseries in our estuarine systems,
and that will be very impactful,
but we're also talking about warming,
and then part of that warming,
we're seeing changes in where species can survive,
and then we're seeing diseases breaking out,
and then we're also,
what we don't talk about a lot is acidification,
and the potential for ecological collapse
at the base level of the food web in terms of diatoms.
So that is the point.
We're not trying, we're not moving forward
or thinking about offshore wind for the fun of it
or because we wanna seek to industrialize the oceans
just because it's to address a dramatic change
that's required in our energy systems worldwide,
and we're seeking to be a part of that,
and it is to address the very things
that will be impacting these communities as well.
So from my perspective, it's important
that we are partners in all of that.
And I think there are some questions sometimes
about California's role in this.
And it's specifically around,
when we're talking about offshore wind,
we often lump it all together,
but just around floating offshore wind,
which is, we're talking about the countries of Norway,
Portugal, and Scotland
is where we see offshore wind happening now.
It happening now, they're doing it.
It's in the water and it's functioning.
So when I look at California,
Those three GDPs combined are less than one tenth
of California's GDP.
So my confidence in California's ability
to be a leader in this and to be able to address this
and move forward,
I think I see a real potential for us in doing it right.
And so with that, I just wanna thank again the staff
for eating the call of Senator McGuire
in terms of the timeline and getting these things going,
but also through the governor's office
and the agencies that are working on this
and then through all the participants,
I just want to be, I just want to,
there's more hard work ahead
because we're going to have to be working on this together.
And yeah, and thanks for that.
Thank you commissioner Escalante
Thanks, madam chair. I hope I don't sound too thunderous in there
You know I the Coastal Commission really does have extraordinary and thoughtful and
Effective staff. I'm very glad to hear
them being recognized like that today and I think this work product and the process that was led by them is also a testament of how
stellar our executive director
how coverage leadership is. So thank you all for your hard work. I think, as you can see,
it's been it's really paying off process that's that's payoff, I think. Thanks to,
of course, all the partners of these working group, also very thoughtful in their engagement.
And I hope that it continues with the same spirit of collegiality and respect and support
for each other moving forward. Huge thanks to my senator, Senator Maguire, and I couldn't
agree more with every single thing that you said, and I say before Commissioner Wilson,
you know boiling and more acidic oceans thanks to climate change caused by the burning of fossil
fuels, gas, oil, and now we're talking again about coal. It is destroying the ability of our oceans
to sustain life, any life, including ours. So I'm happy to move forward and I'm also proud of our
visionary state and I would only ask from our staff if they could just mail me a copy of that
that report, because I like to get in there
with highlighters and post-eds,
and one question is, I'm assuming there will,
there are similar working groups that will
have this kind of product,
or are there other working groups, or is this even one?
I'm sorry if I missed that.
No, happy to answer that.
This is the only working group
that I think is currently active with,
related to offshore wind.
There's a science collaborative, as you heard,
Abby mentioned from OPC, we are working on that
with OPC and collaboration with OPC.
But it's not a working group, but it's a similar idea.
So more on that.
And that's more to look at the science and the research
and understand what impacts might come from offshore wind
and how to address them.
So that's a separate effort, but that's also ongoing.
And I'm not aware of any other specific types
of working groups related to offshore wind.
Of course, I believe this process could be a model
in other, you know, for other industries,
for other types of development,
just as a process, how we kind of came to it.
And so I'm, I'll be looking out
for opportunities in that front.
If we, whether, you know, it just depends
on how the state moves forward
on other potential ocean energy or development.
This process could serve as a model for that.
I absolutely agree with you.
I think this is a good model for conversations about other EJ impacts such as the building
out of the ports, whether it's temporary or permanent.
It is just what Javier said at the beginning, it really rang true to me that it is significant
to those communities that are already bearing the brunt of all industries that are based
around ports and those facilities. So I will be looking forward to hearing more about that.
But in the meantime, I appreciate how things have been done and look forward to hearing
hear more from the public, the comments and feedback about this report. Thanks so much.
Thank you. Just a quick follow up because the West Coast signs collaborative was mentioned,
the Asian Protection Council just released a draft blueprint for that science collaborative.
It is out for public comment. You can find that information on our website. And we will
be hosting a public listening session to go over the details of that blueprint on March
4 from 10 to 12 p.m. Okay, well, I certainly join with all of my colleagues. And they're
very eloquent comments on this. But I did want to just highlight as Director Hucklebridge
did and Commissioner Escalante in particular, what an incredible blueprint we have here.
The effectiveness of moving forward this issue, but zooming out, we're in such complex times
and the problems that we face and that we will face require such delicacy.
This truly is a model.
I mean, I think even more than the substance, seeing how you all manage to move this forward
and the participants move this forward, to me it just it gave me a degree of hope that
I think I've certainly been lacking in these challenging times and so I really appreciate
that and I am excited to see the ways that this process can be applied elsewhere, not
only just for this mission but I really hope more broadly because it's rare I think to
have such important and complex matters and to hear,
I think, to a person, every commenter that participated
in the working group acknowledged what it felt like
to be heard and to have these conversations
in a real open and fruitful way.
So my sincere gratitude on many levels for this.
So with that, I will close this item
and then break for lunch.
And if everyone could be back at 1.45, please.
Thank you.
Okay welcome back hope everyone had a nice lunch we're going to continue on with our agenda and
we are on item 10. That's to you Mr. Schwing. Actually before before chair, oh I'm just gonna
take a second but I need to recuse myself from this item number 10 for the waiver for the seal
beach project as I have a financial conflict potential financial conflict under the coastal
Section Government Code, sorry, under Government Code Section 87100.
Okay, Mr. Schwig. Thank you, Chair Harmon. So item 10 is the Deputy Director's Report
for South Coast District Orange County. In this packet we're reporting the
completion of the LCP amendment certification for the City of Newport
Beach's updates to its beachfront setback requirements as well as other
changes that are part of the submittal. Here the executive director has
determined the city's action to be legally adequate to complete the
certification process. We're also the report also contains four waivers, one
extension, one amendment for projects in Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach
and San Clemente. No known opposition so we're asking whether three or more
commissioners object to the waivers or the extension or amendment in the report.
Great. Thank you. Any ex partes? Any public comments? None. Okay. Do three or more commissioners
object to any item in the Deputy Director's report? Seeing no objection, the commission
concurs. Thank you. Item 14, please. Thank you. So that does take us down to items 14A
and 14B. There's going to be a combined staff presentation on these items. And Emily Greer
with our Long Beach Office is going to do the staff presentation. Emily, whenever you're ready,
please go ahead. Thanks Carl. Good afternoon commissioners. This is a combined presentation
for items 14a and 14b which are reconsideration requests for two CDP applications that the
Commission approved with conditions at its November 5, 2025 hearing. The applicants are
32007 South Coast Highway LLC and 32005 South Coast Highway LLC. A reconsideration request
is a procedure outlined in the Coastal Act and regulations that following a commission action
allows an applicant to seek a rehearing of their application when certain standards are met that
are described for their on in this presentation. Next slide please. The projects are located within
the South Laguna area of Laguna Beach in Orange County and are seaward of Pacific Coast Highway.
The project site at 32007 South Coast Highway is a flag shaped approximately 12,400 square foot
coastal bluff lot that is developed with a single family residence part way down the slope,
a detached two car garage located at street level at PCH, and a funicular that runs between
the garage and the residence down the slope. Next slide please. The project site at 32005
Coast Highway is a rectangle shaped approximately 6,000 square foot bacon bluff lot. Next slide,
please. On November 5th, 2025, the Commission found substantial issue for appeal number A-5-LGB-20-0058
and subsequently approved with conditions the CDP on Denovo. The approved project included
permanent authorization of slow prepare activities approved under an emergency CDP
after the fact approval for assuring wall with seven caissons and construction of a
new shotcrete retaining wall at 3207 Coast Highway. The applicant's request for after
the fact approval of the beach access staircase was not authorized by the commission. Next slide
please. Additionally on November 5th, 2025 after finding substantial issue with appeal number
A-5-LGB-20-0059, the Commission approved with conditions another CDP on de Novo.
The CDP included permanent authorization of slow prepare activities approved under an emergency CDP,
replacement of the curb and gutter on Coast Highway, after-the-fact approval for a shoring
mall with three caissons, after-the-fact approval for the demolition of a single-family residence,
and construction of a new shock suite retaining wall at 32005 Coast Highway.
Next slide please.
The Commission's regulations state that the grounds for reconsideration of a permit action
shall be as provided in Coastal Act Section 30627, which states, the basis of the request
for reconsideration shall be either that there is relevant new evidence, which in the exercise
of reasonable diligence could not have been presented at the hearing on the matter, or
that an error of fact or law has occurred which has the potential of altering the Commission's
initial decision.
Next slide please.
On December 2nd, 2025, Steve Kaufman, the applicant's authorized agent, submitted a
letter to the Commission highlighting two factors the applicant's claim justify reconsideration
of the approved projects.
Although the applicants generally support the Commission's decision to approve the projects,
they disagree with the Commission's bluff edge determination and have requested deletion
of the Commission's bluff edge determination from the findings and special conditions.
First, the applicants contend that the project should be reconsidered because they claim
that there is relevant new evidence, which in the exercise of reasonable diligence could
not have been submitted at the public hearing.
Specifically, the applicants assert that after the public hearing concluded, commission staff
referred the bluff edge issue to the staff geologist, who subsequently explained the
basis for his bluff edge determination.
The applicants argue that the staff geologist's testimony was erroneous and served as the
sole basis for the Commission's decision to retain the bluff edge finding. Because the public hearing
had already closed, the applicants and their geotechnical expert claim that they were denied
an opportunity to address and correct these alleged errors. While the applicants did not have an
opportunity to rebut the staff geologist statements made during the staff response to public comment,
all of the information cited in the applicant's reconsideration letter, including the cross-section
and related graphics, was already a part of the administrative record and available to the
commissioners at the time of the hearing. In fact, some of these graphics were displayed during
staff's testimony and the applicant's testimony. Therefore, the evidence referenced in the
reconsideration request does not constitute relevant new evidence as it was available prior
to the hearing, addressed during the hearing, and does not introduce any new material information
that was previously unavailable. Moreover, the opportunity to rebut staff's response to the
applicants' testimony is not in and of itself a basis for reconsideration. Second, the applicants
assert that there is an error of law with the potential to alter the Commission's initial
decision. Specifically, the applicants contend that a bluff-edge determination as a matter of
law applies to only natural landforms and not what they term wholly altered landforms.
According to the applicants, the Commission's bluff-edge determination was improperly based
on an altered landform rather than a natural one. As an initial matter, the Commission's
position is that the bluff edge determination is factual, not a legal determination, so this is
not a valid basis for reconsideration based on an alleged error of law for that reason alone.
Even if it were a legal determination, the applicants do not meet their burden of demonstrating
that there was an error of law that had the potential to alter the Commission's decision.
The LCP definition of a coastal bluff edge makes explicit that bluff edges retreat over time
due to erosion, landslides, formation of goalies, and grading. The LCP anticipates these types of
alterations, including alterations from non-natural sources to the coastal bluff, would move the
bluff edge landward of its historical position. In a case where there is fill placed which would
otherwise extend the coastal bluff beyond the bluff edge, the bluff edge does not move seaward
but remains in the same position. The LCP definition, which largely mirrors the coastal
regulation language would have no meaning or purpose if, as the applicants propose,
bluff edge determinations could only be made on pristine, unaltered bluffs.
The applicant's interpretation would lead to unintended results where any modification
to the slope would preclude the making of a bluff edge determination.
Therefore, many, if not all, the LCP policies relating to bluff face development and bluff
edge setbacks would be inapplicable because there would be no means of correctly identifying
bluff face and the reference point of the bluff edge. The protections and restrictions provided
for bluff face and bluff top development in the LCP would be impossible to implement under such an
interpretation. Staff's response is detailed further in the staff report, but staff would note
that accepting the applicant's interpretation would undermine the basis for the Commission's
factual bluff edge interpretation as well as the underlying purpose of the Coastal Act,
to protect coastal bluff resources and minimize further alteration of natural landforms. Next
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, there's no relevant new evidence
which in the exercise of reasonable due diligence
could not have been presented at the hearings on the matters.
Additionally, no error of law or fact has occurred
which has the potential of altering
the Commission's initial decisions.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission
deny the applicant's request for reconsideration.
Since publication of the staff report,
Commission staff received a letter
from the applicant's representative.
The letter reiterates the request for the Commission
to reconsider the removal of the Bluff Edge determination
made for both projects,
and request that staff include a July 2025 GeoFirm report
as an exhibit to the staff report.
Additionally, the applicant submitted a separate letter
from GeoFirm dated January 30th, 2026,
responding to the staff report.
GeoFirm's January 30th letter does not present
any new relevant information
beyond what is already available in the record.
Commissioned staff also received a letter
from the Surf Rider Foundation expressing support
the staff recommendation. All correspondence including the 2025 Geofirm Report has been
uploaded to the Commission's website as correspondence for this item. Staff also
published an addendum responding to the comments received. Commission staff continues to recommend
that the Commission deny the applicant's request for reconsideration. The motions and resolutions
can be found on page five of the staff report. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is
available for questions. Great, thank you very much. Are there any
ex partes to report? Seeing none any public comments on this item? Yes, we have
three Stephen, Steve Kaufman, Kevin Triggs, and Mitch Silverstein.
Thank you, Mr. Kaufman. Good afternoon Madam Chair, commissioners, staff, Stephen
Kaufman, and I represent the two applicants on this request for
reconsideration. Excuse me, sir, may I ask how much time you need? Thank you, I was just gonna ask.
15 minutes and I'll be followed by briefly with Kevin Trigg, who is our
geofirm geologist. Okay, if you could try to keep it as brief as possible.
I will do the best I can, which probably isn't very good, but I'll try. Thank you. I
have a PowerPoint and a number of slides and please go to the second slide. Quick
background. The applicants owned two properties on a slope below Coast
Highway. At the top next to the street there was a house that along with the
slope under and below it was destroyed. When a keystorm drain next to the
property failed at the bottom the existing house is located on a flat
natural bench which then drops off at an 89-foot elevation contour sharply to the
beach below. That is the bluff edge as we all commonly understand what a bluff edge
as shown in this photo. The damaged slope was temporarily repaired under an
emergency permit as currently covered in plastic as you can see to protect the
house below. In November staff recommended approval of the permanent
slope stabilization we supported the recommendation and conditions but asked
you to delete just one sentence a finding that estimated a bluff edge not
at 89 feet but at 150 foot elevation contour. We argued the finding wasn't
because it was completely unrelated to the slope repair would adversely condemn
the upper lot leaving only a 324 square foot buildable area and importantly for
today it was completely wrong as demonstrated by an 18 page July 2025
geotechnical report prepared by geo firm and all the evidence which showed
that the bluff edge is located at the 89-foot elevation contour. At the
hearing the Commission approved the applications but retained the bluff edge
finding. Relying solely on the opinion of your staff geologist whose testimony,
I'm very sorry to say, was completely inaccurate, we asked the decision be
reconsidered. Next slide. Starting with a clear error of law and fact, a bluff edge
determination isn't just pulled out of whole cloth. The reason you make the
determination is rooted in the Coastal Act and the two separate policies in the
act that address the alteration of natural landforms. That's the coastal
resource. Those policies are your north star in applying the Act to permits and
LCPs. So Section 30251 says permitted development shall be cited and designed
to minimize the alteration of natural landforms. 30253 says new development
shall not in any way require construction of protected devices that
would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. That's
it. No policy in the Act authorizes the Commission or local government to
regulate landforms or just topography that are simply unnatural, manufactured,
or otherwise man-made for the purpose of a bluff edge determination. Next slide.
In July 1977, just after the act became effective, I was a deputy attorney general
happily reassigned to represent the South Coast Regional Commission and this
commission and to watch Commissioner Nodoff appear before that commission
often. I was given copies of the Coastal Act, your regulations, and the statewide guidelines
then in effect, including one adopted in May 1977, the geologic stability and bluff top
development guidelines. I passed out a handout to you. It's really the first page of that
guideline. This tells you the very genesis of the methodology for how a coastal bluff
edge is to be determined, tethered specifically to these policies respecting natural landforms.
So the guideline began by citing and quoting sections 30251 and 30253, which address only
natural landforms, followed immediately by the Commission's methodology for determining
the location of a bluff edge.
The very definition of bluff edge in your regulations and Laguna's land use element
on which your staff geologists relied here.
So from the inception of the Act, the Commission and your staff, which drafted the guideline,
well understood that a bluff edge is to be determined by reference to a natural landform,
protected resource. Next slide. As to the city's definition, in November 2011 your
staff issued a staff report for a Laguna LCP amendment that focused
throughout on quote natural landform alteration and quote the need to
address deficiencies and the minimization of natural landform
alteration policies and I've given you all the references in the handout. The
city's submission repeatedly referred to just landform and your staff just as
repeatedly inserted the word natural before landform. In suggested
modification 21, staff revised submitted policy 7.3 to add the word natural before
landform and you see that here. Next slide. In the staff report which the
Commission adopted explained the Commission imposes suggested
modification 21 which adds numerous actions that address measures to avoid
or minimize alteration of natural landforms and risk from coastal hazards.
And still further, minimizing structures on the bluff and preserving natural land forms
to the extent possible reduces erosion and instability and preserves the visual quality
of the scenic coastal area consistent with section 30251 of the Coastal Act.
And the bluffage definition added is on page 8 of the handout.
In short, natural land forms.
That's why you require a bluffage determination.
As to the LCP amendment, the staff report says the word natural was just inserted to
conform to those policies I mentioned in the Coastal Act and that's half right.
The other half is that's because the resource is natural landform and that's
what you and local government must act to preserve. Next slide. Your geologist
saw the reference in the bluff edge definition to a step-like feature and
without regard to whether the slope here was natural or unnatural he opined
there's a bluff edge at the 150-foot contour. But this slope, as you see, was
anything but natural, completely altered not once, but twice. First, resulting
from the flood of water from the failed storm drain on Coast Highway, and second,
modified and redone as part of a temporary slope repair under an
emergency permit, resulting in a wholly unnatural manufactured slope. Next slide.
In November I showed you this aerial from 1972 when the Orange County Planning
planning commission described the slope as gentle until it reached the natural bench
on which the house below was ultimately built, and then it dropped off at the 89-foot elevation
contours steeply to the beach below. That is the natural landform, and why that is the
location of the bluff edge. Next slide. This is a composite topo, two topos in one. Faintly,
the damaged slope before repair and superimposed on it, the darker topography post repair relied
done by your geologist.
It also shows a slice through the center of the property
from which a cross section was prepared
and uneven contour lines.
But please remember the slice.
The before contours went in one direction,
the after contours went in another,
and from that cross section,
your staff geologist stated there's a step-like feature.
This was a buff edge opinion
based on a completely altered slope, twice,
after damage and after repair.
It was not based on a natural landform in any way,
shape or form and therefore your opinion,
the opinion that he rendered and your decision
which relied on it were an error
as a matter of both law and fact.
Second, the relevant evidence with that,
with reasonable diligence,
we couldn't have provided you with a November hearing.
Once the hearing was closed,
then your geologist offered an opinion
that unfortunately was demonstrably inaccurate.
There was no way for us to correct his misstatement.
So, next slide.
Your staff just showed you this cross section.
Her staff analyst showed you the cross-section of the hearing,
exhibit five to the staff reports.
A slice through a regular contours I just showed you,
and then she turned it over to the staff geologist.
And while this exhibit was before you and on the screen,
he testified in his testimonies at the very end of the handout,
quote, it was said that this slope is not
caused by marine erosion.
This entire topography is actually
the result of marine erosion.
The slope was not formed by other processes
but by marine erosion, and that was completely wrong.
But the commission, understandably, relied on it.
Now, it doesn't take a geologist to see
that this slope is stratified.
You see that by the dashed lines.
And a geologist would know that this entire slope
is not formed by marine erosion.
In fact, nothing in the many geotech reports
prepared for this project would support that,
especially this graphic,
which shows clearly, unmistakably, and in bold,
The following, at the bottom, TSO, that's the bedrock
on top of that QTM, that's the marine terrace ending
at the 89-foot elevation contour on top of which you see
the lower house, and then all the way up the slope
to Coast Highway, QTN, that's distinctly non-marine terrace
terrestrial deposits, so the portion of the slope at issue
between these two properties is distinctly
non-marine terrace deposits, and the staff geologist
was unfortunately wrong in his explanation to you.
Now the staff report doesn't even address
this factual error because it can't.
You can't defend the indefensible.
You can see it with your own eyes.
And of course you want to base your decision
on accurate facts.
What you do have is an 18 page geotech report
from Geofirm with nine references cited
including seven prior site specific reports
from a firm that has probably conducted
well over a thousand such investigations in Laguna.
including approximately 75 in the three-mile area that includes this property.
That report carefully analyzed the property's geologic background and conditions, historic
aerials, and the topographic evaluation and concluded the natural bluff edges at the 89
foot elevation contour, and I quote, that's the only bluff-forming erosion process to have impacted
the seaward margin of the property in the last 83,000 to 105,000 years and which defines the
the location of the natural erosional process that could impact stability or require setbacks
to protect property improvements. In contrast, what do you have? No investigation, no report,
no references and inaccurate testimony. Staff pivots in the staff report here and suggests
there is a natural bluff edge at 150 feet and it can be affected by erosion, landslide,
development of, excuse me, development of gullies and grading. Yes, I agree with that.
can be affected, but you must have the natural bluff edge first and there isn't one at 150 feet
or other than at 89 feet. Next slide. Yes. We'll go through these fairly quickly. The USGS 1885
T-sheet referred to by staff and the staff report is, as Geofirm explained, old and the contouring
of the slope is demonstrably inaccurate. It shows breaks at 40, 60 and 120 feet and we know today
there are no breaks at 40, 60, or 120 feet.
As you saw in the first photo I showed you,
and the 1972 aerial, and the maximum elevation
on this property in the tee sheet
appears to be about 120 feet,
while Coast Highway is actually about 165 feet.
And contrary to the assertion in the staff report,
there's no step-like feature at 150 feet,
and the slope doesn't flatten significantly
to that of a marine terrace in Klein Seaward
because the multiple site-specific investigations
demonstrate there's no marine terrace surface at that elevation. Next slide.
These are aerials from 1938, 39, 47, that Geofirm provided. No natural bluff edge
or step-like feature shown on this property. Next slide. Here again, the 1972
aerial. The gentle slope the Planning Commission noted and the 89-foot
contour. No natural bluff edge at 150 feet. Next slide. Again, photos of that
incredibly damaged slope, no natural bluff edge. Next slide. Again the
composite topo, the before and after, no natural bluff edge, contours before going
one way, contours after going the other way, and there is a 150 contour line, but
it's on slope. And while the cross-section showed might look like it
has a flat area on top based on a one-dimensional slice for the property,
the two dimensional topos demonstrate otherwise.
Next slide, still further, these are lidar surveys.
These are three dimensional views of the Earth's topography.
No step-like feature or bluff edge at 150 feet,
but they clearly show in red the step-like feature
and bluff edge at the 89 foot contour.
Next slide, this puts this property in context for you.
You can create steps everywhere.
All of the houses seaward of Coast Highway.
Coast Highway itself, an inland of Coast Highway, graded pads, streets,
and other landforms all the way to the top of the ridge line.
That's not what the Coastal Act contemplates.
Not what the city contemplated in submitting its 2011 LCP amendment to you,
and not what the commission and staff intended when the word natural was carefully
and repeatedly inserted before the word landform.
Last slide.
Commissioners, we respectfully ask that you grant reconsideration based
on both grounds for reconsideration.
A week after your November decision, the city approved a house on the upper lot
and rejected the bluff edge suggested by your staff.
That's been appealed, and hopefully it will come before you soon.
And we ask that these two appeals be expeditiously rescheduled together with
the appeal with the hope we can finally implement the permanent slope
stable obsession badly needed to protect the lower house from a further rainfall event.
Thank you and next Kevin Trigg.
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
My name is Kevin Trigg.
I'm the principal geologist of Geofirm.
Our company has conducted on this particular bluff
in Laguna Beach from Aliso Canyon to Three-Arched Bay
over 70 bluff edge studies.
And we've enjoyed a great working relationship
with Mark Johnson and with Joe Street.
I met, saw Joe Street here today and caught up with him.
And the history that we have with the commission
is one of cooperation and one of collaboration.
And we typically will prepare a report,
define a bluff edge and present it
and have consensus or very close consensus.
I mean, we'll get out in the field and we'll look at it
and we may be a few feet apart,
but we can reconcile and we can get to a point
where the project can move ahead and it's safe
as the Coastal Act requires,
and that there won't be any need for shoreline protection
as the Coastal Act requires.
So this particular project,
I was taken aback by how far off our line
and the commission's line was,
to the point where I was kind of revisiting
how is our analysis, these are the same principles,
they're the same definitions,
they're the same applications,
yet we've literally, we're nowhere near each other.
We're at 89, he's at 150,
we are several hundred feet apart laterally,
and it doesn't seem like there's any hope
of ever trying to reconcile this.
if I could have just a another minute is that okay alright okay anyway what I
went back and I tried to figure out where is the key difference and the key
differences in the statement that Steve brought up where the consideration of
the entire topographic surface of this area as being marine well that would
imply that there's a marine hazard throughout this whole area, because it's a marine surface.
That's not the case.
The marine surface is much lower, and the surface that he's applying the setback to
is actually accumulating.
It's material that is being eroded off of the hillsides and piling up for thousands
of years, and then ended up having Pacifico's highway built on it.
So this is a depositional environment, it is not an erosional environment.
There is no marine erosion anywhere on this material by evidence of the fact that there's
non-marine material that has survived there for tens of thousands of years.
So based on the technical data, I think that that interpretation is creating this difference.
And if we could have that alone, just that alone would be reconsidered.
I think we could go a long way to resolving the differences in the bluff edge.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mitch Silverstein, should we come up and that'll be the last speaker.
Two minutes or three, Chair Harmon and commissioners, Mitch Silverstein with Surf Rider Foundation.
On behalf of Surf Rider and the public beaches we protect, I ask that you support staff's
recommendation and deny these requests. A reconsideration can only be permitted if
there is new evidence or if an error of law or fact has occurred. On new evidence, staff
clearly articulates that no new evidence was presented that wasn't already in the record
at the time of the original hearing. The applicant argues that commission staff erroneously
testified that the bluff is made up of marine terrorist deposits rather than non-marine
terrorist deposits as well. However, this distinction is immaterial because Laguna Beach's
LUE makes no distinction between or mention of the underlying sediments of a coastal bluff
in determining the bluff edge.
Coastal bluffs form through erosion, no matter what the eroded material is made from.
As for the error of law argument, the applicant contends that the Coastal Act and Laguna Beach's
LUE only regulate development on natural landforms, and since the bluff has been altered, no bluff
edge can be determined.
However, the city's LUE explicitly states that bluff edges change due to, and I quote,
erosion, landslides, gullies, and grading, end quote, clearly anticipating altered bluffs.
If bluff edge determinations only apply to pristine slopes, I could probably just shovel
some fill on a bluff and say, look, it's been altered, now the Coastal Act doesn't apply
anymore.
Clearly, that would be absurd and contrary to the Coastal Act's protective intent.
In any case, the commissioned geologists based their determination on historical maps from
before any of these unnatural alterations occurred.
The commissioned geologists determined the bluff edge is at 150 feet elevation, the point
where the slope of the topmost step ends and becomes relatively level.
Because this bluff does have a step-like character, the LUE requires identifying the bluff edge
at the landward edge of the topmost step.
The bluff edge determination in its location has been on record for six years.
It was established in 2019 following a substantial issue hearing for the adjacent property that
shares the same bluff edge.
Therefore, the Commission's determination remains correct and consistent with the city's
LUE and the Coastal Act.
There is neither new evidence nor error of law to substantiate this request.
Proper bluff edge determinations protect sensitive coastal resources and help avoid the need
for future shoreline armoring that would sacrifice public beaches to private development interests.
Surfeiter urges you to deny this request.
Thank you for the opportunity.
that's how the public comments for this great thank you very much okay well I
will return to our staff thank you chair Harmon so hearing what we've heard
today staff didn't hear anything new that wasn't previously addressed in the
staff report and recommendation and the hearings on these matters I want to
point out that there is there's nothing unusual about the way the bluff edge
Setback policies were applied in this case or in these cases
Nor the manner of the bluff edge identification itself, which is is based largely on topography
We've responded fully to the comments that
Were provided here as well in the addendum. I do want to point out that this particular
preceding is not an opportunity to revisit the bluff edge determination that was made
by the Commission at its hearings on the CDPs. We're simply looking at the narrow question
of whether the requests here meet the grounds identified in the coastal act.
On the bluff edge determination itself, I'd point out that our geologist has many, many
years of experience doing these things. So his determination was in line with
prior determinations on these sites. There was a prior determination of the
bluff edge location in the context of prior appeal on these sites and the
determination made in that case by a prior staff geologist is on point with
the one made here today or made in the Commission's actions and I think with
that I don't know if we have any further comments from our staff council
yeah I would just like to add that the fact that the Coastal Act protects
natural landforms does not mean that the Commission can't identify a bluff edge
on a natural landform that has been altered the fact that it is still at
based a natural landform they didn't create the entire bluff there it is a
natural landform that has been altered and also to note that even if the
applicant were right about the Coastal Act interpretation LTPs can be more
protective than the Coastal Act itself and it's really clear that this LTP
policy identifies the bluff edge determination including if there's been
to fill or cut. So it takes into account the potential for alteration of the natural form.
Thank you very much. Okay. I'll bring it back to the commission for comment, questions,
motion. Commissioner Escalante. Thanks Madam Chair. I'll be brief. I just want to echo everything
that Mr. Silverstein said. I, you know, that's sort of what I was thinking. And just to add,
I think is unusual is the lengths to which, you know, folks have tried to push a big
giant cube into a small hole. I've never seen a nuclear connecting a garage to a downslope home.
So I really do hope that the Tip to Heart, the commission's intention on this, not just to
protect the president of now 50 years since we're celebrating but also protect the safety
of those who live on and near the bluffs. So thank you staff for your thorough review
and your thorough work and I appreciate it thanks. Vice Chair Hart. Thanks I'm ready
to make the motion and I would just in my mind the the clearest point here is the one
that was just stated by our council,
which is there hasn't been anything presented that is new
that would justify reconsideration at this time.
We're not here to relitigate the original decision
by the commission, and based on that,
I'm prepared to make the motion.
So I move the commission grant reconsideration
of the coastal development permit number A-5-LGB-20-0058,
asking for a no vote on this motion.
Second.
It's a motion by Vice Chair Hart,
second by Commissioner not off. They're asking for a no vote. May we have a roll
call please. Commissioner O'Malley? No. O'Malley? No. Commissioner Escalante? No.
Escalante? No. Commissioner Hart? No. Hart? No. Commissioner Jackson? No. Jackson? No.
Commissioner Kelly? No. Kelly? No. Commissioner Lee? No. Lee? No. Commissioner Lopez? No. Lopez?
no commissioner Kalimak no Kalimak no commissioner not off now not off no
commissioner Moreno Moreno no no commissioner Wilson no Wilson no chair
Harmon no Harmon no the vote is unanimous thank you all right I can move
on now to the second motion which has to do with the second item I believe are
they combined yes move the commission grant reconsider it I moved that the
commission grant reconsideration of coastal development permit number a-5-lgb-20-0059
and ask for a no vote. Second. Motion by Vice Chair Hart second by Commissioner
Notoff. They're asking for a no vote. May we have the roll call please.
Commissioner Escalante. No. Escalante no. Commissioner Hart. No. Hart no. Commissioner
Jackson no Jackson no Commissioner Kelly no Kelly no commissioner Lee no Lee no
Commissioner Lopez no Lopez no Commissioner Kalmick no Kalmick no
Commissioner Knotthoff no Knotthoff no Commissioner Moreno Moreno no
Commissioner Wilson no Wilson no Commissioner O'Malley no O'Malley no
chair Harmon. No. Harmon no. The vote is unanimous. Thank you thank you very much
reconsideration has not been granted. Thank you. Okay now we will move on to
item 15 please. Thank you chair Harmon. So the next item is the deputy director's
report for San Diego Coast District. On this packet we're reporting the
completion of LCP certifications amendment certification for the city of
Karlsbad's housing element rezone. Here the executive director again has
determined that the city's action is legally adequate and we're also
reporting seven waivers for projects in Oceanside, Solana Beach in San Diego.
Again no no opposition and we're asking whether three or more commissioners
object to the waivers in the report. Thank you very much. Are there any
any expertise? Any public comments? Yes, we have three online via Zoom. We'll start with
Peter Misako followed by Brian Church and Amanda Quitt. And I don't see Romero Lazada
or more if you can raise your hand. Peter Misako, if you can unmute yourself. Okay.
So I want to thank you for
bringing me here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Amanda declined.
I see Peter.
Peter, I see you.
Can you go ahead and unmute
yourself, please?
I did it.
There you go.
I don't have any comment with
regards to the project in
Solana Beach, but I'm here to
Okay great. Thank you very much. Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the report? Seeing no objection the Commission can curse. Thank you. Item 16B.
Thank you and item 16B. There is staff PowerPoint on this if you could bring
that up and Melissa Bailing Gonzalez with our San Diego Coast District Office
is going to do the staff presentation on this item. Go ahead, Melissa. Great. Good
afternoon commissioners. Item 16b is a request by the city of Oceanside to amend their IP to update
inclusionary housing provisions. This is an there is also an addendum to this item that adds
an appendix with the suggested modifications in line with the city's proposed text and response
to a public comment questioning the commission's authority to impose suggested modifications on
inclusionary housing provisions that will be discussed later in the presentation. Next slide
please. The IP amendment includes two portions. The first portion approved by the city in 2024
would increase the requirement to reserve housing for low and moderate income households from 10%
to 15% and at the same time increase the minimum threshold subject to inclusionary housing
requirements from three units to 10 or more units. It would also require reserved units within
a multi-family development, provide a proportionate unit mix based on bedroom count compared to market
rent units, be dispersed throughout the project, and have access to the same amenities as market
rate units. Lastly, it would clarify that ADUs may be used to satisfy inclusionary housing
requirements. Next slide please. During the review of this application, the city revised the submittal
to also incorporate revisions to inclusionary housing provisions approved by the city in 2023,
such as defining the methods by which inclusionary housing may be satisfied,
which kinds of developments are included, alternative options for providing inclusionary
housing, and in-loof fees. This amendment also adds new sections regarding standards and incentives
to reserve inclusionary units, application and review procedures and agreements and restrictions.
Next slide please. The standard of review for IP amendments is their conformance with
an adequacy to carry out the policies of the certified LUP. Although the certified LUP does
not contain any specific inclusionary housing policies, it does contain policies that support
maximum public access to the coast and inclusionary housing supports coastal access for all income
levels. Inclusionary housing is also aligned with the Commission's Environmental Justice Policy
and Section 30604-H of the Coastal Act, which the Commission has interpreted to extend to LCPs
as well as CDPs, allowing the Commission and local governments to consider environmental justice
in planning decisions such as the subject amendment to protect affordable housing
and promote a range of affordable new residential types for all income levels.
In addition, 30604-G directs the commission to encourage the provision of new affordable
housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income in the coastal zone.
The City's proposal to increase the affordability requirement from 10% to 15% is consistent with
these mandates and goals. However, the proposal to revise the number of units that are subject
to inclusionary housing requirements from three or more units to 10 or more units is a significant
increase. As such, projects that currently require inclusionary housing would no longer be required
to do so, which would likely decrease affordable housing throughout the city's coastal zone.
Therefore, staff is recommending suggested modifications 1, 3 and 4 to revise the applicability
of this provision from 10 or more units to 7 or more units. The city agrees with this change.
As discussed in the Addendum, staff received public comments from Christopher Peterson
questioning the commission's legal authority to impose this change. As clarified in the addendum,
the commission is not requiring the city to increase its affordability requirements,
and commission staff have coordinated with city staff to revise the 10-unit minimum threshold,
triggering inclusionary housing requirements to a 7-unit minimum threshold. This modification was
also recommended to be consistent with other nearby cities' inclusionary housing provisions,
such as the City of Carlsbad, which has a minimum of seven units,
Del Mar with a threshold of two units,
and Sanitas with a threshold of seven units,
and San Diego with a threshold of five units in the coastal zone.
This change would also allow developers to have a simple way
to build projects with whole numbers of on-site affordable units,
rather than have to provide fractions of affordable units
via in-loof fees or alternative methods.
Therefore, to memorialize the agreed upon proposal,
staff continues to recommend suggested modifications
one, three, and four that the city supports.
The commenter still questions
whether lowering the threshold would actually be effective
at increasing the supply of affordable housing.
Staff notes that while there's no economic feasibility study
specific to the city's proposed increase
an inclusionary housing comparing a seven unit threshold
to a 10 unit threshold,
or any studies on the effectiveness
of inclusionary housing policies in other nearby cities,
there is still a larger body of research cited
in the addendum that supports
that inclusionary housing provisions
facilitate increased onsite affordable housing.
It is important to note that the city's goal
is to ensure that its inclusionary housing policies
work in tandem with its density bonus provisions,
which is included in item 16A,
the Downtown Density for Six Housing Cycle Amendment.
In order to incentivize developers
to construct affordable units,
density bonus can also be applied.
Therefore, developers could go beyond
the minimum inclusionary requirement
in order to apply density bonus
and receive further incentives,
concessions and waivers of development standards
to increase financial feasibility
and result in more affordable units.
Suggested modification five is recommended to allow a DUS
to be constructed onsite for any residential development,
including single family and multifamily projects
to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements.
The remaining suggested modifications
include minor revisions, updates or clarifications.
And again, the city is in agreement
with all of the suggested modifications.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, staff recommends that the commission reject the proposed amendment as submitted
and then approve the amendment with suggested modifications.
The motions and resolutions can be found on page six of the staff report.
This concludes the staff presentation and staff is available for questions.
Thanks so much, Melissa.
Do we have any ex partes on this item?
All right, seeing none, we'll open public comment.
How many commenters do we have?
Or do we have a...
I'm sorry.
the city would be the first yes we have Esther Sanchez the mayor of city of
Oceanside of course whatever you'd like and how much time would you need I would
say probably no more than two minutes I only keep my presentation really short
here should we save the rest for the mayor or just kidding sure Wow I get to
say that yes are you Jonathan Borrego please proceed thanks thank you Jonathan
Borrego city manager city of Oceanside I do have a presentation but in the
interest of time and because I think staff did a great job summarizing all our
amendment, we don't need to pull up the slides here I'm just gonna keep my
comments rather brief and what I wanted to focus on today was just to provide a
little bit of background in context of why the city is pursuing this local
Coastal Plan amendment. In the summer of 2023 the Oceanside City Council held a
workshop on affordable housing and the goal of that housing was to develop
strategies to increase the production of affordable housing citywide including
of course within our coastal zone. One of the key recommendations emerging from
that workshop was to increase the city's long-standing 10% inclusionary housing
requirement up to 15%. Staff subsequently returned to our City Council with a code
amendment and an LCP in late 2023 to effectuate these change. The changes went
into effect for the balance of the city outside of the coastal zone in early 2024.
To provide a little bit of context, one of the reasons that's really important for us
to encourage further production of affordable housing in Oceanside is our current arena
target is 5,443 housing units.
Of that number, we are to produce 1,986 in the very low and low-income categories.
Unlike many cities in the state, it's a real challenge to hit those lower income levels.
It's a lot easier to hit the moderate and above moderate units.
So increasing our inclusionary requirement, but even by 5%, it's really important to help
us achieve those goals.
As I mentioned earlier, this zoning code amendment to increase the inclusionary requirement from
10 to 15% has been in effect throughout the balance of the city since early 2024.
and I can tell that since that time increasing that requirement by 5% is in
no way shape or form slowed development down in the balance of the city. Contrary
to what some people might believe it really hasn't proven to be any sort of
an impediment in terms of housing production in our city so I would argue
that doing it in the coastal zone I'm assuming we would have the same effect
we have a lot of development pressure in our coastal zone as I'm sure you
understand. We are aware of the correspondence that was received in
opposition to this request and your staff just touched upon that. With respect
to that correspondence, we have absolutely no objections to staff's
recommendation to lower the threshold from 10 units to 7 units. You know, it
would actually help us in our goal to further affordable housing. So with all
due respect to the letter writer, we have absolutely no objections to staff
recommendation law art from 10-7. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions
that you may have and I want to thank staff for their cooperation on this one
and assistance and guidance and really happy that we're able to present this
afternoon and ask that you support staff's recommendation and our LCPA. Thank you.
Great, thanks so much. Next speaker will be the mayor of Ocean sign. Hello. Good
Good afternoon. I'm honorable commissioners and Madam Chair. My name is Esther Sanchez.
I am the mayor for the city of Oceanside. I previously was a council member and I was
also a commissioner for the coastal commission in 2009 to 2013. I was born and raised actually
later became part of our coastal zone for the city of Oceanside. I grew up in the neighborhood
that I live in still is one of the low-income Latino neighborhoods, the first one in Oceanside.
And as you can imagine, access is extremely important for me to ensure that these resources
are accessible to everyone.
So first of all, we did have, originally we had a pretty good program in the coastal zone,
area with respect to our LCP and the Coastal Act, we had redevelopment, so with tax increment
and in lieu fees, we were building affordable housing, probably more than this rate, but
when redevelopment disappeared, so did tax increment, so did in lieu fees. And so it
has really caused us to have a more uphill battle to ensure coastal access for everyone.
So the only way really to make that happen is to be able to have go from 10% to 15%.
You just heard that we're a little behind with respect to the low and very low and we're
pretty much with all of the either built or in the process of being built or has
been approved we are more than hitting the mark for for at market housing and
so especially in the coastal zone there's been a lot of development. We
absolutely recognize the authority of this Commission. We are very much in
support of staffs recommendation and we appreciate your looking at this. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The only other speaker we had signed up was Chris Peterson. Chris, we're not seeing
you on Zoom. If you are there, please raise your hand. All right. I'm seeing no hands
raised. Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. I'll return to our staff. If they have any closing
comments or thoughts? Nothing further at this point other than to thank the city for working
with us well on this LCP amendment as well as other LCP amendments that we've
brought before the Commission lately. Also do want to point out that this was
the first staff presentation for Melissa are who made that presentation so want
to congratulate her on that. Thank you. Amazing thank you okay well I'll return
to the Commission for their comments, questions? Commissioner Lopez. Yeah, thank
you. You're going through this report. I had a lot of questions and I get this
number seven, right? The number seven leads to 15% equal in one unit. So I
understand why that is a floor that I can support. The challenge for me is the
ADU allowance as the unit. I can't, understanding the quality of life that
somebody gets from an ADU versus a single-family home, it doesn't make sense
to me that way. Allowing that to be though a straight number. If we're gonna go
down this route, I will only be able to support this if the modification to five
says that it's two ADUs right for the one. That's the only way it makes sense
to me because going with one, knowing what I've got in my community, the
Challenges and I'll share even 15% seems low to me and the Salinas Valley and Monterey County
Our floor is 20% nobody's done a project in 20 years below that and now we require 30%
And projects are getting built. So it you know, I it takes a lot. But if we're gonna do 80 use is that modification?
Then I want to see a two-for-one on an adu based on the size to give families of families a quality of life through that
EJ lens putting somebody in an ADU that may be a family of two to three is not fair and
I think families deserve to have access to affordable housing along the coast in a way
that they enjoy these communities in the way that most of us get to. So for me just know
that that unfortunately is a line for me. I can support modifications one three four
as proposed by staff but it's number five and that I'm having an issue with right now.
Thank you madam chair. Thank you commissioner commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner Lopez.
I, just historical perspective on this commission.
We used to, when we first started having this conversations
when legislation started being sort of talked about
regarding, you know, the density bonuses
and affordable housing and statewide policy.
when as commissioners were pushing for 15,
20% affordable housing, we were called crazy at best.
So I'm very, very excited to hear you say
that Commissioner Lopez,
that you are very supportive of the higher numbers.
I know that it's not sort of,
it's complicated up and down the coast
with different local governments having
their different perspectives,
But I'm glad that at least we're moving up to 10%.
But I agree with you, Commissioner Lopez,
we should be moving that goalpost
to be a lot more ambitious
because we're gonna be left with a lot of empty luxury units
and people living on the streets.
So thanks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Kelly.
I have a question for staff and possibly the city.
Just what is the, the reason why I ask is
because historically, prior to the housing
and HCD requirements in the last arena cycle
and then there was legislation
associated with ADU policy,
that we in a lot of municipalities
have increased our ADU square footage
up to the 1200 square foot maximum.
And I'm curious in this jurisdiction,
what is the definition of an ADU
and what is the maximum square footage allowed
to be considered an ADU?
Madam chair and commissioners and answer to the commissioner's question.
Yes, our AD ordinance does reflect state law and
that was actually something that I was reflecting on back there.
Because you can have ADUs that are over a thousand square feet.
And generally, I will say this, it's very rare that we see
an ADU used to satisfy an inclusionary housing requirement.
The only time that we've seen that in recent years has been with new
larger single-family residential tracks and there are new developments now that
are being built with ADUs. Those ADUs are deed restricted by the way so they
would need to be deed restricted in order to meet that requirement. But the ADUs I
guess that I'm familiar with in this scenario are actually fairly large and
actually larger than a lot of our apartment units at over a thousand
square feet so you know I respect with the what the Commissioner said but I do
want to make sure that it's clear that our ads are actually can be over a
thousand square feet in size so they're not necessarily the smaller units thank
you so much for that and I just I respect respectfully you know receive
the comments and I from Commissioner Lopez and I almost called you supervisor
supervisor Commissioner Lopez and I I want to just stay I I don't have you
you know, a particularly, you know,
I understand the process that this local jurisdiction
has gone through and understand that HCD is counting
these ADUs as housing units per the arena cycle.
So they are housing units, but that said,
I think with some of the new state law changes,
I think it's AB 1033 that jurisdictions can opt into now,
those ADUs actually can be condo converted
into their own purchasable units.
So for communities who have high cost of housing,
which I haven't looked at the average
cost per home in this jurisdiction specifically,
but I know for where we are in Sonoma County,
those are actually the most affordable opportunities
for new home ownership for individuals when they're not,
obviously deed restriction is a complicated factor
on top of that, but even when they're not deed restricted,
they still are naturally occurring affordable
and up to 1200 square feet in my jurisdiction,
which means there are three bedrooms
that are comfortable three bedroom units.
So what historically had been limited
at the 800 square foot maximum,
and then with the state law changes up to 1200 square feet,
they actually are decent sized homes,
which is a different way to think about it,
but it's naturally occurring affordable
based on the square footage size.
So it didn't jump out to me as,
If it's somebody's pool house, that's a whole other issue
and it's not gonna be affordable,
but if it's deed restricted per what the city manager said,
then I do think it's actually going to increase
the availability of housing stock for people who need it.
So I don't think it's a terrible compromise,
but I respect where you're coming from on it.
Commissioner Jackson.
I appreciate the conversation.
I like to keep it going a little bit to see
if there's any appetite to change that component to the ADU
to a floor of 1,000, 1,000 square feet.
Is that something that I know obviously we have to talk to?
Can I jump in?
Can I ask our staff to weigh in on this conversation
and just give us some feedback on what you're hearing?
Not a lot of jumping.
I can start with the ADU issue.
I think under state law,
we can't set a floor of 1,000 square feet.
So while that's a creative solution,
I don't think that's consistent with the state ADU law.
I'll turn to Carl for anything else you have to add.
All righty then.
Could I also clarify Commissioner Lopez,
are you talking about just removing the strike through
of single families so that ADUs.
So suggested modification five takes the language
that the city included so ADUs may be constructed on site
satisfy an inclusionary housing requirement for a single family
residential development is what the city proposed. Our suggested mod is to remove
the two word single or hyphenated word single family. So is it would you like to
just remove the strike through of single family is that what you're proposing? I
mean I would I guess the proposal would be to allow for either single a single
home or two ADUs to satisfy that. Do you see that? So you can approach it from
different ways if you want to continue to use single family in there. There's a
way to do that as well, but I think if we're going to go to ADU based on the
fact that we don't define that, the state does. It could be as small as, and I would
hate to see a community see 21 homes built with three, I mean what, 400 is the
floor for state on smallest, three four hundred square foot units built and that
having met the requirements. That would be something hard for me to see given
the opportunity we have right now to set an expectation to create housing for
families. So part of the challenge we're having right now is we're reading into
some state law that we're not experts on and so we are reticent to jump into
solutions without taking a moment to think through whether what the solutions
are that are also consistent with existing state law
on the housing side.
So that's why we're struggling here to respond quickly,
because it does wait into, I mean,
there's been so many new laws about ADUs and housing
in general, and I think we're nervous about misstepping
and jumping into it.
So maybe I might suggest we could either,
we could get a sense of the commission
this is a direction that everybody you know that more more commissioners are
interested in and then we have we can offer some suggestions for how to move
forward let's do that let's continue Commissioner Jackson if you want to if
you have more comments you'd like to make otherwise I'll go to Commissioner
Lee oh I've made mine thank you thank you
Commissioner Lee my question on this was just my understanding if we're talking
about thresholds around either seven or ten units that these are not single
family projects. These are multifamily projects and thus the ADU would be a
standalone structure outside of that and I just wanted to get a sense if the city
was, if the expectation was that these are multifamily projects. No one's
building seven single-family homes on one lot and then creating an ADU to
provide the inclusionary. I read that as a subdivision of seven single-family
homes so I'm glad you asked for the clarification because I was not. But if
single family homes and wouldn't that not be a one project?
Cuz you would, then you would do the subdivision.
Should we invite the city to come up and-
And obviate the inclusionary role to begin with?
I would maybe suggest we ask the city to come up and
help us with this particular conversation.
It would be great if you could opine on what you see the types of projects that
would fit within these, or around these thresholds.
Clearly it's not impacting, you know, 50 unit apartment buildings.
Or like, you know, double lot, double duplexes, but.
Right, so as I, as I see it as currently being discussed, it would apply to a
residential, single family residential subdivision with seven or more units.
And within that subdivision of seven or more units in order for them to meet their
inclusionary requirement, inclusionary housing requirement, they would have the
option of providing those affordable units as ADUs.
In the alternative is if you were building a multi-family project, then I
I think that's kind of self-explanatory, but the way I understand it is,
it would have to be a seven lot, a minimum of a seven lot residential subdivision.
But back to my original point, I can think of one development that we've had
in the city in which they've asked to allow their ADUs to count towards their
inclusionary requirement, it's just not common practice at all.
because typically a land developer does not want to de-restrict a housing unit and
a brand new single-family subdivision.
So, you know, it's, regrettably, it may be kind of a hypothetical situation yet
it's written into the ordinance, but I just don't really see that playing out for us.
Yeah, the way I read it, it was very unusual.
And then I'll just add tack on my comment.
While I'm here, it's incredibly important to build more housing of every single type.
and inclusionary requirements are certainly a way to get more affordable housing.
We just want to make sure that we are incentivizing people to build the housing.
So when you move these thresholds around from 10 to 7 or 3 or whatever it is,
you always have that last couple of units that fall off.
So someone who decides, well, I'm just going to build six market rate units, so
I don't have to deal with the seven versus if you could have gotten an 11 unit project
and then had the inclusionary apply.
So hopefully there has been some study in this.
I have not had a moment to run the model on this alongside the density bonus, but
that has been an incredibly effective way to promote inclusionary housing units,
particularly at extremely low income and very low income levels to have sufficient
density bonuses where it makes it completely worthwhile and that it pencils.
Unfortunately, what we're seeing in so many places because of the rapid interest
rate rise since 2022 is that so many things don't pencil.
That is why you end up with luxury units like Commissioner Espaillante was
talking about because when you have to borrow money from the bank and
you have to get money from investors who expect a certain return.
In order to build that thing, it's so expensive that you have to charge higher
rents in order to justify all the people who lent you the money to build that thing.
And what we need to try to do is find more lowercase a affordable ways to build as
much housing as possible so that we don't have to charge as much for it.
And part of it is in the math of these percentages.
I see the 50% bonus for VLI, and presumably a lower,
maybe as low as 24% for just low income.
And so I hope and assume that the municipalities
are doing the math and also talking to people
who are providing housing in these areas
to make sure this set of conditions
will actually allow people and incentivize people
to say, oh, I better go to Oceanside and build something,
they've created a set of incentives where it will actually make sense to
build more. Thank you. Vice Chair Hart. Yeah thanks I really appreciate that
especially with your experience Commissioner Lee and I also very much
appreciate your comments but I have to say I come down on the side of
Commissioner Lee because I feel like the most important thing and particularly in
light of what the City of Oceanside is saying that they've only had one
application for needy and a multifamily development is that what you said one
excuse me one inquiry in a single-family development okay yes but I have to say
that right now the number one goal is more affordable housing in the coastal
zone and anything we can do to facilitate that I think we should be
doing with regard to your comments Commissioner Kelly I think that the way
the law reads is that the municipality has to adopt the provision to allow ADUs
to be converted to a condominium or whatever are you familiar with that and
is that the intention of the city of Oceanside or where are you on that? No, no
and actually and quite frankly as I think about this in the context of the
coastal zone, I would say that actually the likelihood of having a single family
residential subdivision in our coastal zone is almost zero. Yeah. And this is you
You know, I think, I think we're actually this is actually probably more applicable
to our inland areas.
They sit and reflect on the conversation.
So to answer your question directly, as I am familiar with that law, we have not had
any applications yet to subdivide and sell off ADUs, but I am familiar with that legislation.
Yeah.
And I mean, once you get this and we'll see what happens, but in any event chair, my perspective,
I'm ready to move forward with the deletion of single family on that number
five. Okay thank you any further comments if not I accept a motion
Vice Chair Hart. Just gonna have multiple motions I'll start with the first I
move the Commission reject the City of Oceanside's implementation program
amendment as submitted and recommend a yes vote. Same motion by Vice Chair Hart
and a second by Commissioner Wilson. There. I'm just looking for clarity and I
think it may be the second piece of it but what was what's the motion on the
suggested modification to number five? No modification. No modification. So leaving
it not allowing for ADUs to be used and leaving it single-family? No we're
deleting single-family. Staff is recommending that single-family be
deleted and it just be applicable to all projects in the coastal zone. So that's
recommendation. If I could clarify the motion on the floor right now is to
simply reject the IP as amended, the second motion would be right to adopt
the suggested modification. So if you have concerns about the suggested
modifications, that would be the second vote. Right, okay, thank you. Right, so at this time I'm
asking for a yes vote to reject the implementation program that's submitted.
I motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by Wilson. Yes. May we have a roll call vote
please. Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Kelly, yes. Commissioner Lee? Yes. Lee, yes. Commissioner
Lopez? Yes. Lopez, yes. Commissioner Kalmyk? Yes. Kalmyk, yes. Commissioner
Nodhoff? Aye. Nodhoff, yes. Commissioner Moreno? Moreno, yes. Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson, yes. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante, yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote
is unanimous. Thank you. The implementation plan is rejected. Vice Chair Hart. Thank
you. I move that the Commission certify the City of Oceanside's implementation
program amendment for the City of Oceanside if modified pursuant to the
staff recommendation and I'm asking for a yes vote. Second. Second. Did you get a
second? Yeah. Thank you that's a motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner
Wilson. They're asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll call vote please.
Commissioner Jackson. So can I again I just need clarity here so what we're
doing here is striking the ability of the use of an ADU right? No no we're
saying that you could use an ADU to meet your inclusionary housing requirement
for any residential development, so it would be adopting the suggested
modification to remove the word single-family. So the city originally
proposed that you could only use an ADU to satisfy your inclusionary requirement
for a single-family residential development, and with the suggested
modification, you could use an ADU to meet your inclusionary housing
requirement for any residential development and to clarify if supervisor
Commissioner Lopez wants to make an amending motion this is where that would
happen yes is the first time I've ever done this in my seven months on here so
please bear with me so I would hope that I'm doing this correctly and requesting
an amending motion to that suggested modification number five that we would
only allow so if it was done to 80 use right rather than a single does that
make sense well not to make your motion for you but I think what you want to do
is not include you want to remove limited to single family right or that
I think I'm open to two ideas here but if I'm not agreeing I'm just right so
I'm okay with that amended motion removing suggested modification number
five I think that's the easiest way forward I think that's a less
complicated. Way forward. I know, I was trying with the more complicated but I'm
okay with that. I would also note however that there are multi-family applications
of building ADUs separately especially for instance conversion projects or
commercial areas that have been converted to housing so I wouldn't want
to forego the opportunity to have ADUs fulfill the inclusionary requirement in
the event it applies at this at that type of project as opposed to single
family. And that was a more complicated attempt. It's that question of threshold,
right? If I could get two for one rather than one, I would feel comfortable with
that. Meaning then for the seven. But then we would still need to strike single
family in order to have that be done. And in those applications, I would argue
that a multifamily structure that has market rehousing, but a separate ADU,
which is inclusionary, the ADU in that case is the more desirable unit. So I
wouldn't want to make that one not be through the chair to clarify could could
this also be an or situation single-family or to ADUs that's what my
initial hope no no we have to have a suggested mod that the city the city
can't it can't be choose your own adventure by the city so the Commission
has to choose one or the other that it but there could be two different
amending motions. There could be an amending motion to see if it passes, then
you don't have to, so you could start with the amending motion that you prefer.
If it passes and then that's when you prefer, then it becomes part of the main
motion. If it doesn't pass and you want to make a second amending motion, which
is your lesser preferred option, you can do it. So that, to get to where you want
to go, I think those are your two paths. Okay, so thank you. I think we have an
amending motion on the floor. I'll second the amending motion for psych of
conversation and with clarification of what it really is that would be great so
my understanding of the amending motion is that suggested modification 5 would
be removed from this I would like to clarify because suggested modification
number 5 includes multiple things and it seems we are only talking about part B
right of suggested modification number 5 and so what we're specifically talking
about is under B, staff had recommended modifying by removing single-family from
the first sentence and and your suggested or your amending motion would
undo that edit essentially correct to keep single-family in correct okay
Commissioner Kalman you add to the motion please I have a to the motion I
have a question what does an ADU with a multifamily unit look like I have it
It seems like a rather unique piece.
It's definitely not common.
But for example, because we've worked on conversions,
you can later put units into a parking structure
of a converted building.
And so those units would be considered ADUs.
So you have your multifamily, and then
you add some kind of one-off.
Yeah, so it's like a office building
with a parking structure.
We convert the building.
And then you can later build ADUs because of subsequent.
I think that's what we've seen.
That's our experience as well, is converting garages
or other types of accessory structures
to a multifamily into 80.
They're already there, but it's not common.
It's not common to new construction, I wouldn't think.
We've definitely seen that as a way
to address need for housing, certainly,
especially in Southern California
in the more dense developed areas.
OK, thank you.
Thank you.
OK, we have a motion by Commissioner Lopez,
a second by Commissioner Wilson.
They're asking for a yes vote.
May we have a roll call, please?
Commissioner Jackson, remember, I'm a Florida education,
so I'm a little slow here.
So I am I honestly, I could use a little clarification on what
the changes to modification, like we're changing modification
five.
And so what does that actually mean in practice?
So just before we happen, if I could just make a request,
if you guys could please go through me to turn on your mic,
it's going to make this conversation hopefully
a little smoother.
Thank you.
Okay so if we could get some clarification on what we're actually voting on, thank you.
So I will take a stab and Miss Warren can correct me if I get it wrong, but we have
an amending motion on the floor that amending motion would remove the strikeout that staff
had recommended under its modification number five, part B. So I'm just going to go ahead
and read that sentence to be very clear so it's the sentence starts accessory
dwelling units ADUs may be constructed on site to satisfy an inclusionary
housing requirement for a single-family residential development and the word
single-family which we had recommended to be strikeout would now be put back in
if you are supporting the amending motion so does that is that clear for
everybody. So essentially the ADUs could be could satisfy the inclusionary
housing requirement only for single-family residential developments.
Not for other types of not for multifamily. So if you want to support the
motion that's what you would be supporting. Commissioner Jackson we can
come back to you on the vote if that would be helpful. I got it I think. Go
ahead. Aye Jackson yes Commissioner Kelly no Kelly no Commissioner Lee no Lee no
Commissioner Lopez yes Lopez yes Commissioner Kalmick no Kalmick no
Commissioner Nodhoff no Nodhoff no Commissioner Moreno Moreno no Moreno no
Commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes Commissioner Harmon oh no sorry back to
Commissioner O'Malley? No. O'Malley, no. Commissioner Escalante? Yes. Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart? No. Hart, no. Chair Harmon? No. Harmon, no. The vote is 4 yes, 8 no.
Thank you. Commissioner Lopez, did you want to make another amending motion? No.
Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Hart? Alright, so we're going back to the original motion,
Which I'm not sure if I if it's on the floor. I think it is. You don't have a motion in a second
Do we have a second? Yeah, and I'll speak to my second. I'm gonna vote. Yes on this
I think we had a good conversation about this. I think it's
important policy work that we do and that we're a part of in in
helping to
provide and and
Actually encourage more than provide and both of those things
housing and especially affordable housing both in the coastal zone and
Hopefully everywhere else
Yeah, but I think this is in the moving in the right direction no matter what so a needle in good direction
I'm gonna give that support. Thanks
Okay, great. Thank you. This is a motion by vice-chair Hart a second by Commissioner Wilson. They're asking for a yes vote
May we have a roll call, please? Can can we speak to the motion on the floor? Sure, Commissioner Marina
My understanding is that an increase to the requirement to reserve housing for low and moderate incline
income households from 10 to 15 percent, that's it's currently 10 and it's gonna
be moved to 15 percent. For me although it sounds great in paper, most of the
times projects don't pencil out. I think Commissioner explained it a little bit
more, a lot more eloquently than I have. I've been of the belief that we need to
get more housing in the state of California and I think this is actually
gonna deter housing just in general in Oceanside and specifically affordable
housing so I will be voting no on the motion. Thank You commissioner. Can I
speak to the motion as well? Commissioner Lopez. I would just say that I think what
I was hoping for was in the end to find a path to say that ADUs could not
satisfy the low-income which I know is kind of against and that's a period
right I just feel that quality matters and so I understand that first piece
didn't carry and speaking to this motion I won't be able to support it for that
reason. I think we're headed in the wrong direction in terms of providing the
quality and type of housing that families deserve. Thank you. Thank you
Commissioner. Commissioner Wilson. So I'm gonna be supporting this for the
reasons that I think the economics of housing so close to the coast is not the
same as people imagine it to be and what we consider market rate in just these
highly desirable zones and especially where the land values are so high just by proximity
of its location, you won't create affordable housing by creating more housing that isn't
restricted or that doesn't have some way to make it more affordable, whatever that mechanism
And because so much of our housing so close to the coast
is second homes, is vacation rentals, is investment properties,
the vacancy rates are actually pretty high for primary homeownership
and there's nothing in these that are going to require even primary homeownership.
So from my perspective, we're really in need of requiring and doing everything we can to create affordable housing in whatever way we can in these specific zones.
So for that reason, I'm definitely in support of this.
And what I heard the city manager say very specifically
was that they are not finding complaints
or pullbacks from their development community.
If they were, I think they would probably say it.
And so I don't think this is an attempt
by this community to limit housing.
I think they're very specifically addressing a need
for affordable housing and I support that very much.
And I also want to just say that we had a meeting in Oceanside two years ago, last year
or two years ago, and most of us had never actually spent any time there.
I want to say what an awesome community it is.
Just really surprisingly, I hope I'm not blowing it up or whatever, but it just had that feel
of a real community.
The night market was amazing, the restaurants and the community in general and the vibe
and the friendliness was just really cool.
I just had to put a pin in that while I had the moment to just tell you what an amazing
community you have and I'm looking forward to having some more affordable housing, thanks.
Okay, great conversation.
We had Commissioner Escalante with her hand up.
I'm sorry, Commissioner Escalante, I apologize.
thank you madam chair and just to wrap it up and i'm definitely gonna vote yes for this
because it you know my one of my my greatest goals here on this commission has been to
be able to increase support of our housing you know i live in in in the coastal zone i live up in
in delnard county which is the porous coastal district or coastal county of this state and
Luckily, we have right now an influx of affordable housing and it's tremendous is having such a
tremendously positive impact on the people that are have been pushed out into to live
in the wetlands. So I'd say that any kind of intentionality and effort that we can put
behind this is worthwhile. I completely align myself with the comments of Commissioner Wilson
because of the years I've been on this commission, seeing the evolution of this issue, and also
because I've been visiting every single community, projecting to up and down the state, and can see
how the impacts of having just a short-term rental or vacation rental community,
where there are no services, there are no kids, the schools here are getting closed,
So we need people living in this areas as well.
And we need the workforce to be able to have
dignified housing in the coastal zone.
So for this, I will vote yes, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Chris, to you.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lee.
Yes.
Lee, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
No.
Lopez, no.
Commissioner Kalmick.
Yes.
Kalmick, yes.
Commissioner Notoff.
Yes.
Not off, yes, Commissioner Moreno.
Moreno, no.
Moreno, no.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart?
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson?
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Yes.
Yes.
Chair Harmon, yes.
The vote is 10, yes, 2, no.
Okay, the motion carries.
thank you very much great conversation everyone. Okay with that we will move on
to our next item which is item 16E. Mr. Schwing. Thank you Chair Harmon. So as we
get started I wanted to provide a little bit of context. As we all know short-term
rentals play an important role in providing visitor serving accommodations
in the coastal zone and the Commission has long recognized their value for public access.
At the same time, the impacts of short-term rentals can look very different from one community
to another, whether it's on housing availability, neighborhood character, or coastal resources.
Because of these differences, local governments have taken different approaches to regulating
short-term rentals based on local data, community input and unique circumstances.
Today we're going to be looking at two cities in San Diego County, City of Encinitas and
the City of Del Mar, each with its own approach.
These approaches come to us following efforts that first came to the Commission some years
ago as the short-term rental industry, as we know it today, was really taking off and
growing. At that time the Commission generally sought to regulate but not
restrict that growth as short-term rentals provided so much support for
visitors. However these approaches weren't embraced as the local governments
continued to deal with the impacts associated with bringing many visitors
for short-term stays in residential areas. So staff's view is that it's
important to respect the locally tailored solutions that are being presented to us
as long as they're consistent with Coast LAC policies.
And each city has worked to strike a balance
between maintaining visitor serving opportunities
and addressing housing and resource concerns.
And staff has considered these proposals in light
of their local context and the thoughtful process
that shaped them.
And with that, I want to turn over the staff presentation
to Camila Pouto with our San Diego Coast District
to do our presentation on 16D.
We do have a staff PowerPoint if we could bring that up.
And Camilo, when you're ready, please start.
Thank you, Carl.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Before you is item 16D,
an amendment to the city of Encinitas' local coastal program
to introduce regulations
governing short-term rentals, STRs, in the city.
The amendment is designed to balance the benefits
STRs provide to coastal visitors and communities with the need to preserve community character
and housing needs by capping the total number of STR permits allowed and allowing short-term
rentals only in single-family and two-family residential units. The number of non-hosted STR
permits citywide will be capped at 2.5% of the total housing stock and the number of non-hosted
STR permits west of I-5 will be capped at 4% of the housing stock west of I-5.
Staff is recommending approval of the amendment with one suggested modification
to include the City's three-night minimum stay for non-hosted STRs into the certified LCP.
Staff has received several comment letters in support and opposition of the City's LCP amendment.
To summarize the issues raised in opposition, it is argued that the amendment does not adequately
provide for and protect lower-cost accommodations and non-hosted STRs adversely impact housing
and community character. Better Neighbors LA requests that the amendment be modified so that
only hosted STRs are permitted in the city, while CalSTRA and Airbnb both request that the amendment
be modified to reduce or revise the proposed restrictions. Staff has reviewed the comment
letters and addendum has been published. The issues of lower-cost accommodations and the impacts of
of SCR's on-housing and community character are addressed by the city's proposal and
staff continues to recommend approval with one's suggested modification.
Next slide please.
The city of Encinitas is approximately 20 square miles located along approximately six
miles of coastline with a population of about 62,000 people.
About 14 square miles or 71% of the city is within the coastal zone.
The city consists of five largely residential communities with public beaches and acclaimed
surfing conditions.
The city's residential zones provide for a variety of densities but predominantly allow
for single-family residential land use.
Low and medium-density residential zones are found in the coastal zone and near the beach,
particularly west of I-5.
Approximately 0.3% of the city is zoned for visitor-serving uses.
The City has 15 transient lodging establishments like hotels, motels, and a beach campground,
all of which are in the Coastal Zone, 12 of which are located west of I-5.
Next slide please.
The City's current short-term rentals regulations have not yet been incorporated into the LCP,
but they have been applied to STRs throughout the City for the last several years, including
in the Coastal Zone.
Short-term rentals, either hosted or non-hosted, are permitted in all zones but only in single
family and two-family residential units. There are no existing limitations or restrictions
on the number or location of STRs beyond them only being allowed in single-family or two-family
residential units and that non-hosted STRs require a minimum three-night stay. Other existing STR
regulations include nuisance control policies such as addressing trash, noise, and unruly
gatherings. Additional existing regulations include the requirement to pay transient
occupancy taxes and grounds to deny, suspend, or revoke an STR permit.
Short-term rentals are a popular form of visitor accommodation in Encinitas.
The map and STR numbers on the screen are from the City's October 2022 presentation
to the Planning Commission.
City staff provided more current STR numbers recently.
Using the current numbers, there are approximately 443 total STRs citywide, which is approximately
1.7% of the total housing stock. As can be seen from the map on the screen, the majority
of STRs in Encinitas are located near the coast, west of I-5, which is in the Colso
zone. Approximately 96% of STRs are in the Colso zone, with approximately 79% located
west of I-5. Most of the STRs in the city are non-hosted, meaning the property owner
does not remain or reside onsite or on a property immediately adjacent to the short-term rental
unit property during the short-term rental period. Citywide, there are 350 non-hosted STRs
representing approximately 79% of the STRs. In the Coastal Zone, there are 336 non-hosted STRs
representing approximately 79% of the STRs in the Coastal Zone. West of I-5, there are 283
non-hosted STRs representing approximately 80 percent of the STRs west of I-5.
Next slide please. Zooming in closer to neighborhoods west of I-5 shows that it
is also common for non-hosted STRs to be within several parcels of one another.
The city has found that there are high concentrations of STRs, particularly non-hosted STRs,
occurring in communities west of I-5, which is contributing to adverse impacts to community
character and city services due to excess noise, disorderly conduct,
overcrowding, parking, and accumulation of trash. Next slide please. The subject
amendment before the Commission today proposes to add a new short-term rental
chapter into the LCP. The new regulations include caps on the permits
issued citywide and west of Interstate 5, a 200-foot distance between non-hosted
STR's requirement and parking requirements. Specifically, west of I-5, the maximum number
of STRs allowed will be 4% of the total housing units located west of I-5. Citywide, the maximum
number of STRs allowed will be 2.5% of the citywide residential units. Because the demand for STRs is
greatest near the shoreline, a greater percentage of non-hosted STRs will be allowed there. But again,
in no case can the total number of non-hosted STRs be greater than 2.5% for the residential units in
the city. The permit cap and distance requirement will not apply to hosted STRs because the owner is
on site or adjacent to the STR and can monitor and address concerns or issues quickly. Next slide
please. The permit cap and distance requirement will also not apply to the STRs located in the
in the private Sibla residential community in Lukadia.
This left-top gated community,
located west of I-5 in the northern part of the city,
has been excluded from the permit cap calculations
in recognition of the longstanding practice
of renting homes in this area for short-term vacation use.
Next slide, please.
The two tables on the screen
show the numbers of non-hosted STRs
citywide and west of I-5
and the impacts of the proposed permit caps,
excluding STRs and residential units
the Seabook community. West of I-5, the proposed amendment would cap non-hosted STRs at 4% of the
residential units located west of I-5 that exist at the time of application submittal.
4% of the residential units currently located west of I-5 is 376 non-hosted STRs. Thus,
as proposed, the amendment would allow for an increase of 147 non-hosted STRs west of I-5.
Citywide, the permit cap for non-hosted STRs will be 2.5% of the total residential units
inclusive of the permits west of I-5. Thus, as proposed, a total maximum number of 654
non-hosted STRs would be allowed in the city, which is approximately 358 more than currently exists.
The maximum possible number of non-hosted STRs will change annually as the number of
residential units would be based on the housing units in existence at the time of application
submittal. Next slide please. It is possible that the maximum number of non-hosted STRs able to be
permitted would be less than the cap. Non-hosted STRs will also be subject to a 200-foot radius
distance from other non-hosted STRs. The intent of this is to avoid over concentration of non-hosted
STRs within a particular location, zone, or neighborhood, such as coastal neighborhoods.
If the proposed amendment is certified and goes into effect, some existing non-hosted STRs closer
than 200 feet apart will be considered legal non-conforming. No new non-hosted STRs would
be approved within 200 feet of these existing units until such a time as a legally non-conforming
permit is not renewed or is revoked. The distance requirement will not apply to the STRs in the
the CLOVE community or to hosted STRs.
Next slide, please.
Past Commission guidance to local governments
has emphasized the need to allow but regulate
short-term rentals in a manner that balances
the public access and visitor-serving benefits
of such rentals with reasonable regulations
to limit adverse impacts on coastal communities.
One such possible impact is on the availability of housing.
For the proposed amendment, the city of Encinitas
undertook extensive research and stakeholder engagement
identify an approach that recognizes the city's long-standing history of tourism and public access
with the preservation of long-term housing. The city has communicated to staff that it is on track
to meeting its housing goals with a six-cycle housing element. At a high level, the city has
permitted 1,379 new units out of their total assigned 1,554 dwelling units for the 2021-2029
planning period as of December 31, 2024. The current estimate of 443 total STRs,
both hosted and non-hosted, represents approximately 1.7% of the housing stock in the city.
By tying the STR permit cap to the amount of housing in the city, the city will be able to
assure that STRs do not become a dominant portion of the housing supply. Next slide please.
The one suggested modification is to quantify the proposed three minimum night stay for
non-hosted STRs in the LCP. This minimum night stay applies to non-hosted STRs already as it is
in the current regulations in the city's municipal code but not in the LCP. Including the minimum
night stay in the LCP ensures that any future changes to the minimum night stay will be reviewed
by the Commission for impacts to visitor survey accommodations. It is staff's understanding that
the city does not oppose the suggested modification. Next slide please. In summary, the proposed
amendment caps the number of non-hosted STRs in the city of Encinitas to a total of 2.5 percent
of the residential units citywide. By tying the STR permit cap to the amount of housing in the city,
the city will be able to assure that non-hosted STRs do not become a dominant portion of the
housing supply, supporting long-term housing. The distance requirement between non-hosted STRs
will avoid over-concentration of non-hosted STRs in locations, zones, and neighborhoods.
The combination of hosted, non-hosted STRs and other overnight accommodations provide a mix
of accommodations that can meet various travelers' needs. In conjunction with the STR regulations
outside of the LCP, the proposed LCP amendment appears to be a fair and reasonable balance of
cul-sac priorities and residential requirements. Staff is recommending denial of the LCP amendment
as submitted and approval of the amendment as modified by staff. The motions and resolutions
can be found starting on page 6 of the staff report. This concludes staff's presentation.
Okay thank you very much. All right, I will first start by asking if there are any ex partes to
report. Okay, you want to share? I've received an email from Debbie Barber who was asking us to
Vote now on the update.
Commissioner Eckerle.
Thank you, Chair.
At 10.30 AM on Friday, January 30, I
met via teams for 30 minutes with Camille Wagner
from KP Affairs and Jose Alvarado from Airbnb
to discuss the LCP amendments for Pacifica, Delmar,
and Encinitas.
They shared concerns about short-term rental restrictions
and requested that the commission postpone
consideration of the Pacifica LCP and revisions to reduce the three-night
minimum to two-night minimum and eliminate the primary residents and
density requirements. They also provided a briefing memo that outlined these
concerns and provided some high-level background on data for STRs in North
San Diego County. Commissioner Lopez. Filling left out because I can get a memo.
I did have a meeting on February 2nd at 1.30 which included Jose Alvarado and
Blemker, Ben Lee, Susan McCabe, and Priscilla Ramos, who just got married for my staff.
Primarily the discussion focused actually on Monterey County's STRs issue. Since we passed it
here, we've started to have a discussion about modifying and it's coming back for a whole redo
again. And so the primary conversation was there and then had a brief conversation about the other
three SDR's including this one as well as Del Mar, Ensignita San Pacificas with
the focus on the three-night stay requirement and obviously a key focus
and the major part of the discussion was continuing to provide access to the
coast. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you Madam Chair. On Friday
the 30th I had an ex parte conversation with Jose Alvarado, Susan McCabe, and
and Bleakmer and covering all the issues
that commissioner Eckerly laid out,
Pacifica Delmar and Sanitas
with all the same discussion points.
Thank you, I also had an ex parte
on January 29th at 10 a.m. via Teams
with Jose Alvarado, Susan McCabe and Ann Blemper.
The content of that conversation is substantially similar
to that which has been described by my colleagues.
also spoke at a very high level about short-term rentals and their impact or I
guess lack thereof as they would say on the housing stock and with that we will
turn it over to Chris. Thank you we have Megan Openshaw with the City of
Encinitas and how long will you need for your presentation? Well if I could have
12 minutes that would be great but I will do my best to get it done in 10.
Thank you. Give us a moment to bring up your presentation. All right well good
afternoon honorable chair commissioners my name is Megan Openshaw I'm the
assistant director of the development services department with the city of
Encinitas. I'm joined here today by my colleagues Patty Anders who's our
planning manager as well as Charlotte Brenner who is our project manager and
I'll be providing you with a brief presentation on the city of Encinitas
short-term rental local coastal program amendment. Before I get into it though I
want to give a big shout out and thank you to the local coastal commission
staff that we've worked with. They've done such amazing work and they've been
wonderful to work with. We really appreciate their diligent efforts and
they're instrumental in getting us to where we are here today. Next slide
please. So you may have just heard this from Camilla's presentation but we are
about 19.6 at 20 square miles located within San Diego County as well as the
San Diego coastal district and 71% of our city is located within the coastal
zone. Our population is at around 61,000, a little bit more so it can round up to
62,000 and we have a historic tourist character for our community as well as
our economy and that's largely attributed to our wonderful surf as
well as our sprawling six miles of Pacific coastline. Fun fact, we also have
a nationally recognized best restored beach that's our Cardiff State Beach
with our living shoreline project and we have five distinct planning communities.
Additionally, it's important to emphasize that we have made significant progress in
meeting our regional housing need allocation numbers within this sixth cycle of our housing
element and we're very supportive of affordable housing development.
Next slide please.
And so what this image here demonstrates is that all of that area in blue, that's our
coastal zone.
That's about 71% and it touches each of our planning communities.
Next.
And so while all of our distinctive planning communities are within the city they're not
all near the coast even though all of them touch that coastal zone.
Next slide please.
And so as mentioned we are very focused on our housing production and we have a very
strong track record of this.
In fact in this housing cycle we've achieved our highest levels of housing activity since
our incorporation.
And so as you can see on the slide here we've had 2,476 units entitled, 1,264 units permitted
as well as 640 units that have been constructed.
And this is based off on our most recently published APR
data.
And we intend on continuing to address these housing needs.
And that's through our six cycle house element
cycle, which is in 2029.
Next slide, please.
And how have we accomplished that?
Well, we really focused on implementing regulations
and tools to promote housing production.
What that looks like is streamlining our housing.
We've adopted general plan and zoning code amendments,
including our R30 overlay zone,
which increased density on key sites.
And we've leveraged those sites,
in fact, having 12 of those 15 sites already being approved.
Additionally, we've incorporated affordability initiatives
and that's including
increasing our inclusionary housing requirements.
And in addition to that,
we've really focused closely on strategic planning efforts.
That includes our El Camino specific plan,
which has objective design standards.
Furthermore, we acknowledge that there's a lot of work
being done at the state level.
And so we've worked to development tools
to implement those state law provisions.
And in fact, we're the third highest in approvals
in San Diego County for accessory dwelling unit development.
In addition to that, we've focused very hard
on preserving our existing natural occurring
affordable housing.
We've done that by increasing
our residential rehabilitation funding.
Next slide, please.
And click next.
Thanks.
So a little bit about how we got here today.
So our background and timeline.
In 2021, our council initiated an inclusive public process
regarding our short-term rental regulations,
and with that, they provided direction to staff
to return with a data-driven analysis
and establish a maximum number of short-term rentals.
Next.
And in 2022, after the intensive public process,
we received, we developed our ordinance
based off of the data and the public participation,
and that's the ordinance that you're looking at today.
Next.
And in 2023, we submitted our local coastal program amendment
with coastal staff.
And between the two of us,
we've engaged an extensive collaborative process
to help ensure that our ordinance
addressed Coastal Act requirements
and had a balanced data informed regulatory framework.
Next.
And so in 2025, after extensive data collection
and collaboration with local staff,
we were deemed complete in July of 2025.
Next slide, please.
So what's important to note here is that
Unlike other coastal cities
which have concentrated resort or hotel districts,
much of our coastline is actually directly adjacent
to established residential neighborhoods.
So within this context,
short-term rentals help us provide
that necessary equitable visitor serving accommodation
and they function within a residential context.
Next slide.
Additionally, short-term rentals function as a land use
and what that means is that you see those impacts
at a neighborhood scale.
And that was a significant driver in our decision
to establish a regulatory framework.
So those impacts included noise, parking,
as well as occupancy, intensity.
Next slide please.
And what was very important to the city
is that when we focused on developing our ordinance,
we had to ensure that we had a coastal policy framework.
And that's informed by coastal policy principles
that require careful balancing of multiple objectives.
We wanted to ensure we had equitable public access,
as well as visitor serving accommodations.
We wanted to ensure that we had residential protections
to preserve our neighborhood character
and that we ultimately took a balanced approach
to our short-term rental regulations.
Next slide please.
And so what that looks like is that right now today,
our existing ordinance has no limits on regulations.
And so what we developed was a cap with 4%
for non-hosted short-term rentals west of I-5
and a 2.5% cap of total housing units citywide.
Additionally, we focused on generating a radius
and that's a 200 foot radius between non-hostage
short-term rentals to avoid over concentration
as well as neighborhood impacts.
Additionally, we focus on only single family
or two family dwelling units.
Next slide please.
Now what you may have noticed is that
we did differentiate geographically.
So on that right hand side of your screen,
there's a map with a big red line down it.
That's the location of the I-5
and all of those dots are short-term rentals.
So what we noticed is that 95.9%
of all of our short-term rentals were located
in the coastal zone, and that 79.5% of them
were located west of the I-5.
So we wanted to ensure that we were addressing
that differentiation and that concentration
within our ordinance itself.
Next slide please.
So we established the 2.5% and the 4% cap,
and that was to really focus on balancing
visitor accommodation needs with housing preservation
as well as maintaining neighborhood character.
These caps were informed by our 2022,
that's when we adopted the ordinance data analysis
as well as extensive community input.
And so during that time, we gathered comprehensive data
and established a baseline.
What is our existing housing stock?
How many existing short-term rentals
are comprised within our city?
And based off of that, including stakeholder input,
our city council made that determination
that caps of 2.5% citywide and 4% west of the I-5.
What helped continue accommodating
our necessary visitor serving uses
while preserving our housing stock
and managing those neighborhood scale impacts.
Next slide, please.
So where are we today?
So in terms of our current capacity,
we're at 1.1% citywide for our non-hosted short-term rentals
and west of I-5, we are at 2.4%.
So what that shows us
is that we still have remaining adequate capacity
for our additional short-term rentals
while staying within policy limits
as well as protecting our community character.
In addition, we were very intentional
was selecting a percentage basis.
We wanted to ensure that we had a very scalable framework
that as our short term rental inventory would grow,
it would be able to do so proportionally
with our housing stock increasing.
And that ensures additional flexibility over time.
Additionally, it also allows us to ensure
that short term rentals don't become a dominant portion
of the city's housing supply.
Next slide please.
So in summary, our objective was not
to prohibit short term rentals,
but to allow them in a regulated manner
that serves multiple community goals simultaneously
and is consistent with the Coastal Act.
We wanted to ensure that we provided equitable access
to coastal resources as well as visitor accommodations
with short-term rentals.
We wanted to manage any sort of addressing
over-concentration in our residential areas.
And additionally, we wanted to preserve
and maintain our housing stock
to the greatest extent feasible,
as well as ensuring that we're able to protect
and support our neighborhood compatibility.
Next slide, please.
And with that the city of Encinitas approves and supports the modified language proposed
by the California Coastal Commission staff and greatly appreciates the partnership work
and coordination that went into this amendment.
Next slide please.
Thank you and the team is available for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you so much Ms. Openshaw.
Chris.
Thank you.
We have eight speakers lined up for this item.
We're able to find six right now.
we'll start with Fong Bui followed by Noah Suarez Sykes and Jose Alvarado.
Fong Bui, when you're able to please unmute and begin.
Hi, sorry about that. Um, thank you so much for your time. Uh,
on behalf of members of the California Short-Term Rental Association,
we respectfully submit our opposition to the city's proposed LCP amendment.
Um,
we really appreciate the city's effort to regulate short-term rentals.
However, several provisions in this proposal would significantly reduce affordable
coastal accommodations in direct conflict with the Coastal Acts mandate
to protect public access.
STRs are the backbone of coastal access in North San Diego County.
They provide about 60 percent of all overnight visitor capacity.
And in Encinitas specifically, they account for roughly 62 percent of coastal lodging.
Eliminating the supply would require
more than 4,000 new hotel rooms just to replace existing capacity, and that's quite unrealistic
right now environmentally. STRs also serve as a different and critical audience. They're
especially important for families and groups averaging nearly six guests per home compared
to fewer than three per hotel rooms. They're more affordable as well with median rates of about
about $72 per person per night.
Nearly a third qualify as lower cost accommodations
under coastal commission standards.
We absolutely support Encinitas proposal
to grandfather existing operators who pay TOT
and have not had permits revoked.
This should absolutely be preserved.
However, the combined impact of a 2.5% citywide cap
and a 4% cap on west of the I-5
and a rigid 200 foot density requirement
would really drastically constrain supply.
We respectfully urge the commission to consider
and increase the cap to better align
with neighboring Del Mar at 5% limit
and maintaining grandfathering protections.
Thanks for your time.
Thank you.
Next is Noah Suarez Sikes,
Jose Alvarado, and then Nicole Jackson.
Noah Suarez Sikes.
Tremendous, can you all hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Wonderful. Okay. One second.
Good morning, commissioners. I said morning, it's afternoon. It's been a long day. Good morning.
Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Noah Sikes and I am the lead organizer at Better
Neighbors LA, a coalition of hosts, tenants, housing activists, and community members working
to regulate short-term rentals to preserve long-term housing. We support policies that include true
home-sharing and hosted only rentals as the best path forward to balance affordable coastal access
for visitors with the housing needs of coastal communities. So I'm here to comment on item 16D.
The BNLA urges the Coastal Commission to amend the Encinitas LCP amendment before you
to allow only true home-sharing in hosted-only rentals.
In Encinitas, we see a significant gap in affordability between hosted STRs, which have
an average nightly rate of 141 a night, and un-hosted STRs, which have an average rate
of 202 dollars a night.
The average un-hosted STR in Encinitas is not a lower-cost coastal accommodation, but
the average hosted STR in Encinitas remains affordable without displacing residents.
Overall, hosted STRs have a smaller impact on regional housing stock in the coastal zone,
while allowing the operation of unhosted short-term rentals removes housing units to the market,
increases housing prices, and causes issues for neighbors.
In fact, 80% of all STR complaints in Encinitas since 2021 have originated from unhosted STRs.
This is especially an issue considering the expansion of unhosted short-term rentals in
Encinitas proposed by the LCPA.
Currently, 1.1% of Encinitas' housing stock has been converted into unhosted STRs.
This LCPA would more than double that, to 2.5% total.
Without strong safeguards like the primary residency requirement inherent in a true homesharing
policy, this LCPA risks accelerating the corporatization of long-term housing.
We urge the Commission to consider appropriately balancing the housing needs of coastal communities
with visitor access by amending the LCPA to allow only true homesharing and help ease
the burden of the housing crisis on coastal communities.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jose Alvarado, Nicole Jackson, and Kimberly Jackson. Jose Alvarado. Great. Sure. I'm a commissioner. It's a
I'm here to express our opposition to the S&E SLP as amended primarily with the following
three items. The three minimum requirement which was not originally submitted by the
city, the primary residency requirement and the 200 foot density requirement. The reason
Airbnb's opposition is opposing these are straightforward. Short term rentals make overnight
coastal acts is feasible for a wider range of visitors to the California coast. And in
Sanitas, like previously mentioned, SCRs provide 62% of total overnight visitor capacity and
60% overnight visitor capacity in North San Diego County. A three-night minimum would
increase the total cost of the stay in the coastal zone. And we disagree with the commission's
rationale in introducing a three-night minimum which somehow preempt a speculative seven-night
minimum down the line. And a primary residency requirement would also limit the number of
available short-term rentals, again, undermining access to the coast. Lastly, a proposed 200-foot
density requirement between non-hosted short-term rentals warrants a closer look. While frame is
addressing overconcentration, the practical effect is to thin out visitor-serving accommodation
precisely in the areas where demand is highest. The coastal neighborhood's waste is the I-5.
In summary, we respectfully urge the Commission to reject the 39 minimum to visit the coast,
which would exclude working families to reject the 200-foot density requirement and to reject
the primary residency requirement.
These adjustments will align DLC with the Coastal Act's mandate to maximize public access.
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Thank you.
We seem to be having moving, or we seem to be having trouble moving Nicole Jackson in
and we are unable to unmute you as an attendee.
We will move to Kimberly Jackson.
Kimberly, give us a moment while I allow your video.
After Kimberly will be Jessica Solano.
Kimberly Jackson, go ahead.
Hi, honorable coastal commissioners.
Thanks so much for hearing our item.
Thank you so much to the city of Encinitas
for working collectively with us to to make this happen.
I do urge you, though, to oppose this ordinance, please.
I'm speaking on behalf of many Encinitas homeowners
who vacation rent their homes, their elderly citizens and I work for them as a property
manager. The proposed ordinance is actually not very transparent about code enforcement
and on-site inspections for the STR permitting process. This includes the use of residential
building records and site plans that they bring in to measure bedrooms and closets,
which is not disclosed in the ordinance. They use this information to reduce permitted
the city's plan to limit the
And you know, I just want to
let you know that basically is
like a de facto ban, it's going
to be impossible to bring, have
any new owner operate their
house in a vacation rental
setting moving forward.
And that's my speech for why I
oppose this item.
Thank you so much for hearing
us.
Thank you.
Next is Jessica Solano.
Good evening, commissioners.
the City. I am here to respectfully oppose the NSNITA's short-term mental ordinance as
currently written. This is not about avoiding regulation, however, understand and accept
reasonable rules. The concern is that the ordinance lacks transparency about what is
actually authorized, what actually authorizes the City to do during inspections and that
lack of clarity creates real risk for property owners. If you read the ordinance itself,
states that the city may inspect a property
to verify compliance, however, it does not clearly
define the scope of those inspections.
It does not expressively state that the inspectors
will verify bedroom counts room by room,
evaluate interior layouts, inspect closets,
or determine whether interior spaces are permitted
to the city's satisfaction.
Despite that, homeowners are now being told
that these are exactly the types of inspections
that will be occurring and have already been practiced
since 2022 when this was passed.
That disconnect matters,
regulations should be clear on their face.
However, homeowners should not have to rely
on verbal explanations or avoiding enforcement practices
to understand what they are agreeing to.
If interior inspections of this depth are intended,
that authority should be explicitly written
into the ordinance and reviewed as part of the,
this commission's approval, not implied later.
This lack of clarity is especially concerning
at the Coastal Commission level.
The commission expects transparency and predictability
and the consistency in local coastal programs.
Big inspection authority paired with broad enforcement
discretion undermines those principles
and invites inconsistent application.
Beyond enforcement.
I oppose this regulation.
Thank you.
Next is Nicole Jackson.
Hi there.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
My name is Nicole Jackson.
I'm a homeowner in Encinitas.
I'm a parent.
And I also own and operate two three bedroom boutique homes
as a two family duplex in Carta Village west of the five.
This is a 3,000 people live in that neighborhood.
And there are 17 hotel rooms in Carta Village, 17.
So 25% of my bookings in 2025 were literally my neighbors,
my friends and my neighbors.
These are people with plumbing issues.
termite tenting, two nights days for termite tenting.
This is a neighborhood that is 50 foot wide double lots.
It is an effective ban in the neighborhood
that will restrict entire blocks for one permit.
This rule may function differently in Encinitas entirely
in the larger lot portions.
But in Carta Village, it's incompatible
with just how the city has laid it out.
What the last speaker noted on inspections,
these are homes that were built sometimes in the 50s,
the 60s, the 70s, and the residential building records
don't always reflect what prior owners did.
Citations do happen.
And then you get shut down
after you've made a huge expense in scaling a business.
Speaking on parking, go back to the ADU policy.
That's when parking became a nuisance.
And when it comes to noise,
short-term rental hosts can get noise monitors.
I've never had a noise complaint, zero.
I opposed.
Thank you.
There were two other speakers signed up
that we aren't able to find.
Spencer Stein and Carrie Smith.
Spencer Stein and Carrie Smith,
if you're in the meeting, please raise your hand.
All right, I'm seeing no hands raised.
Madam Chair.
Thank you very much.
Okay, well, I will return to our staff
to see if they have any closing comments.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
I don't think we have anything more to add
in terms of our response,
but I did want to clarify a couple of things.
One has to do with the three-night minimum.
That is part of the city's proposal,
but it is not currently part of the certified LCP proposal.
So they were proposing the three-night minimum requirement
to be outside, in regulations, but outside the LCP.
staff's recommendation is to include that three-night minimum requirement in
the LCP amendment so that if there are any changes sought in the future you
know up or down the that would require an LCP amendment and would have to come
back in front of this Commission okay thank you very much and I was remiss in
failing to offer the city the opportunity to respond if they'd like to
do so. All right I think I took adequate notes. Let's hope I did. I think the
initial feedback that we received was related to comparisons to the city of
Del Mar related to increasing the total percentages associated with our caps. In
response I'd like to say that we picked a scalable approach related to our
percentage caps. We wanted to ensure that number one we still had capacity to
allow for additional non-hosted short-term rentals considering current
conditions today. In addition we did take a look back our the past five years for
what the trend was in terms of short-term rentals even unregulated to
the state. It's been relatively consistent. We haven't seen it increase
too much but we do acknowledge the value that these short-term rentals provide in
terms of visitor accommodation so we did want to provide that capacity and to us
we're a little bit larger than Del Mar so our percentage even though it looks
smaller the total number of units that would be allowed would be much larger
just on the basis of our size of our jurisdiction related to the next item I
think that there were questions or concerns related to the bless you
removing the non-hosted provisions and entire I wanted to remove non-hosted
residential or short-term residences or rentals with that for us it's true that
Most of the impacts that we've observed
have come from non-hosted short-term rentals.
However, it's also true that that makes up
a larger percentage of what the current
short-term rentals are.
And so from our perspective, we still want to provide
that additional visitor serving accommodations
to increase the allowable places that folks can come
and stay in our wonderful city.
The next item, I think there was three different items.
The first one was related to the three-night
requirement minimum.
Coastal staff just did an excellent job discussing that item,
but I'm happy to speak a little bit more to that as needed,
and if there are questions that arise.
But the second item that was brought up
was related to the primary residency requirement.
They were asking to the reject that.
We don't actually have a primary residency requirement,
but we do show with our primary tax exemptions
that we have a significant number of individuals
within our city, specifically in the coastal zone.
It's like 70% who actually own their properties.
So we didn't feel that we needed that requirement
because the community already has reflected
that we have a significant number of homeowners
that live there.
In addition to that, I believe the third item
was to reject the 200-foot radius requirement.
Based off of the data that we found,
we feel that that's still necessary
because of that neighborhood scale impact.
What we found is that the more
that we see clustered together,
the more those impacts are compounded.
So for us, this is only applicable
to the non-hostage short-term rentals
because we found that the hosted short-term rentals
have a percentage based lower incidence
of code enforcement issues.
Therefore, we wanted to keep that 200 foot radius
to continue managing that over concentration.
The next couple of items, I think in total,
were focused on primarily code enforcement provisions
and how do we approach code enforcement.
So a lot of that you're probably not going to see
in the land use portion,
which is a lot of what you're looking at today
because that's our local coastal program amendment.
However, our Title IX is where we have a huge list
of essentially items that applicants are required to include
in terms of information.
That includes items like total bedroom count,
as well as health and safety of the existing residences.
And all of those items,
the applicants are required to include in their application
and then our code enforcement is required to affirm
that those are the conditions and they're accurate
and they're legal during the inspection of the residents.
but I'm happy to address any other additional questions
that may come up to them,
but I believe that addresses the concerns that came up.
Thanks.
Great, thank you very much.
Any final words from our staff?
Okay, great, thank you.
Then I will return to my colleagues for comments,
questions, Commissioner Nada.
Well, I wanna thank everyone for their presentation today.
I wanna say particularly Ms. Openschale,
been a very comprehensive and responsive presentation, and it's helped me
understand the city's approach more thoroughly. I want to just acknowledge
that, you know, there's a lot that we've learned about short-term rentals. There's
a lot that we've observed about short-term rentals in the less than 20
years that they have been occurring on the California coast. And I think it's
It's taken local jurisdictions time to get their heads around and see what makes sense
for their local jurisdiction, and it's taken the Coastal Commission time to figure out
how to incorporate the local conditions into our statewide obligations for housing as well
as visitors serving accommodations.
And I think that, you know, just before I joined the Commission, actually, it was here
in Half Moon Bay in, I believe it was March of 2023 when the Commission looked at what
the Half Moon Bay proposal was and really acknowledged that there are local conditions
that should be reflected and that things are going to be different in some areas.
So for example, the proposal to exempt, I think it's sea bluff in Encinitas, that reminded
me of what we did in Dillon Beach or Seadrift in Marin County. We rely on the local jurisdictions
to help tailor these to something that makes sense. So I just wanted to acknowledge that
the commission is, we are evolving as to how we look at this because we have seen, we had
a full hearing in Santa Cruz about housing. And we received very clear
testimony about the impact short-term rentals have on the housing market,
particularly workforce housing, and the very workforce that we rely on to
support our visitor serving and commercial operations in the coastal
zone. We need to have people that can support that so that we can have a
a thriving economy in the coastal zone and people don't have to drive from inland and
have greenhouse gas emissions to get there. So I think that the Commission, I really have
watched carefully and been pleased to see the evolution that the Commission is taking
in terms of addressing the housing impacts of short-term rentals. And while each one
One is different and it's hard to look at each one and see how it does.
I rely very much on the local jurisdiction's presentation.
And once again I think Ms. Ofishaw has addressed these issues quite clearly.
I would say probably for me this seems like a pretty there's going to be quite a bit of
significant growth of short term rentals in this jurisdiction which I would probably seems
like it's more than necessary but I respect the jurisdiction's process that
they've gone through so I just wanted to make it clear that this is an evolving
approach to short-term rentals housing visitor serving facilities and we are
working and valuing our partnership with our local partners thank you
Commissioner Wilson. Thanks. Let's see I have a question for staff. It's just
there was in the numbers there was an increase both west of the highway and
east of the highway. That adds up to about 500 units in the increase if you put them
together and I was wondering if that just in the coastal zone. So that
increase was like 347 plus 150 something it's about 500 units total right in
terms of increasing the cap. I believe that's about right but let me ask Camila
Pouda our staff who's worked in detail on this. Camila can you answer that
question? Yes that the growth would be city wide and so that includes in the
coastal zone and outside the coastal zone. Okay so what then when I'm thinking
about in terms of the analysis in my head am I supposed to be thinking about
about in the coastal zone or out of the coastal,
and what is that total increase?
Do you know what that total increase might be
in the coastal zone, or is that hard to differentiate
the way this is kind of done?
It's quite a bit different.
The analysis or the way the ordinance was proposed
is west of I-5 and citywide.
So in terms of how the STR or non-hosted STR permits
would grow coastal wide, I cannot say for sure.
Okay, well we're it will be mostly in the coastal zone I would imagine just by
the way these numbers are and the concentration so I'll speak sort of
broadly I guess on that so one thing I found interesting today is we heard from
exclusively homeowners and property owners that was how was engagement with
the renting like community in this process and were they engaged at all
the people who are impacted by displacement when houses are
converted. And speaking to, I live in a community where we've seen a lot of
displacement occur due to short-term rentals. You can see it. I know we keep
having folks kind of tell us not to believe what we see with our own eyes in
our community in terms of the displacement and the
increase in not just in property values that go up because the their potential
to generate income goes up and so then that what happens is then places become
more affordable less affordable but then also the displacement within our renting
community I'm just kind of wondering can can you can you address what sort of
outreach occurred into the community that we you know most impacted by
displacement from conversions to STRs. So admittedly I actually just recently
recently joined the city in about June of last year.
So, I can't speak to the definitive of what happened at the time.
What I can tell you is that significant public engagement did occur based off of what I looked
at historically and with that, essentially our city council formed a subcommittee to
address this topic specifically and with that they included items like public workshops
to engage the community.
In total, we had for written documented feedback from our community, it was about 147 written
comments that we provided feedback on which had a diverse amount of different feedback
related to how they felt on short term rentals. I don't want to misspeak or give you wrong
information so I can't tell you the content of exactly who made up those 147 residents.
But my hope would be is that we engaged all portions of our community to include those
that may be displaced. And what I do also want to emphasis is beyond what we do with
engagement in short-term rentals, we are very focused on anti-displacement and we
are focused on ensuring that we do maintain our naturally occurring
affordable housing units. That's very important to us. I feel you and I just
say as part of engagement I mean for the most part you're looking at a body that
all own homes, you're looking at your City Council probably, vast majority own
homes and Planning Commission, vast majority your property owners themselves
and so where's the you know and yet when we look at our population within our
our cities and within our jurisdictions, many are over 50% non-homeowners or non-property
owners.
And so the representation in that, and we just saw what just happened here, which was
all the representation was from either folks that were property owners or representing
property owners.
And I just, that was a very, to me, it's a little telling.
And it speaks to some of the issues around this and some of the environmental justice
And again, if we're talking about 500 units increase, if you're at a place where you feel
like you need to regulate something now, and you're now you're doubling your cap, basically,
it seems to me like, why wouldn't you just keep your cap where it is, because you're
already having enough issues that you feel like you need to regulate it in its current
context, why are you now doubling the cap with the potential of doubling the impacts?
of doubling the impacts.
Sure.
There's a couple of points I'd like to bring up.
First is that 70% of our residents
that are located within the coastal zone
actually are primary homeowners.
That's based off that tax exemption information
regarding why we would want to establish caps.
Today we don't have any caps.
We have no regulations or limitations
on short-term rentals generally.
And so when we were looking at establishing those caps,
it was on the basis of the feedback that we received.
we need to figure out some way in which we can regulate them.
And so in those dialogues we had actually originally started
with the 3% and a 5% cap.
And within that, what the feedback was received
specifically from like our planning commission
as well as the community was that they didn't wanna see
an increase of more than 100% in that cap.
And so they actually reduced that to the 2.5% and the 4%.
But based off of that feedback, it was still understood
that providing that increase would give us
scalable framework to be able to allow for visitor accommodations, but it would still
be a small enough number where we can manage the neighborhood scale impacts.
You had a housing cycle, and you built 640 new units within a housing cycle, what was
that time frame?
Sorry, it was just very small.
The text was very small, I couldn't read it.
Yeah, yeah, certainly appreciate the question.
So 640 units that's been between 2021 through 2024.
Okay, that's pretty good rate, I appreciate that.
So especially with 61,000,
I would say that that's moving in the right direction.
You say much of that was affordable housing then?
Off the top of my head,
I wouldn't say much of that was affordable housing
necessarily, but we have affordable housing included
within that number.
I would actually have to defer to staff
to know if we have that exact number, we may not,
off the top of our heads, we can certainly look into it.
Okay, and then, it's interesting, I just wanna say,
so we're talking about the potential conversion.
This is basically a program that would potentially convert
500 single family homes into hotel businesses, more or less.
If we were to propose a hotel that would tear down
500 homes in Encinitas, what do you think
would be the response?
Although, I guess I'll let my planning manager respond.
Hi Patty Anders, I'm our planning manager, and
I have the privilege of ensuring that we meet our arena.
So I do want to answer your first question about the percentage of affordability
levels. So of the 640 units constructed, 22% were very low, 19.5 were low.
13.1 were moderate income levels, and 240 were above moderate.
So if, and then your second question about tearing down 500 units, state law has a good
handle on that, and if you tear down a unit that is deed restricted, we are required to
replace that.
And actually, I think it's not even deed restricted.
If you tear down a unit, you have to replace it, even if it was legally nonconforming and
not built.
So there's a good mechanism in place within the regulatory framework of HCD in our housing
law.
you convert that unit into a non-residential use,
commercial non-residential use?
I mean, I'm just saying, if you had an apartment building
with 500 units in it and you said it's just gonna be
dentist offices and this, that, and the other
and just converted it all out,
state law would prevent you from doing that.
But right now, what we're proposing is a program
that will convert out 500 units
without any compensatory requirement to replace them.
Yeah, and that's where we would rely on our caps,
because even without any caps,
we haven't seen an oversaturation of our housing stock.
So, like Megan had mentioned,
we wanted to have a balanced approach that was scalable
and tied to our existing housing stock.
Yeah, I hear that, but it's just interesting
to me to watch us say there's a housing crisis,
make all these policies to build more housing,
And then in the same day, talk about a policy that would and could remove 500 units, which
would be almost, it is very, which is difficult.
You went through a lot of, you went through, your community went through a lot of process
to build those 600 units and it was a lot of work and it cost a lot of money.
And it's just interesting that, you know, that, that we're talking about the potential
of converting 500 more units, additional units,
out of residential use.
I know you don't have the answer to this, I get it,
but my point is that it's just interesting
that we have this conundrum that we're supposed
to be providing this access, but also part
of these coastal communities in the character
of the coastal community is the characters,
the people who live there, the people who work and serve and provide services and are
providing art and community and volunteers in our organizations, all those things.
I just tell you, I come from a place where there's a town that has 25% of their STRs
and now we can't find anyone to volunteer for city council and we can't find, just saying
has impacts and that's why I'm so surprised that you guys are willing to double what you
have now, you know, and wait to see what that impact might be.
Those are my comments on this.
I want to also appreciate that even though from my perspective this probably doesn't
res...
I know it doesn't in my world protect housing in the way that I think it should.
Because again, when we keep talking about the need to build more housing in order to
bring down the price of housing, but at the same time we'll do policies that remove housing,
I appreciate that in the current context you have no rules.
And actually short-term rentals in essence are code violations in their current context
for most places that don't have this.
And so you have to create a framework to do that.
And I agree that having a framework is better than having no framework, but beware.
That's my comment.
I'll leave it at that.
And I appreciate the chair allowing me this time.
Always.
Commissioner Kalamik.
Thank you.
As a recovering local official who helped write their STR ordinance in the small quaint
city of 200,000 people with 85,000 units who were not meeting their arena numbers and
fighting aggressively to stop that.
I respect the points that you were making.
I think though, just for context, though, they already have 250 units to use your parlots
converted.
So it would realistically be another 200 and change that potentially could come off the
market.
Well the cap would be, is it $750 was the total cap?
I thought $500 was the total cap.
The total maximum number is $654, non-hosted.
Non-hosted. They already have $300 and change?
That's right.
So it's $350.
But I just want to point that it's not $500 more off.
But again, it's that kind of balance of having two disparate ideas in your head at the same time.
I did note that there were there are not a lot of hotel rooms
Available if you could if the staff could talk about that and I have a couple other questions for city staff if that's okay
Yes, you're correct. So we currently only have 15 transient lodgings available with
725 rooms and we have 147 spaces for RV parking and camping
Okay for a city of your population is 60,000 in changes. Yeah, 61,000 in change. Okay
So I think that you know in the coastal zone obviously trying to balance those two ideals
And again going back to is there attainable single-family homes are those legitimate attainable housing?
Not even capital a affordable are they attainable for low-income folks trying to buy?
Effectively housing within the first three blocks of the beach, and I do note that you do have a density issue. I just
our density of 80 of
Now I guess the two questions that I had of having kind of gone through this are when you imagine you reach your cap,
do you have policies built in to for the
increase in hosted, we'll put air quotes around hosted units that start to come online at that point and
I guess backing into that, this is not a vested entitlement for folks. This is an annual permit.
We would be proposing to shift this to a three-year permit.
However, we would have provisions to ensure that they're active permits on an annual basis
Related to your question on the hosted if we reached a cap that would only be applicable for the non hosted if it's a hosted
We don't actually have a cap provision
So but I mean it's some I mean people are gonna I mean them
My experience was that 90% of our code enforcement calls weren't for noise weren't for trash. They were for this is an illegal
hosted
STR
Yes, so in the event that we hit that cap then we would no longer issue additional permits in general related to code enforcement
Provisions we do use Granicus or hos compliance related to measuring and assessing
What are the illegally functioning units within the city to do enforcement on and then your 200 foot buffer?
I mean I there was some heartburn when I saw we were creating legal nonconforming
with the discussion through staff and through the public that seemed to be kind of the least worst option was to
come with legal nonconforming?
Yes, I think so because essentially we don't want
to punish anybody who has a legally functioning
short term rental so they would become legal nonconforming.
The way that it would impact that though
is that if somebody new was proposing to locate
a short term rental that was non-hosted
in that perimeter or that radius
they wouldn't be allowed to do so.
Okay.
And then how are you, obviously your ordinance
I believe it said you can't have ADUs
as a non-hosted or as an STR, correct?
Correct.
So somebody could live in the ADU
and then rent the primary residence as a short-term rental.
However, we do have a provision in our code
that reflects some language in state law
related to not renting an ADU for a period of 30 calendar
days, or less than 30 calendar days.
But people are building ADUs, moving into them,
and then applying for non-hosted permits for their primary?
I believe that some people have.
I don't have those definitive numbers.
It's not something that, okay.
All right, well, thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Any other comments, questions?
Commissioner Lopez.
Sorry, I understand.
Sorry, I had to step out to take a quick call,
but I understand there was a conversation already
about the three nights and trying to create alignment.
So I want to go back to the more of the principle
behind the three nights.
Can you explain what the thought is
behind a three-night minimum requirement?
So this is actually an existing provision in our code
in the Title IX section for limiting it to,
or not limiting, requiring that a minimum booking
for only non-hosted short-term rentals is three-ninths.
I believe that the original intent of that
was to create some form of a roadblock
to having people book a large number of them,
but the reason why we wanted to incorporate,
or staff recommended to incorporate it into the LCP
was to ensure that if we somehow receive
increased neighborhood or community feedback related to a short-term rentals
and their impacts that we couldn't increase that number of days to anything
larger than the existing minimum of three nights. But the the original
cons- so what the three night original was a block can you explain that again?
Yeah so essentially I wasn't there at the time, admittedly, but typically the
intention behind creating a minimum block is to essentially have it so that
folks would have to pay for a minimum of three nights to book those non-hosted
short-term rentals. So in some ways that creates a barrier to or a limit to the
number of people that can book those non-hosted short-term rentals and that's
an existing provision that we have today. So I'll just thank you so much for that
explanation I'll just share I think my concern is through the lens of somebody
that wants to see more low-income families enjoy the coast the idea that
Requiring three nights is an additional cost and if they can only do two because
they can't afford to take Monday off work they're still gonna have to pay for
three nights. It's essentially just an extra amount on, right, to be able to pay
because you're gonna have to require those three. I'm struggling with that
three-night requirement. Two I would get, it's a weekend, right, but the three is a
little challenging for me understanding that that maybe was the intent was to
stop as many folks from visiting the coast when our goal is to encourage
more people to visit the coast. So thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Moreno.
Thank you first and foremost to the city staff of Encinitas for bringing this
item forward. I think it's clear that a lot of thought and effort was put into
this item and I would also like to commend you. You're one of the only
cities meeting the Rena goal in the county of San Diego so kudos to that.
And also to the Coastal Commission staff for all the work on this item. My
family and I utilize short-term vacation rentals. I've actually utilized Airbnb
specifically 33 times and we've had the opportunity to visit places like Zagreb
Croatia, Watulco, Oaxaca, and most recently Cartagena, Colombia. Just simply
put, my family and I can't afford to stay in a hotel where we would have to rent
multiple rooms for my family, my mom, my brother's family, and although as
heartwarming as my personal story is, I know my decision as a commissioner needs
to be based on the Coastal Act. I find the caps on chapter 30.50 STRS, I find
them to be too restrictive and as a Commissioner I do recognize that STRs
provide a unique and important source of visitor serving
accommodation in the coastal zone, especially for large families like myself
and groups and I have found that undue restrictions on SDRs are inconsistent
with the Coastal Act and the LUP policies prioritizing public access and
visitor serving uses so although there is no motion on the floor here if staff's
recommendation does move forward I will be voting no on this item before us so
thank you thank you commissioner Jackson thank you thank you for the discussion
very robust you know my colleague commissioner Wilson talked about
evolving and Commissioner Nordoff talked about evolving you know I was the old
guy that was like no one e-bikes these damn e-bikes you know be you know
e-bikes and short-term rentals always evoke a visceral reaction for those who
love them for those who hate them and everything in between.
And coming from a small coastal town,
I can tell you my personal evolution,
and I'll get to a couple points in a second.
But I think it's important.
I was, those damn e-bikes,
before I started talking to folks that said,
hey, I got rid of my second car
because I could put my two kids on the back of the e-bike,
and it's a lot easier for me to get down to the beach.
People from neighboring cities could take their e-bikes,
that's fewer cars driving into the town.
When I first moved into Hermosa Beach,
I was like, property owner rights, do whatever you want.
Who is the government to tell you
what to do with your property?
And then there was Airbnb across the street from me
and I was like, oh dear Lord.
Then I evolved because I understand the importance
of accessible accommodations, affordable accommodations.
So there is a need.
The question is like just with e-bikes, the balance.
And I think we've gone too far to one side
And that has led I think to a lot of the negative discussions that take place about short term rentals.
I've got some specific questions about your policy as proposed.
I think you mentioned you have currently 443 short term rentals right now.
Is that about right?
That's correct.
Okay. Those are 443 permitted.
Yes, that's correct.
They're all permitted.
Yes.
And the thing that I really appreciated
about your discussion was the data.
I mean, your data-driven and a lot of your policies
were based on data.
And you also had a lot of cooperation and collaboration
with stakeholders.
Were any of the platforms involved
in any of those discussions, did they provide data?
Two nights versus three nights, what's the average stay?
Do you have a readout as to what's permitted,
what isn't permitted?
Because as we know, I can speak for my city.
I know it's permitted, but I also know it's not permitted.
And were you able to ascertain, because adding 500
is a significant number.
And I would venture a guess if you're anything like our city,
what's permitted and what's not permitted are considerable.
So the challenge is, you know, you as an municipality
are always trying to play, you know,
the enforcement piece is always a challenge.
Have there been any coordinated efforts,
have the platforms come to you and said,
hey, let's try to figure this out.
Here's the data on two nights versus three nights
to help inform your decision.
Have they provided anything
on the permitted versus unpermitted?
Have they provided any data on TOT?
Right now, how are you collecting TOT from the 443?
Do you go out individually to those 443?
Are the platforms remitting that to the municipal?
How does that work?
Yes, so on a quarterly basis, we remit payments.
So they get every individual with a rental business license.
They'll get an email to provide their payment,
and they self-report on what their TOT was.
So we collect that, and finance assesses it
on a quarterly basis.
Related to your question of engagement
with the short-term rental companies themselves
such as VRBO or Airbnb,
I am not aware of extensive engagement or conversations
that may have occurred with our jurisdiction
during the time that we developed the ordinance.
In general, I have not had any dialogues with them
related to this.
However, what we can say related to our tracking
of illegal short-term rentals,
we do have a platform that we utilize
to work on our code enforcement.
And there are a proliferative amount
of illegal short-term rentals that do function.
So that is a significant focus of our code enforcement team
to work on that.
And that's identified through Granicus or Host Compliance.
Familiar with those platforms as well.
And part of the frustration from a municipality perspective
I think is the, you know, we would like to have
more collaboration with the platforms
to get to a steady state of cooperation.
And right now, everything is a poll, you know.
Can you tell me?
And, you know, as opposed to, I mean, it would be nice
if you got a report once a month that showed
every single short-term rental in your city
and similar to Amazon, they were collecting all the TOT
because I'm not sure how it works platform-wise.
You know, if I have an Airbnb, I rent it out for 10 days.
Who gets that money and what happened?
How's it divvied up?
Is the platform that collects the 10 days worth of my stay
and then they divvy it out to the owner
and a third party collector, how does that work?
And how do you know you're getting the TOT
that you're supposed to be getting?
So the way the platforms themselves work,
I'm not too familiar with how it works
on the individual basis between if it was an individual
property owner partnering with Airbnb.
In terms of how it works from our enforcement perspective
and the collections perspective, I'll let my.
project manager speak to that.
Hi, good afternoon, Charlotte Brenner.
The platforms themselves aren't involved with the city regulations because they are a private
entity.
So, the applicants come straight through the city and we have a robust permitting process
where we collect the TOT through, as Megan was saying, through the city.
I was just searching through our public comment that we submitted to Coastal Commission staff
in June and I didn't see any written comments from these platforms if you were looking for
engagement from them. I didn't I didn't I do know Airbnb submitted comments on this hearing but
as far as the public comments we received during city council and planning commission and workshop
meetings I wasn't able to locate any directly from those platforms but we don't work directly
with these platforms we do all our permitting and TUT collection through the city.
And I certainly understand that, I know you don't, right, but they could certainly be
part of a discussion, right, to help you better manage the program that from some municipalities
perspective is unmanageable because of the number and then the enforcement piece in and
of itself is a challenge, and with a couple of keystrokes you could have all the data
you would need to better inform you and enable you to do the enforcement piece.
So if you've got 500 unpermitted, you don't know this 500 unpermitted, you've got to rely
on Granicus and all these other platforms, and they become very sophisticated in terms
of getting around your enforcement, I'm speaking from my perspective from my city.
So it's the frustration piece, but I think what it highlights that I think that if there
was an opportunity to have some collaboration and if the platforms were willing to push
the information down to you, as opposed to you not playing whack-a-mole constantly,
that gives you the ability to look at real data to add to your decision-making process.
I applaud you for using the data that you had and the data you had, I think, is really
good.
I tend to concur with my colleague, Commissioner Wilson.
I think your number is a little overly generous.
But to Commissioner Nodoff's point, that's, I think, a local control municipal issue that
I'm not going to try to impose my thoughts on.
But understanding adding 500 to that number is a considerable number.
It's actually 350?
300?
Sorry.
350 is how many we currently have out of the 443, but it's 296.
That would be added.
Thank you.
Okay.
It's not 500.
Just to clarify.
Adding 300, and again, those are the known permitted.
Correct.
Correct.
And then you're going to deal with the unknown, unpermitted that you're not getting any help
from.
So, appreciate the brief today, appreciate your knowledge of the issue.
I appreciate the structured review over the years to try to get to a good place.
And I am comfortable with supporting staff's recommendation.
I'm not diverse to discussing the two versus three if there's an appetite for that, but
if there isn't, I'm ready to move forward.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, sir.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
Personally, I always come back to the process that the city has undertaken to arrive at this
point.
And another thing that I really try to keep in mind is that our focus is impact on coastal
resources.
So while there is a lot going on in terms of neighbor problems and that sort of thing,
we always have to return to what is the impact on coastal resources.
So what is the impact on coastal access?
What is the impact on coastal natural resources?
are the sort of things I keep coming back to. Whereas the city should be considering
all of these things and its outreach and its discussion, what are the impacts on the neighbors?
What are the impacts on the city's resources? Are there more police calls, et cetera, et
cetera? Those are city issues I want to focus on coastal issues. So when I look at this
proposal and I
considered the coastal issues
and I also take into account
the extensive
process you've been through
to get to this point.
I have to say
I support
your approach here.
Commissioner Lee.
I was confused a little bit about the three-night minimum also I appreciate
the explanations of that. I also worry that people will just
take two nights worth of payment and spread it over three nights and just
let people stay for shorter periods of time.
But I guess people will always figure out ways to game the system.
To Vice Chair Hart's point about coastal access,
I'm looking at some amazing short-term rentals on Airbnb and VRBO and
then Sunita's area right now.
And you can stay for $300 a night on an estate with a pickleball court and
a pool.
I think I'm actually gonna go to this one at some point.
So, thank you for marketing and Sanitas.
But for $300 a night when some of these hotels,
you won't have nearly the privacy or the access
or the amenities are six, seven, $800 a night.
And so you can have that better experience
at a more affordable rate.
I do believe that people should be able to make money
off of the property that they own,
obviously within certain limits
and taking into account the impacts
that increased visitors have.
obviously municipalities see benefits for increased visitors
as well for the financial activity
that they bring to different areas.
We used to live in an era where if you were gonna take
a trip for two weeks, like go on vacation,
you could rent out your place to someone
and make a little bit of money off of it
and we should always be allowing people
to make that additional income
or like in one of the greatest holiday movies ever,
the holiday when they do their house swap.
Unfortunately we're no longer in that area
or in that time period because of the nature
of the business of short-term rentals and these platforms.
We've essentially professionalized something
that people used to be able to just post online
and trade for free.
But I am appreciative of the growth
that you have thoughtfully built into this program.
Because you're looking at the landscape as it is now.
You're understanding the downsides
that could happen in the future.
if it's completely uncapped and completely uncontrolled.
But there's also this sense of if you cap it
so close to what the existing STR stock is,
it's a black box as to who gets those permits,
who gets approved, or who already has the benefit
of owning those, so I'm overall supportive of this
and appreciate the rigor and the thoughtfulness
that you have put into this for your own municipality.
So thank you very much commissioner Kelly.
I appreciate the process that has taken place and just want to thank you all for your patience
and getting to this point with us and as you can tell this is an issue that we all grapple
with because we know the benefit of short term rentals and like my colleagues you know
enjoy staying in short term rentals when I travel with my family and extended family and
that it does provide a visitor serving use
that really is unique and beneficial
to different types of travel than, say,
staying in a hotel room.
So I wanna share that I think we've also experienced
coastal communities that have lost their soul
because they've basically turned into all that,
the residential housing has turned into de facto hotel rooms.
And I think ultimately in the long run,
economically for a community that makes it less authentic
and less interesting to visit.
And so the thing by which you're trying to create access to
ultimately ends up eroding the unique nature
of the community and you could be in any beach town
in any part of the state or the world.
And so I think, you know,
to Commissioner Wilson's comments earlier
about when communities have a good thing going for them
or a unique thing going for them,
it really makes people want to visit there
and want to come back.
And part of that unique nature is a local culture,
as people who live there, who work there,
who are the breathing embodiment of that community.
And you're not just going there to stay in a place
and visit the beach, but you're going there
to be a part of that authentic local experience.
And that is unique to the sense of place
that we don't want to erode by over concentration
of visitor serving uses in this particular context.
And so it's how do we strike that balance
in a way that is affordable, that makes it accessible
for folks that we want to be able to visit the coast
while also preserving the housing stock
that we know is so desperately needed
and makes the character of the community unique.
So with all that said, I do struggle
with the three-night minimum.
I think to Commissioner Lee's point,
people are gonna figure out a way to game the system anyways
and it will just become something
that is the cost of doing business
that people who can afford it will afford to do.
And to Commissioner Lopez's point,
there's a lot of people in our state
who can't take a three-day weekend or a three-day hotel
or visitor stay when they want to
because they are the working people of the state.
And we have a two-day weekend and a five-day work week
and we can work on abolishing that at a future hearing.
However, I do wanna just say that that to me
is an inequity in this construct
that I understand what we're trying to solve too,
which is not having so many,
If you have a seven day week and you have a two night minimum, that's potentially three
different loads of people coming in and out in a given week if you're turning and churning
in that unit.
And if you make it a three day minimum, then you're only going to have two households or
two turns per week.
And so that's less use.
But I think if you're looking at overall how many nights per capita are we allowing to
be visitors serving uses in this community, making it a three night minimum, I think just
makes it a little more expensive.
There will be a cost of doing business that people will pay, and it erodes the ability
for people with a two-day weekend to go stay in those places and afford it.
So I don't think it's the right solution for the issue of over-concentration.
I think this community has had a really tremendous process, but I don't necessarily think that
the voices of those inland who are trying to visit the coast or the, you know, thousands
renters who are trying to find housing in this community. I don't think all the voices
necessarily have been involved in this process. So all that to be said, I really struggle
with the three-night minimum and the number of units that we are increasing here. I just
want to mention that there is no limit on hosted rentals. So that if everybody in this
town wanted to create a hosted rental and turn one of their bedrooms in their house
into a hosted rental, everyone could do that.
And so the economic argument for those locals
who want to stay there, who want to age in place
but have another source of income,
or all of those, you have a kid that's off in college
and you have an empty bedroom
and you want to rent it out during the week
when they're not there.
All of those things are on the table
and there's an unlimited number of permits
that can allow folks to do that.
And as someone who stayed in hosted rentals,
it's a really fun experience and a great way
to experience the local community
and still have that low cost visitor support and use.
So to me, I think that the increase in number
of allowable unhosted rentals juxtaposed
with this minimum of three nights
is not a solution that I feel great about.
I'm not sure if there's an appetite
for tinkering with this on the body,
but that is where I'm kind of struggling.
But that said, I really appreciate
the process you've gone through.
I'm not interested in an outright ban.
I mean you have a neighborhood in your community.
It was fascinating to read that in the staff report
about what is the name Seabluff community
where basically the whole community
has become short term rentals
and they kind of carve that out of the numbers
because if you include it in the numbers
it's an over concentration.
It's like a whole neighborhood
that's all short term rentals.
So that is an interesting thing to me that I just,
you don't wanna have those.
That's the whole, it's not a neighborhood anymore.
It's just a hotel cul-de-sac.
So, those are my comments at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Kelly.
If I could turn to the city now,
I think you're hearing some concern from the commission
about the three nights versus two nights,
and I'm hearing an interest in changing that.
So I'm wondering if you can speak first a little bit
to the three night concept,
just a little bit more in detail
about where that came from, from your end.
And then also if you could speak to the city's openness
to changing that three nights to two nights
hearing some interest from my fellow commissioners to make that change. Yeah
from the city's perspective the three-night minimum is only focused on
the hosted or the non hosted short-term rentals. Hosted short-term rentals can be
one night, two nights, but still an option for any hosted one. It's a balance of a
couple of items. In one hand it's to mitigate some of the impacts that come
with a non hosted short-term rental, but on the other hand it's also about
maintaining community character for us that three nights day helps limit those
neighborhood impacts it helps limit that density and concentration of the
different types of non-hosted short-term rentals and the commercialization of
that without sort of the residents that are there to help maintain our community
character so from our perspective just limiting that three night minimum on
just the host or the non-hosted short-term rentals that was from the
the city's perspective our ability to maintain that piece of the city so thank
you just as a follow-up are you amenable to the change from three to two
thank you admittedly that's not something we had discussed with our
council yet so I'm unsure thanks okay I appreciate it thank you well then I'll
return to the Commission and ask vice-chair Hart if you're ready to
So thank you for having me.
Commissioner Escalante.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
I know I couldn't see you and I'm like, who's talking?
Commissioner Escalante.
I apologize.
Please go ahead.
Well, thank you.
You know, it was helpful because a lot of the other commissioners have stated some of
the stuff that I was thinking about, especially Commissioner Wilson and Commissioner Kelly.
So I'll just and for those you know, this is just for the benefit of the new commissioners
sign now that the other commissioners are sick of hearing me say the same thing.
But you know, I do have used Airbnb a lot in the past, never on the coastal zone in
California because no matter how cheap it seems, it's still too expensive for some of
us.
However, I have learned, you know, over the years, and it's not just sort of the examples
in California or in the United States, but across the world, that this commercialization
of residential lease-sewned places are a gentrifying business model.
And I have also kind of evolved in my choices, so I'm using the platforms a lot less or using
a lot more in the hosted areas. And you know, I feel like I'm talking circles around all
this housing issues and the previous issues. It was about how much housing we have. This
is reduction of actual livable units where people are going to be part of the community
and pay the local taxes and volunteer for their schools and their fire departments.
So and the thing about this is a community, for example, like that cul-de-sac that Commissioner
Kelly was talking about, there's still an expectation by the owners of those homes that
they will receive services, that the fire department will be there, that the police
department will run whenever they bring cameras, call.
So there's still a significant demand from the community around, you know, around taking
care of those neighborhoods and as they sit empty and exposed.
So I'm totally for Commissioner Lopez's idea of reducing this to two nights.
I agree with you, this is an equity issue and an environmental justice issue.
talking about justifying short-term rentals as public
access, then we need to make sure that's equitable. So I'm
willing to vote for that. And then if that's the case, I'm
willing to support this with some reservations around the
increase in allowable, just because it will have an impact
on market rate housing, it will.
And we need to get a grip of this.
And I don't know if there's a legislative solution
because this is something we deal with every single month,
every single day that we meet.
And, you know, I know that it's tailored
to the individual local governments or what they want.
But I think overall, we've seen the trends
and the impacts on the overall equation
of housing supplying the state.
So, and I would encourage those who have not reviewed
our very thorough housing briefing,
information briefing that we had a few months ago.
I hope that maybe our executive director can share
that link with some, with the new commissioners
so they can hear kind of all the testimony
from everyone across the state.
Thanks.
Thank you, commissioner.
All right, Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
All right, at this time I'm prepared to make a motion
And I'm going to start with the first motion and then I believe the two to three night issue would be part of but the
Second motion is that correct?
Okay, so I move that the Commission reject the implementation program amendment lcp-6 s
Dash ENC dash twenty three dash zero zero four one dash one for the city of vinsonese
That's as submitted and I'm asking for a yes vote second
That is a motion by vice-chair Hart a second by Commissioner not off. May we have a roll call vote, please?
Commissioner Lee. Yes
Lee. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes, Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Kalmick. Yes, Kalmick. Yes, Commissioner not off. I
Not off. Yes, Commissioner Moreno
On this one more. No. Yes
Moreno. Yes, Commissioner Wilson
Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner Mallee. Yes, oh, Mallee. Yes, Commissioner Escalante.
Yes, Escalante. Yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes, Hart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson. Aye.
Jackson. Yes, Commissioner Kelly. Yes, Kelly. Yes, Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon. Yes, the vote is unanimous.
Thank you. All right, now we're gonna move to the second motion and my sense of the Commission is that
The majority and I could be wrong and we'll find out would like to see it go from the currently recommended three nights, which the city
Has adopted the Commission it sounds to me feels strongly that a two-night minimum
Is more in line with our mission of access and affordability?
So based on that I'm this my motion is going to incorporate the recommendation of a two-night
Minimum stay do you not you need it to go forward and then amend it?
it's it's preferable if you do get an amending motion thank you all right so
go ahead and make the motion with the three nights and we'll see how that goes
and if it doesn't pass then we'll move to make the motion within three nights
and then you can make an amending motion to two nights and if that passes that
gets incorporated into your main motion okay just a clarification on that can I
is that this it's still within the cap where it's just how it's regulated
within the cat this isn't affecting the number correct thank you okay I move
that the Commission certified the implementation program amendment LCP
dash six dash ENC dash two three dash zero zero four one dash one where the
city of Encinitas if it is modified pursuant to the staff recommendation and
on this one I'm recommending no vote because yeah even even so you get yes on
this and then we emit yes and if the amendment thing motion doesn't pass and
And you're unhappy with the other suggested mods you can then vote now.
Oh, I see.
So we do this.
Okay, got it.
And ask for a yes vote.
So this is just to pass what has been recommended.
This is the original motion.
Someone will then make an amending motion before we vote on this to amend from three to two.
We'll vote on that.
If it passes, it'll get incorporated into this motion, which we will then vote on.
Okay.
So it's clear as mud.
And I just want to make a comment that I think that there are protections for this community
that are written into both the Coastal Act, sections 30251, 30253, 30604, as well as
policies in the L.U.P. or L.C.P.A. policies, specifically policy 1.14, I just want to get
that into the record so that we understand that we do have a policy that does protect
these communities from significant changes associated with the other side of the policies
where we're trying to also create affordable accommodations in the coastal zone.
Thank you.
I'd like to second Vice Chair Hart's motion.
Thank you so much.
So that's a motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner Kelly.
asking for a yes vote and I will entertain an amending motion at this
time. That amending will happen quickly. I'll offer an amending motion that would
reduce the minimum night stay from 3 to 2. Okay there's an amending motion on
the table by Commissioner Lopez. And just to clarify that would be to section 30, 50, 30, the special
regulations that need to be modified it would read minimum night stay non-hosted
short-term rental units shall have a minimum night stay of two consecutive
nights this provision shall not apply to hosted short-term rental units that was
the intent okay we have a motion by Commissioner Lopez a second by
Commissioner Jackson they are asking for a yes vote may we have a roll call please
Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez, yes. Commissioner Kalmick. Yes. Kalmick, yes. Commissioner
Notoff. Aye. Notoff, yes. Commissioner Moreno. Moreno, yes. On this. Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson. No. Wilson, no. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante, yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson aye Jackson yes Commissioner Kelly yes Kelly yes
Commissioner Lee yes Lee yes chair Harmon yes Harmon yes the vote is 11 yes
one no okay the motion passes so now we will return to the original motion as
amended by the amending motion just passed that was moved by vice chair
Hart seconded by Commissioner Kelly may we have a roll call vote please and I'm
asking for a yes vote please all right adjusting the sheets right now
commissioner Kalmick yes comic yes Commissioner not off aye not off yes
Commissioner Moreno Moreno no Moreno no commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes
Yes. Commissioner O'Malley? Yes. O'Malley? Yes. Commissioner Escalante? Yes. Escalante? Yes.
Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Aye. Jackson? Yes.
Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Kelly? Yes. Commissioner Lee? Yes. Lee? Yes. Commissioner
Lopez? Yes. Lopez? Yes. Chair Harmon? Yes. Harmon? Yes. The vote is 11 yes 1 no. Okay,
Thank you very much and thank you to the city for your participation and great
conversation. I'm gonna recommend that we take a very brief break please. Everyone
could be back in 10 minutes. Thank you. Okay, thank you everyone. We are back in
session. Yes I'm not messing around. Everyone. Thank you. Okay, item 16e please.
Thank you, Chair Harmon and Stephanie Leach with our San Diego coast district office is going to do the staff presentation on that if we could bring up the staff PowerPoint and Stephanie when you're ready please begin.
Great. Thank you, Carl.
Good evening, commissioners.
Item 16E is an amendment to the certified implementation plan of the City of Del Mar to establish regulations for the use and operation of short-term rentals, or STRs.
The amendment includes relevant definitions, permitting and application requirements, allowable locations, operating requirements, and enforcement.
Staff is recommending approval of the amendment as submitted.
Next slide, please.
The city of Del Mar is located in North San Diego County, south of the cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach.
Del Mar is a much smaller city compared to Encinitas in terms of both population and square mileage.
Unlike Encinitas, Del Mar is located entirely in the coastal zone.
Next slide, please.
Despite its small size, the city hosts millions of visitors year after year.
There are currently no permitting requirements for STRs in effect in Del Mar, and the city
has spent several years considering the proposed amendment.
The city has kept its own database of STRs as well as hired a consultant to understand
the number, location, and operating parameters of the existing STRs within Del Mar.
As a result of this research and public outreach, the city has proposed an amendment they believe
maintains the residential character of their community, prevents and overconcentration
of STRs in specific areas of the city and accommodates the historic patterns of short-term
rental use within their community.
Next slide, please.
The proposed amendment caps the total number of short-term rentals in the city at 129 units,
with several neighborhood-specific caps included as shown on this slide.
129 STR units is equivalent to 5% of the total number of dwelling units located in the city
based on 2020 Census data.
129 units will remain the upper limit on allowable STRs until the City Council votes to increase
the cap and a future LCPA is approved. However, the program allows existing STRs that have
registered with the City to be grandfathered or legacyed into the new program regardless
of the proposed cap. There are 150 existing STRs currently eligible for a short-term rental
permit to be granted after the certification of this amendment. A waitlist for new STRs will
be established after the LCPA becomes effective and eventually as the legacy as the legacy to STRs
cease operating, it is anticipated that the maximum number of STR citywide will go down to
the proposed cap of 129. Next slide please. The program requires the owners of new STRs to claim
their unit as their primary residence meaning that they live in the unit they are renting out for
more than six months of the year. Only one STR per owner is permitted and only one STR per lot
on lots developed with one or two dwelling units will be allowed. STRs would be allowed in both
residential and all commercial zones except the tourist-oriented beach commercial zone.
STRs would be allowed in apartment buildings located in commercial zones but not apartment
buildings located in residential zones. STRs would be allowed within condominium buildings
in either commercial or residential zones, but STRs would be limited to 10% of the total
primary dwelling units within that complex. The city's amendment requires a minimum stay
length of three nights at a short-term rental, which reflects the average stay length according
to the city's data collected in 2023. Next slide, please. There are no restrictions
on the time of year or number of times a property may be rented per year and no distinctions
between a hosted stay where the homeowner is present or a non-hosted stay. Other provisions
require compliance with the good neighbor policy which requires a local contact person
available 24 hours a day, signage and compliance with noise restrictions and trash control.
Short-term rentals will be prohibited in any dwelling units that are subject to deed restrictions
or affordable housing covenants or in ADUs located in residential zones.
Next slide please.
As discussed with the previous amendment, in reviewing short-term rentals, the Commission
approach has been to strike a balance between the visitor serving aspects of STRs and the
potential for impacts to community character and long-term housing.
Different cities have different needs and approaches to this issue.
In the case of the proposed amendment, the city explicitly considered long-term housing
during the development of the new provisions. The city found that most of the existing STRs
are second homes, so the primary residency requirement means that the future units used
as short-term rentals will also be occupied dwelling units that provide long-term housing.
The city has a number of different housing programs and site-specific goals designed to
fulfill their regional housing need allocation targets for lower-income housing. While many of
the site-specific projects cited here have not been reviewed or approved by the city or commission yet,
This information signals that the STR program as proposed by the city will not jeopardize their
ability to meet their RINA numbers and provide affordable housing. Next slide please. After
reviewing the subject amendment, staff finds the amendment as proposed is a flexible approach
that's sensitive to the historic short-term rental use within the community that has until now never
been subject to a permit and that the current goals of the city to maintain their community
community character while providing for affordable housing can be fulfilled.
All three of these goals, supply and overnight visitor accommodations, maintaining community
character and providing affordable housing are supported by the LCP.
Staff is recommending approval as submitted.
Del Mar has a long history of short-term rentals and hosts millions of visitors each year.
The proposed amendment seeks to balance visitor access with housing needs.
it would allow all 150 existing short-term rentals
to be permitted initially,
but over time reduce the total to 129 units,
which is about 5% of the city's housing stock.
New short-term rentals would be limited
to primary residences, helping preserve housing
and preventing large scale operations.
The three-night minimum is intended
to maintain community character and reduce nuisance issues
while still supporting affordable visitor stays.
STRs would be prohibited in any unit
that is de-restricted affordable residential ADUs
and apartments and residential zones.
Over time, this approach as a whole is expected to shift
short-term rental ownership towards local residents
and align the program more closely with housing goals.
The motions and resolutions for the amendment
begin on page five of the staff report.
There is a brief addendum to the staff report
and this concludes staff's presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And I will, I guess, ask for ex partes again.
My ex parte that I referenced for the last item
covered this as well.
I assume that's true for my colleagues.
You still need to report the content of it
because it's a different administrative record.
Okay, thank you very much.
All right, in that case,
who would like to go first?
Commissioner Eckerly.
Thank you, Chair.
At 10 30 a.m. on Friday, January 30th,
I met via teams for 30 minutes with Camille Wagner
from KP affairs and Jose Alvarado from Airbnb
to discuss the LCP amendments for Pacifica Del Mar
and Encinitas, they shared concerns
about short-term rental restrictions
and requested that the commission postpone consideration
of the Pacifica LCP and revisions
to reduce the three night minimum to two nights
and eliminate the primary residence and density requirements.
They also provided a briefing memo
that outlined these concerns
and provided some high-level background data on STRs
in North San Diego County.
Okay, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I also met with Jose Alvarado, Susan McCabe,
and Blomker on the 30th of January,
and will ditto the comments
from my colleague, Commissioner Eckerly.
Commissioner Lopez.
On February 2nd, 2026, at 1.30 p.m.,
I had a 30-minute meeting with Jose Alvarado and Blomker,
Ben Lee and Susan McCabe on the same topics
as were covered by my colleagues prior,
including as well a longer conversation
about the Monterey County STR ordinance.
Thank you.
Commissioner.
I received an email from Debbie Barber
suggesting a no vote on the Del Mar update
and making reference to the cap and the inability,
the lack of additional units.
And I received an email from Kimberly Jackson
opposing this ordinance as well,
and opposing the primary residence requirement.
Okay, on January 29th, I met via Zoom
with Susan McCabe and Blemker
and Jose Alvarado from Airbnb.
They discussed their general opposition
to regulations that amount to a de facto ban
on short-term rentals.
And we spoke about similar issues
to what my colleagues have identified,
well as sort of high-level about the impacts or lack thereof of short-term
rentals on housing stock in communities. Okay thank you very much and with that I
will turn it over to Chris. All right in person we have Amanda Lee from the city
of Delmar and we have your presentation how much time will you need? Let's try
eight please I will try and speak very quickly and first I will as that's
coming up. I just want to say many, many thanks to Stephanie Leach, and Diana Lilly, and Carl
Schwing, and the rest of the Coastal Commission team. It's been over 10 years that we've been
working on this, so this is a huge milestone for us to be here before you. Do you have the
presentation ready? I also have... I'm Amanda Lee, Principal Planner with City of Del Mar,
and my Planning Director Karen Brinley is also here, and we can go ahead to the next slide.
So we are here to request the commission approve our LCP as submitted.
This request is consistent with the commission staff recommendation.
It's also consistent with the local guiding principles and objectives that we set for
creating these regulations of STRs.
It's consistent with our certified housing element.
That's really important.
There's a housing program in our element specific to STRs and addressing our very high vacancy
rate.
also consistent with our certified LCP. We took a data driven approach. It's been tailored
to what Del Mar needs and it maintains our existing visitor options and it includes protections
to preserve our local housing stock and community character. All things important to our community.
It also reflects extensive public input and consensus after these many, many years. Next
Next slide, please.
As mentioned, we did have extensive public participation.
We did take a pause during COVID and resumed in preparation of the ordinance 2023 and 2024.
We had over 10 very robust meetings to prepare and finally, ultimately adopt our STR regulations
ordinance.
It also included processing of a ballot measure in which that was adopted.
And it was really getting the STR owners to agree to finally pay TOT so that we can reinvest
that into the community.
So it was a community effort, you had the residents and the STR owners come together.
We also hired a consultant and that consultant helped us to collect data so that we could
understand the number of existing STRs in our community, understand what are their rental
rates what you know how many days are people staying in these rentals that have
been occurring in our community and then also because we often hear oh there's no
availability we need more well we actually found there's plenty of
occupancy in these in terms of the number we to kind of fine-tune we looked
initially at what was being advertised and then we encouraged the STR owners to
voluntarily register online so that we could start
to collect that database.
And we started in September, 2023 and we collected
that information all the way even past our ordinance
through December, 2024.
And we did adopt an ordinance September of 2024.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows we really have three main neighborhoods.
Stephanie did a great job of describing our community.
We're small, you know, we have less than 4,000 residents
actually now. Our North Beach neighborhood has historically been the
area where short-term rentals have occurred. And the number in North Beach
is a little bit different than Stephanie's. I think she had a number
before our registry was complete. So this is the actual number and you can see 63%
of our SDRs are in North Beach, which is a beach-level neighborhood. We also have
South Bluff, which is contiguous to our Village Center, our commercial district.
and then you have our homes in the hills so you can see the distribution there
and as Stephanie mentioned we have over 3 million visitors to our beach each
year so we're a small city host a lot of visitors. Next slide please. I'm gonna
run through seven main provisions with our ordinance the first being our
ordinance does allow for short-term rentals in any residential zone or
commercial zone that allows housing so that that's just the premise that we
started with. It was really important to our Council and to the general community
who came together that we accommodate those that had been existing owners,
which ended up being 150 existing owners who registered with our city. And that
equates to 6% of our housing stock. It's higher than than we had hoped. Initially
we were seeing lower numbers of what was being advertised, you know, in the 120s
around there but we ended up having that our ordinance specified the parameters
you have to come in not just to register but yeah have to come in and get an STR
permit and as mentioned by Stephanie that will be the first time we ever have
an STR permit issued for these owners to operate. We also set a cap and that's
important because in Del Mar there's endless demand. People will continue to
increase doing these short-term rentals if we don't have some type of cap and
that cap was set at 5% of our total housing total housing units but it's not
being applied to our existing STR owners. So that that's really something we strive
for in the future as some of these tend to cycle out. With the new STRs we're
following the best practices, we're following the Coastal Commission's
workshop where we talked about housing and the effects of this and how it's
really displacing tenants that that is a reality we have seen that in Delmar so
that's that is a part of it but it doesn't apply to these original the 150
we have right now we also set neighborhood caps because
concentrations important many of the owners residents in North Beach are not
happy to have that high concentration but with additional requirements we put
and we were able to get those residents also
in support of this ordinance.
Next slide please.
Also really important is that we're prohibiting STRs
in our apartments.
So our residential zones, we have nine apartment buildings,
no STRs exist in those and none will ever be allowed
in those units.
We have one other apartment complex
that's in a visitor commercial zone,
which you all know that is not an allowed use
a commercial zone so it's a non-conforming use and so we did have to kind of balance that with staff
and limit it to what we're doing with everything else so at a 10 percent but there's no interest
from that owner these are some of the more affordable units that we have in our community
and so we did that to to meet the standards for the Coastal Act and you can see here the limit
of 10 percent on any of our larger condo projects. We have 17 and three of those projects have
a good concentration of STRs within. So those would be accommodated for now. Also important
is that we're applying operational requirements and we use the data to help set these. One
of those points is the minimum three nights stay. And so our data collected by our consultant
showed that nothing was lower than the three. So it's a range of three to five in our area,
and that did cover Solana Beach, Del Mar, the surrounding San Diego area, as well as La Jolla.
So that was an important data point. It was also, we talked about hosted, non-hosted.
Our STR owners explained all of them are non-hosted. Nobody's doing home sharing,
nobody's doing hosted rentals. So it's just not something that we wanted to spend much time on.
The really important thing is having
a 24-hour contact person to respond to complaints.
We're not really seeing new issues,
but we certainly don't want them to start
under this new ordinance.
And then also the good neighbor policies
and our owners typically follow those.
Next slide, please.
The other important point,
and this is really important to the data,
was we have sufficient visitor accommodations.
We have more than a one-to-one ratio.
And in the past Coastal Commission is always used
within a five mile radius over that 10 year period.
So when you look at, we have per the 2020 census,
do you mind if I just finish?
Okay, 2574 total dwelling units.
And then when you look at the hotel rooms
within five miles, 2379 plus the hundreds of STRs.
Next slide, please.
I just wanna cover really quickly,
there were three opposition letters submitted on our LCPA.
None of these stakeholders participated
in our local process.
So these were reflecting statewide issues.
They're things that you see each time you hear
in STR ordinance.
They range from the STR industry wanting less restrictions,
and then you have the other side who wants more limits
on STRs.
In this case, it was Better Neighbors LA
that put that on our particular.
And I can tell you each of the issues
that has been brought up even in the prior item,
we deliberated that in the council meeting.
So it was very well discussed and intentionally decided
by our city council to meet our community needs.
And I think that's a testament.
This time we don't have a bunch of STR owners
here in front of you upset with the ordinance.
The other part that I mentioned,
I know the three night minimum was a big one in the prior,
but as mentioned, the data we collected
reflects that this is the trend.
That's what our STR owners share
is that its family's coming basically for a week
or a portion of a week.
The rate, these are not affordable units.
This is what we collected at the time,
which was not even the high season.
So 625 to 630 a night.
The example, we have some of the STR owners
that try to represent it as affordable,
but even they're showing the extreme situation
July 4th these are renting for like 10,000 a night just to give you that
extreme of what we see in Del Mar. We intentionally want to accommodate all
150. We don't want something lower and then really important point was on the
housing and I know this came up earlier. There's always the deniers about whether
or not this impacts tenants and I can tell you Commissioner Wilson that that
came up when we were accepting registries we got a call from a tenant
who was being displaced because somebody wanted to jump in and right before we
adopted the ordinance registered as an existing SDR. So it's definitely
happening. I was a student who lived in Del Mar when I was at UCSD. The housing
where I used to live is now 60% SDRs. Definitely a trend. The other part was
it was intentionally decided by the council to stick out 129. We don't want
it to be flexible at 5% because we're also committed to do our housing goals
for our housing element. So we're producing units. And finally we did go
through set guiding principles and objectives. You will recognize many of
these come from the Coastal Act. That ties in with the values of where we
were going. So it's accommodating your residential character and then also
honoring that tradition of the STRs, minimizing the impacts to the neighbors
and then making sure that they're not becoming concentrated. And finally, last
Next slide.
So in summary, we do believe this to be consistent with our certified LCP, your past decisions
that we've seen.
The example that came up with like half Moon Bay and Pismo Beach, they also do primary residences.
That's what we're going for in the future with new STRs.
And then the fact that we do have plenty of visitor accommodations to serve moving forward.
So thank you.
available for questions. Thank you. We have a total of 11 people signed up. We're
able to find seven right now. We'll start with Fong Bui, Maura O'Neil, and Jose
Alvarado. Fong Bui, when you're able to please unmute and begin. We see you but
you're muted still. My name is Fong Bui and I'm speaking on behalf of the
the California Short-Term Rental Association.
We support the Coastal Act's long-standing emphasis
on public access and lower cost visitor accommodations,
and we appreciate Del Mar's efforts to update its LCP.
Our comments focus on several elements of the proposal
that we believe should be refined
to better advance those shared objectives.
In Del Mar, more than half of the overnight accommodations
are short-term rentals,
and that makes STRs indispensable for families,
multi-generational visitors,
and middle-income Californians who want to access the coast.
These homes are also more affordable than hotels on average.
We're looking at short-term rentals
costing less per person per night than hotels,
and the difference is really dramatic for families
who are traveling in groups.
Nearly 28% of STRs qualify as lower cost coastal
accommodations under the Commission's own standards,
which was far more than the hotels in the area.
We do not oppose Del Mar's proposal
to cap short-term rentals,
and we appreciate the city's decision
to grandfather in existing operators.
However, we strongly urge the Commission
to require two changes.
First, the cap should be percentage-based
as proposed as one of the options at 5%
rather than the hard numerical cap.
So that can adapt over time.
And then secondly, and most importantly,
the three night minimum stay should be removed,
I think similar to the discussions earlier about Encinitas.
This requirement disproportionately harms affordability,
weekend family travels and working Californians
who can't afford to take longer vacations.
The minimum stay mandates reduce lodging supplies
without actually advancing coastal act objectives.
And hotels in the region already operate at near capacity,
especially in the summer.
So thank you for your time.
And we urge you to require those changes.
Thank you.
Next, Maura O'Neill, Jose Alvarado, Aaron Judson.
Maura.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Maura O'Neill.
I'm a policy analyst for Better Nevers LA.
We're a coalition of hosts and tenants,
housing activists who advocate for limitations
to short-term rentals to preserve long-term housing.
We urge the commission to amend this LCPA to permit true home sharing and hosted-only
rentals in the coastal zone of Del Mar.
Failing this, we suggest that you amend the LCPA to remove the grandfather clause and
limit unhosted short-term rentals to 1% of the housing stock in the city.
As currently drafted, the LCPA does not adequately strike a balance between protecting coastal
communities and ensuring adequate visitor-serving accommodations.
The grandfathering in of 150 short-term rentals,
the vast majority of which do not meet
the primary residency requirement,
that's central to the ordinance
and critical to protect housing stock in the city.
This protection is essential,
especially given the greater Del Mar area
has more visitor serving accommodations
than actual housing units in the city of Del Mar.
We hope that the commission will recognize the need
to preserve the viability of coastal communities
like Del Mar, by amending this LCPA
to permit true home-sharing-only and hosted-only rentals.
Should the Commission choose not to adopt the hosted-only policy,
we ask that you amend the LCPA again
to remove the grandfathering clause
to create a distinction between hosted and unhosted rentals
and limit unhosted rentals to 1% of housing stock.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next, Jose Alvarado, Aaron Judson, and Kimberly Jackson.
Jose Alvarado.
Sure, Harmon, commissioners and commission staff.
Once again, my name is Jose Alvarado, representing our B&B.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Del Mar,
and thank you for reducing the three-night minimum
to two-night minimum on Encinitas.
We appreciate the city of Del Mar's recognition
of the historic overnight accommodation options,
especially for families and groups that need multiple
bedrooms, kitchens, and space for everyone.
We also appreciate grandfathering of existing STRs
to serve coastal visitors each year.
but we do respectfully request two modifications.
The proposed three-night minimum or longer stay
would significantly limit overnight accommodations
near in Del Mar.
Requiring visitors to pay for three nights or more
will eliminate weakened states or families,
significantly increasing the cost
and eliminating affordability.
And internal data for the fiscal year 2025
did show that a three-night minimum would impact
up to 24% of stays in Delmar.
Therefore, we ask that you please remove
the minimum stay requirement and preserve taxes.
Another key provision that will greatly limit
overnight accommodation to reduce the range
of affordable overnight STRs
is a primary residency requirement.
The Attorney General, and there's 2019 brief
regarding Delmar's previous STR ordinance stated,
quote, many homes in Delmar are second homes
with local ownership ranging from 41% to 74%.
With half of the current housing units in Delmar
being second homes, it would be a missed opportunity
to serve future demand for overnight accommodations.
This will result in half the homes sitting empty
instead of adding to the coastal zone in Delmar.
Therefore, we strongly suggest
that you remove the primary residency requirement
for all future SDRs.
These relatively minor adjustments will align the LCP
with the coastal ice mandate and maximize public access.
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Thank you.
Erin Judson was next, but they dropped out of the meeting.
We'll come back to them.
Next will be Kimberly Jackson,
followed by Gina Mattern and Ron Fletcher.
Kimberly Jackson.
Sorry about that.
Okay, can you guys hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Sorry about that.
My name is Kimberly Jackson.
I'm a property owner here in Del Mar.
I also rent my home as a short-term rental in Delmar
and I manage elderly homeowners properties here in Delmar.
I'm here to reject the staff recommendation
to certify Delmar's proposed LCP for short-term rentals,
item 16E.
Currently only 35 of the 150 short-term rentals
are in a primary residence.
That means 90% of existing short-term rentals
are not in primary residences.
They are not hosted, they are unhosted and in second homes.
This proposed ordinance requires any new short-term rental
to be in a primary residence and any new STR
can then only be used up to half the year.
The requirement for something to be a primary resident
means you must live in your home at least half the year.
This will attrition units out of the marketplace,
thus driving up the cost for visitors
to access the coastline in Del Mar.
This is a de facto ban.
In 2016, the City of Del Mar noted there were 490 short-term rentals.
The city illegally started shutting units down with code enforcement violations
that gave out financial penalties.
Now we are down to only 150 short-term rentals.
I'd also like to oppose the three-night minimum length of stay.
Please do what you recommended in Encinitas and move this to a two-night minimum.
A two-night minimum allows affordable access to the coastline for the weekend.
The one million insurance liability policy that Del Mar is asking for
is also very costly and challenging for Del Mar residents to obtain. It is close to impossible
to amend an insurance policy right now due to the recent fires. Please also address that
issue by redlining that out. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate the
coordination with the Coastal Commission staff and working on our item. It's been a long
ten-year battle and we appreciate that the Coastal Commission has had everybody's backs
and trying to make it affordable to vacation when visiting the coast here in Del Mar. Thanks
for supporting us. Thank you. Next is Gina Mattern, followed by Ron Fletcher. Gina Mattern.
Okay. Hi, my name is Gina Mattern and I'm a homeowner 20 years plus and also a member of
Costa Del Rey Homeowners Association in Del Mar. And I am respectfully urging you to approve a
targeted exemption or modification to the proposed Del Mar LCP amendment that would otherwise apply
a 10% cap to multi-unit developments, and to specifically exempt Costa del Rey condominium
building from that cap. Costa del Rey is a 16-unit building. 12 of those units, about 75%,
currently operate as short-term rentals. This is not a typical residential apartment or condominium
building. It was never designed for full-time residential living. It has one shared parking
space per unit, no garages, limited storage, no community or amenity spaces, and no infrastructure
that supports long-term occupancy. These characteristics make it inherently visitor
serving, not residential. Exactly the type of use the Coastal Act prioritizes near the shoreline.
In the broader North Beach zone, there are approximately 94 short-term rentals.
Costa del Rey represents 13% of that total. Importantly, concentrating STRs in a single
purpose-built building actually reduces neighborhood impacts by keeping transient use away from
surrounding full-time residences and preserving the residential character of nearby streets.
Costa del Rey also provides the only truly affordable rental option in this immediate
Beach area. Our two-bedroom units start at $300 a night well below the $600 a night average
comparable to nearby rentals. This allows middle-income families and visitors access to the coast,
something that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Eliminating STRs here would not create
affordable housing and it would simply eliminate affordable coastal access. Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next, Ron Fletcher.
Ron, you should be able to unmute.
There you go.
We see.
There you go.
OK, great.
Yeah, my name is Ron Fletcher.
I'm actually a fourth generation Del Mar resident.
My great grandfather helped develop Del Mar.
He got the train station to stop at Del Mar
and used to buy people free sandwiches from LA
to bring them down to try to sell them
lots because Del Mar was a vacation town.
It's always been a vacation town.
And you know, with the racetrack and the fair,
all the vacation rentals are needed in Del Mar.
And what we're doing now is I own one property there
and I own it in LLC.
I bought it 25 years ago from my father.
In the ordinance, it says you can't have a partnership.
Well, I'm a single person LLC.
So I'd like that to be stricken
out of the proposal or the ordinance.
I also am worried about the primary residence.
I someday will want to let my kids inherit the property.
And if it's sold to them,
and then they have to be their primary residence,
and I may lose the grandfathering.
I also don't have the property with my mom.
She's 88 years old.
She relies on this income to survive.
And so she was a school teacher for years, but part-time.
So she doesn't have a pension.
And so we rent it out and we use there
and we do family unions there.
There's also part in the ordinance that says
You can't have two units on one lot.
Well, my great grandfather built five duplexes,
10 houses.
He had nine kids.
They drew straws and they picked the property.
And so these duplexes are owned with two people.
So they're duplexes with two separate families.
A few have been sold off, some are still in the family,
but it's very important.
This ordinance, Stephanie and Amanda
have some great statistics,
but Del Mar is a vacation rental town.
So I suggest that the coast commission let the vacationers use the house and come and
visit at an affordable rate because you're not eliminating the housing stock.
You're adding people to the beach.
Renters are people and we let our house be rented out to many others.
I suggest you do not vote yes on this proposal and vote no completely.
Thank you.
There were five other names that we weren't able to find.
I'm going to call the names.
Erin Judson, Laura DiMarco, Richard Langstaff II,
Skip Murphy, and Jennifer McDowell.
If any of you are on Zoom, please raise your hand.
Again, Erin Judson, Laura DiMarco, Richard Langstaff,
Skip Murphy, Jennifer McDowell.
I'm seeing one hand raised under the name New Century Advisors.
I'm going to allow you to speak.
Please say your name.
Oh, and I'm sorry.
I'm using my work computer.
My name is Laura DeMarco, and I do not know why my screen is not showing.
But anyway, I represent Delmar Alliance for Preservation of Beach Access and Village.
And I just wanted to share with you a couple of really important distinctions.
Even without permitting, without paying TOT, without the hassle of going through the bureaucracy,
Only 35 of 150 short-term rentals right now are hosted, as in primary residences.
When these regulations are put into effect, there's going to be even less.
And what's happening right now, Kim talked about 490 short-term rentals dropped to 150.
The reason why that happened is because the units were sold, and the city would not allow
anyone to the new owners to continue to operate them. So that's what's going to happen. You're
going to go down to 35 to 50 from 150. Secondly, at the same time that the number of short
term rentals dropped, guess what? Hotel rates skyrocketed. So the only hotel on the beach,
the Del Mar Beach Hotel, their rental rate went from $300 to now in July of July 4th,
holiday, it's $1,050 a night. I really apologize for sending you my, uh, my, uh, suggestions,
but I urge you to reject that the primary residency requirement, I urge you to do like
Encinitas where it's 5%, not necessarily an arbitrary cap of 129. That has to be changed
all the time with you guys and waste your time. Um, and thirdly, I think a lot, uh,
The $1 million liability insurance policy is another barrier to entry for even the hosted
people to come in.
They're not going to want to do this.
It's too much of a hassle.
And I urge you to preserve this great coastal access that the racetrack needs and the beach
people need as well.
Thank you.
We're not seeing any of the other speakers, Madam Chair.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
I will return to the local government representative.
they have a response. Thank you very much. There was a lot there. So the one, the most
recent comment, the cap is not arbitrary. It was based on data. It's based on our number
of units and considered the number of existing SDRs. All 150 are being accommodated. We do
expect this to just, you know, as soon as we go live, we're maintaining the baseline
condition. So we don't expect to see much change. There I believe to be some
exaggeration because the ordinance does provide for these existing STR owners to
maintain their ownership over time. So there were requests to our Council about
you know how they would do this when they have LLC formats and LP formats.
They're allowed to still continue those formats even though the LP is a type of
business. And as long as they're maintaining a common chain of ownership,
they're allowed to keep these over time so we do again we don't expect to see
much change. One of the requests was for to remove the insurance requirement.
Everything has been asked of our council already so that was asked of our council
and they reiterated it's important because this insurance protects the
guests who rent those just like hotels do. That is why that is in the ordinance.
One of the speakers asked about Costa del Rey,
which is a condo complex that has 16 total units, 12 of them.
So that's the highest concentration that we have.
12 of them are STRs.
The owner asked the council for
a special exception and the council said no.
The primary residence, I think,
is the last one and this is really important.
Again, to reiterate, it doesn't apply to existing STR owners.
So those existing STR owners,
that spoke, everyone that was related to Delmar that spoke
is an existing SDR owner.
The primary residence requirement doesn't apply to them.
The purpose of it is to keep our existing units,
so the ones we already have,
the ones that we're building for our housing element,
it's to keep those as the primary use for housing.
It doesn't mean those owners can't do short-term rentals
moving forward, it just means we get to still count those
towards our total housing and provide housing stock
for future residents.
So again, very important to us.
And just as a reminder, I brought it up in the presentation.
It's tied to our housing element.
So the data shows we have a vacancy rate of 24%.
A healthy vacancy rate is 5%.
We're extremely high.
It's because of a combination of STRs and second homes.
We recognize it's not just all STRs,
but this is an important measure for us to address.
It's something that HCD expects us to do.
It's a required action in our certified housing element.
So that covers my rebuttal.
If you have any additional questions,
I'm happy to answer.
Great, thank you very much.
With that, I will close the public hearing
and return to our staff.
Do you have any closing comments?
At this point, no, nothing further.
We're available for questions.
Perfect, thank you so much.
Okay, back to the commission, comments, questions.
Commissioner O'Mellie.
Just quick, last issue we talked about, three verse two.
I don't know if that's, I'm assuming the same question,
so I'm asking the same question.
Would the city be open to it?
What, you know, are we gonna go down that road?
Cause I don't want to start closed session as soon as we can.
Thank you.
So we based that standard on data.
And so that is the existing trend of the STRs
that we have in the community.
I recognize that one of our STR owners
was backing up Airbnb on that.
But the data that we've collected shows
not just in Del Mar, Solana Beach, which is our neighbor,
the San Diego units that are within our same zip code
right around us, as well as La Jolla,
that's all in a three to five type of rental,
three to five day type of rental.
So these are not just flipping one day,
these are families coming to rent for a week
or a portion of a week.
Commissioner Kalman.
Thank you.
You got to your intercomments at the end
about how this is grandfathered in
and how it could be transferred down.
You're starting to get into the,
how are you gonna drop below,
is it just family to family for transfer?
Talk to me a little bit about how you're gonna drop below
the 150 down to 129.
Sure, really important though.
First thing is there's no grandfathering
because we've never issued any permit for an STR.
So these are all fresh start, come in,
we're accommodating you in a different way
than someone that would come in new.
So the way it was set up is we recognize
we have people that own just as individuals,
we have people that own as LLCs,
we have people that own as LPs.
On those types of LLCs and LPs,
they have their families on there, right, their children.
And so through, let's say someone passes away,
through inheritance, you're able to maintain that
because you have those names still on the title.
So when you have owners remaining on that title
for the property, you're able to pass.
That was the accommodation the council put in
to address that concern
that you have these longstanding groups.
But as mentioned, some of these properties will be sold
and we had two that may have sold.
We don't know the nature of it.
We don't know if it fits into this condition
where it was still something in the family
or something different.
But when it changes,
that means the new owner has to come in as a new STR.
They're not being accommodated.
It's just the people that registered.
If there's space available?
Yes, once we dip to below the 129 when you have capacity.
So we'll have a wait list.
OK, so what's to stop me from just changing
shares of my LLC with someone else who's not related to me?
Yeah, you would be able to do that.
I mean, we're not tied to family.
So if the ownership and that chain of title
continues over time so as long as these 150 are not homes right now right
they've all been reported as unoccupied right for the most part and so we're not
we're not changing our housing data it's it's for the new so everything beyond
that we're saying we don't want to lose any more housing units okay thank you
Commissioner Lopez yeah I'll just come out and say I can only support it if we
drop it down to two for the same reasons and I'll be clear why I hear that the
data shows the average day is three nights but when we focus on equity we
don't look at the average we look at the folks with the highest need and I think
that's the challenge I have for saying the average number of nights is three I'm
looking for those folks who just can't make that and making sure that they
continue to have access and pulling up availability now through April it was
clear to see there were units available with two to three bedrooms for less than
three hundred dollars a night around 250 down along the beach so given the data
that I'm seeing here, given the fact that we're not looking to create an
average, but really focus on the folks with the least access today. I will
only be able to support this if we do the same as we did on the last, with an
adjustment to tonight. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I want to ensure that
coastal access is for everyone, and short-term rentals are a unique and
important way to accommodate visitors, specifically large families in the
coastal zone. Larger families that might not have the means to stay in multiple
rooms at hotels often benefit from short-term rentals. A price point of
accessibility for families is key to be able to enjoy coastal amenities such as
the beautiful beaches in Del Mar. Caps on the number of short-term rentals at a
maximum of 150 units in the city of Del Mar can be priced out larger families and intergenerational
families and essentially reduce the coastal access. If we limit the number of short-term
rentals we make it too expensive for the average Californian to enjoy the coast as a public good.
I will say I'll stop there so I will there is an emotion on the floor but I will not be supporting
but I do thank the city of Del Mar for all the work that they put into this. Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson. Well I'll just say I'm not going to go through some of the
questions and then issues we went through before so I think everyone catches my vibe on that but
but I will say there is, I just want to say,
there is a policy 11-6, 11-11,
15-D, or that's its goal,
15-D and 5B and 5A,
that I just want to say that are the balancing discussions
and arguments around how to maintain
the needs of a community to both supply housing
and in terms of character and what I mean by that again
is the ability to maintain human beings
that live in a place that give it the human element
that it needs to be an attractive and wonderful beach
and coastal community and provide that authenticity
to that place.
I will say that when our county started the process
of adopting our STR ordinance,
on day one, we said that anyone that wasn't operating
in STR 30 days prior to when we started the process
couldn't be, I hate this term grandfathered in,
but whatever that is, but you get what I'm saying,
because we were afraid of people rushing
and displacing people and making them homeless.
And we knew that was going to happen
if we, once we said that we were gonna start discussing
a cap on these things.
And so I'm sorry to hear that that's what happened here
and it will happen in other places.
So advise other communities to be careful of that.
And because again, displacing people is,
we can talk all day about the values
of providing places for people to be in short-term rentals,
which I have used short-term rentals.
I will use them in the future.
That doesn't mean that I can't have two thoughts
in my brain at the same time,
which is I have to understand also
that there's impacts to these things too,
and we're decision makers and policymakers
around those things.
With that, I'm in support of what's proposed
by the city of Del Mar in this case.
Again, there's probably changes I would make to it,
but again, it's the needle in the right direction, 100%,
and to what's there today.
And I do know that communities are gonna address
to these things in the future.
This will not be the first round.
And we are gonna talk about this a lot
because I think we probably review
more short-term rental ordinances
than any body on the planet.
So with that, I'm happy to make a motion
to support this at the time.
Thanks.
Thank you um I'm prepared to make a motion to on this I think that the
distinction here between two and three is the this is a very small city wholly
within the coastal zone and there's a lot of existing visitor serving
facilities and hotels and motels around it which is distinguished from the
and Sanita's situation so in the spirit of locally adapted policies that seems
to me that that is a reasonable request so I could live with the three on this
one so should I go ahead and make a motion oh mike's gonna make it okay and
see how that goes I don't care you can make the motion by all means is you have
it up and ready to roll I'm happy to second okay I move that the Commission
reject the implementation program amendment for the city of Del Mar as
submitted and I request a no vote. Second. So if I desired to make an amending
motion to reduce to two nights would I wait until... Well so in this instance no
it's even more complicated because if if the Commission votes no on the motion as
recommended by a Commissioner is not often Wilson then it would be approved
is submitted and there would be no opportunity to do an amending motion to a suggested modification.
I don't think we've addressed this particular issue yet but I think making an amending motion
now that if there is an opportunity for a suggested modification you would want it to
go from three nights to two nights see if that passes and then then we'll go back to the first
motion that commissioner not have put on the table. Okay so I'm offering at this point an
amending motion that would request or you said if there's an opportunity. So
can you explain that? Yeah, I think the amending motion should be if suggested
if, if, if suggested modifications are allowed then you would like, that's not
the right term either. Go for it. No, I don't know. A substitute motion with a two
night rather than three would that be a simple way forward or no. Just say an
amending motion that goes from three nights to two if that passes let's sort
out how to make it happen. Copy and paste what she said that would be the
and I will second that. Okay we have a motion by Commissioner Lopez a second
by Commissioner Jackson may we have a roll call vote please. Yes. They're asking
for a yes vote on going from three to two. Commissioner Notoff? No. Notoff? No.
Commissioner Moreno? Moreno yes. Moreno yes. Commissioner Wilson? No. Wilson no.
Commissioner O'Malley? Yes. O'Malley yes. Commissioner Escalante? Sorry. I lost
track. Commissioner Lopez is asking for a yes, right? Correct. Escalante yes.
Commissioner Hart? No. Hart? No. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Kelly? No.
Kelly? No. Commissioner Lee? No. Lee? No. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Lopez? Yes. Commissioner
Kalamik? No. Kalamik? No. Chair Harmon? No. Harmon? No. The vote is five yes, seven no. Okay,
Thank you very much the amending motion fails, so we'll return to the motion that was put on the floor by vice chair heart seconded by
Commissioner not off seconded by
Wilson thank you so much and and they
They're asking for a no vote. Maybe have a roll call vote, please
Commissioner Moreno
I'm sorry
Okay. Yes
Moreno yes, Commissioner Wilson
No
Wilson no, Commissioner O'Malley. No O'Malley. No Commissioner Escalante
No
Escalante no, Commissioner Hart. No
Hart no, Commissioner Jackson. No
Jackson no, Commissioner Kelly. No Kelly. No Commissioner Lee. No
Lee no, Commissioner Lopez. Yes
Lopez. Yes, Commissioner comic. No
call make no commissioner not off no not off no chair Harman no Harman no the
vote is 2 yes 10 no thank you very much okay much appreciated we're done for the
day except for closed session so let's um reconvene in five minutes please but
a quick five thank you