Okay, good morning everyone. Thank you so much for being here and joining us for this March meeting of the California Coastal Commission. We're very excited to be here in Ventura. So with that, we will begin with a roll call, please.
All right, good morning. Commissioner O'Malley.
Present.
Commissioner Eckerly.
Here.
Commissioner.
Heart.
Present.
Commissioner Jackson.
Jackson. Here. Commissioner Kelly. Here. Commissioner Conkle. Commissioner Lee. Here. Commissioner
Lowenberg. Here. Commissioner Notoff. Here. Commissioner Presiato. Here. Commissioner
Williams. Here. Commissioner Wilson. Present. And Chair Harmon. Here. We have a quorum. Great.
Thank you very much, Chris, and I see Commissioner Lopez is also here.
Can we move to the virtual meeting procedures, please, Chris?
Good morning.
This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through Zoom.
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at cal-span.org.
If you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item, we recommend you use the CalSPAN website.
Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform
or by phone.
The speaker request form may be found on the Commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittals are available on the Commission's
staff table, just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission agenda
webpage, which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
of the public speaking during general public comments may be given up to two minutes to
speak at the discretion of the chair.
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after
9 a.m. on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation, you
may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comments are typically allowed
2 to 3 minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access, please go to the commission webpage and click on the link
to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the commission
staff at five six two four seven seven nine zero eight nine again that number
is five six two four seven seven nine zero eight nine staff will provide you
with a telephone call-in number and instructions for how to participate and
provide testimony by phone we will manage speakers coming in and out of the
meeting through a meeting organizer when it is your time to address the
Commission the organizer will invite you to turn on your video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone
Madam chair that concludes a virtual hearing procedures great. Thank you very much Simone and now we will go to
Agenda changes that you mr. Hudson it is and good. Good morning, chair Harmon vice your heart and commissioners
I will now go over those changes for our agenda today
first item 11 D is moved to consent
Item 11D is the City of Malibu LCP amendment for the 22762 and 22752 Pacific Coast Highway
rezone.
Item 11E is moved to consent.
This is the County of Ventura LCP amendment dealing with the ADU ordinance, time extension
only.
Item 14A is moved to consent.
This is the CDP application by the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works.
Item 14B is moved to consent.
This is the CDP application for the Lucky 8th LLC.
Item 17B moved to consent.
This is the CDP application by the Port of Long Beach and California Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
And item 17C, the KIDDA CDP application is moved to consent.
In addition, we have a couple changes to the agenda since the agenda changes memo was published.
Item 19A, the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment dealing with airport uses, that item is postponed.
And item 20a, the Tijuana River segment, post-LCP map adoption is also postponed.
And I see Mr. Karl is noting that we may have one additional change, so I'm going to quickly
turn the mic over to Mr. Karl.
Mr. Schwinn.
I shouldn't call him Mr. Karl.
Thank you, Mr. Steve.
Just one correction on item 17C, which is the KEDA application, the Newport Beach International
Boat Show.
We had that as an item to move to consent this morning, but we want to hold that over
for regular calendar.
So we'll have the full hearing on that later today.
Okay.
And that brings us back to the end of these agenda changes.
So that concludes our changes.
We'll come back to item four, general public comment,
and with that, I'll turn the mic back over to you,
Madam Chair.
Thank you very much.
OK.
Simone, thank you.
All right.
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 general public comments at the discretion of the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom,
we will bring 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, 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 signup list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium
introduce yourself when you approach to speak. There is a raise hand function that will help
us find you in the attendee list. If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand
by dialing star nine. If you are participating by Zoom, you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand now.
When it is your time to speak, we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star 6.
First up, we have Ventura County Supervisor, Varni Lopez,
Vice Chair of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, followed by Joy Boyd, and then Linda Krop.
Good morning. I'm used to it turning on automatically.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, commissioners.
Again, my name is Villenez Lopez.
I am the vice chair of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors.
And I want to extend a very warm welcome to all of you
here to Ventura County.
I am proud to represent the central unincorporated areas
of the city of Oxford, the majority of Oxford,
the coastal community of Port Wainimi,
as well as the Naval Base and the Port of Wainimi,
and one of the Channel Islands.
So, very pleased to welcome you all today.
And on behalf of the Board of Supervisors,
thank you for the work that you do.
We appreciate your service and the effort you all make
to ensure that our coastline is protected
and that generations of kids, youth, and family here
in our communities across the state are able to grow up
having access to a thriving and sustainable coastline.
And I'm particularly grateful
that the commission is holding meetings across the state.
and today on an issue that is very important
to the community that I represent here in Ventura County.
So I wanna thank you all for giving that access
to our community members.
And lastly, I wanna thank the staff
both at the Coastal Commission and here at our county
for the work that everyone does to ensure
that these issues receive the appropriate care
and attention that our communities deserve.
So with that, I hope you enjoy your time
here in Ventura County.
Good to see you all.
and hope you have a really great meeting.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Vice Chair Lopez.
Thank you for having us.
Joy Boyd, followed by Linda Crop,
followed by Asia Hudson.
Oh, you are so smart.
So good.
So I'm here for the San Diego Morning Company.
They were denied a rent increase by, I think, you guys.
Years ago, we had a three-page lease.
After that, they gave us a 17-page lease
where they took everything away,
made everything illegal, they took our freedom and rights away.
They were just denied another rent increase again by the San Diego port.
Now we have a 27 page lease.
Our consequences are they impounded, sold, got a judgment for $55,000 against a tenant.
The mooring company saw a money maker.
The mooring company sent eviction notices to the beautiful expensive yachts.
Then they made the mooring company goons,
inspect their vessels, demand high repairs,
re-inspect them and make sure all repairs are done,
all for a huge fee, then made them sign a guilty plea.
The mooring company can now tow to their own marina,
put a judgment against them
with no repercussions of a lawsuit.
That happened to about a third of our 462 moorings.
Everyone lives in fear of that happening to them.
My inconsequences for informing the port and the commissioner now they are doing that to me.
In February they increased my rent to $700 a month instead of the approved $160 a month.
They seem to hear if they increased their expenses they can raise our rent.
They have two staffers just to intimidate and harass tenants.
They are wasting money with two to six fake fishermen peeing in the water trying
to catch us break one of their 27 lease laws.
They are judge, jury, and executioner.
They seem to want to replace us with mega yachts
and make a million.
This is what happens when you privatize public moorings.
They are just supposed to babysit us.
We need your help.
They say they are doing this for their environment,
that bigger mega yachts have more pollution
and that is bad for their environment.
In the beginning, the port gave them sublets.
Two boats pay for the same mooring.
instead of raising the rent.
We need your help.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
I'm Linda Krop, Chief Counsel
of the Environmental Defense Center.
Our service area is Ventura, Santa Barbara
and San Luis Obispo County, so welcome to Ventura.
We have been representing Get Oil Out Citizens Planning
Association in the Sierra Club since the mid 1990s
to ensure proper decommissioning
of platforms offshore summerland
and restoration of the area as required
by the original leases.
Chevron shut down these platforms in the early 1990s.
And in 1994, the State Lands Commission
adopted a mitigated negative declaration
and approved the platform removal project,
which was intended to, quote,
restore the marine environment to its natural state,
end quote.
As part of its approval,
the commission required that Chevron conduct
a successful trawl test to address debris
accumulated during the platform operations.
In 1995, the Coastal Commission
also issued a permit to Chevron
for activities related to the removal of the platforms,
including a requirement to, quote,
"'Clean up any seafloor debris.'"
The platforms were removed in 1996,
but Chevron failed the trawl test.
Chevron sought to keep the mounds in place,
referring to them as habitat,
saying that they were encased like concrete
and could not be removed.
So EDC and others, including the Coastal Commission
and the County of Santa Barbara asked for the mounds
to be tested, which the State Lands Commission did,
and in March 2001, the report found that the mounds
were highly contaminated, did not provide habitat,
and could be removed.
We have been waiting for 30 years
to have this site restored.
Chevron says it is not required to remove the mounds,
but we did check with Robert Hite,
the then Executive Officer of the State Lands Commission,
and he submitted a recent letter confirming
that in his words Chevron was required to quote,
"'Remove all debris, including the shell mounds,
"'and restore the area to its natural condition.'"
So we're looking for your assistance today.
And I will be followed by our green analyst
and conservation manager, Asia Hudson
and senior attorney, Tara Ranjofo, thank you.
Thank you. Next is Asia Hudson, Tyra Riguffo, and Catherine Werner.
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
Like Linda said, my name is Asia Hudson, the Marine Conservation Analyst and Program Manager
with EDC.
My comments reflect the scientific issues flagged in the DeWitt study mentioned by Linda.
Throughout the years following the DeWitt study, the Chevron Mounds have been assessed.
However, there have been significant concerns remaining.
The areas of concern have been highlighted in various letters by my colleagues and our
experts.
For the sake of time, I will focus on two issues that are specific to the leave-in-place
alternative.
First, multiple past studies confirmed that contamination from the shell mounds are detectable
in the sediments surrounding the mounds and also in species.
We are very concerned about the impact of toxic sediments on marine lifeforms and the
possibility of bioaccumulation.
If the mounds remained in place with known toxic contaminants like barium and chromium
dispersing the surrounding sediments, that could lead to an impact on benthic life moving
within and through the sediment.
For example, black-eyed gobies, which are heavily populated at the shell mounds, they
live, feed, and lay their eggs within the sediments of those mounds.
Secondly, we remain concerned that under the leave-in-place option, the risk from a release
from the mounds due to geologic hazards, like a seismic event, have not been fully assessed
or mitigated.
Our expert seismologists acknowledge that the mounds are situated in a seismically active
location and identified a need for site-specific geological modeling studies, particular with
respect to mound shape, internal stratification, and mechanical density heterogenetic.
I'm gonna not say that word correctly.
I can email you my comments.
Our expert also identified many concerns
not covered by previous analysis,
like slumping and or internal folding of the mounds
may be of concern given that these processes
might disrupt the internal layering
of the 4-H shell mounds,
such that drill waste is exposed to the water column.
There's also, oops, sorry.
We've also sent these letters,
but there's also some chance for this 4-H shell mounds
to be disturbed by catastrophic slope failure.
And so thank you again today for letting us come and speak.
My colleague, Tara Renhifo,
will discuss independent permitting authority
of Coastal Commission.
Thank you and sorry for going over time.
Good morning, Chair and commissioners.
My name is Tara Renhifo.
I'm a senior attorney
with the Environmental Defense Center.
My testimony will focus on Chevron's existing CDP
related to the four debris mounds.
As Linda mentioned in 95,
The Coastal Commission issued Chevron a CDP related to the removal of the platforms and
the cleanup of any seafloor debris.
Special Condition 7 requires that prior to quick claim, Chevron must submit an analysis
assessing whether to remove the mounds.
And if the Coastal Commission determined that debris removal was necessary, the matter was
to be set for public hearing.
Such a hearing occurred in 2001 in response to not only Chevron's failed trial tests,
also findings in the 2001 study that the mounds could be removed.
At that hearing, the Coastal Commission determined that Chevron must apply for an amendment to
its CDP to remove the mounds.
Chevron submitted a CDP amendment application which remains incomplete to this day.
Also in 2001, Chevron submitted an application to the State Lands Commission that included
seven alternatives for the final disposition of the mounds.
State Lands circulated a draft programmatic EIR and EA in 2003 and hundreds of comments
were received, but the draft EIR was never finalized.
Chevron instead elected to amend its application.
Flash forward to 2013, State Lands started, but then stopped preparing an EIR.
Again, instead, State Lands began working on a report related to Chevron's new application
to terminate its leases and leave the mounts in place.
This report was circulated in 2025 and Coastal Commission staff commented that a CDP amendment
would be required.
Given this background, we respectfully request that staff resume processing Chevron's incomplete
application.
And we thank staff for their efforts on this and communications with us to date.
We have two questions for the Commission's consideration.
First, what are the next steps in this process and timing to ensure compliance with the Commission's
2001 order?
And if Chevron does not comply then what happens? Thank you
Thank you, Catherine Warner Peter Krauss Valeria Cerna and Peter. Oh, sorry in Victoria de la Cruz
Good morning chair and commissioners
My name is Catherine Warner and I'm speaking on behalf of the Paseo Miramar neighborhood
And I'm also the co-chair of the Miramar homeowners Association. I'm speaking to you today in regards to the
Restoration order and the cease-and-desist order CCC 24 are oh oh three
Our community sits on a steep hillside with only one primary ingress and egress road and many homes in our neighborhood are currently
rebuilding during the the palisades fire
My family also owns the property directly adjacent to the area, which was illegally graded during
two years ago by a developer and unfortunately part of our lot was also graded without permission as part of this work.
This has created ongoing concerns regarding slope stability drainage and potential impacts to our property.
Because the grading occurred in a sensitive landslide area actually on the original
still moving landslide, the restoration and stabilization of the hillside is critical not only for environmental reasons
but also for the safety of surrounding homes and infrastructure.
The Commission took decisive action when these violations first were brought forward, and
our community greatly appreciated the cease and desist order and the restoration orders.
However, two years later, the hillside remains unrestored.
We respectfully ask the Commission to ensure that the consent order is enforced and that
the restoration work begins without further delay.
I thank you very much.
Good morning, commissioners. I'm Peter Kraus. Like the prior speaker, Ms. Warner, in 2024,
I and other members of my community appeared before you to alert you about this incredible
amount of grading, vegetation removal, and landform alteration at 636 to 720 Paseo Miramar
drive and Pacific Palisades, all of which was being done without any approval or CDP.
You might recall that the property owner was creating building pads for a future development
to try to alter the CEQA baseline for a future project under the guise of brush clearance.
And the work was truly astonishing because they were grading into an active landslide
area as Ms. Werner said right below several homes including mine and also
within Topanga State Park directly adjacent to the magnificent Los Leones
hiking trail one of the most beautiful in LA County. You and your staff were
amazing. You worked to issue cease and desist orders and restoration orders and
all of this resulted in a negotiated consent order with the owner that
we were very pleased with since it was intended to restore the properties and the hillside
in particular to where they were before the illegal work was done.
Unfortunately, a year and a half later we find ourselves in a position where this property
owner defaulted and the bank that has taken ownership and engaged a receiver has done
absolutely nothing to comply with your order.
At the same time we are continuing to see erosion where the developer conducted the
the grading, and we are concerned about further harm occurring to the properties.
The landslide destabilization in particular is dangerous.
We're sorry to bother you with this again, but I think you were all very concerned at
the time about what had occurred, and you will agree that something needs to be done
to ensure that the landslide is stabilized and restored.
Our attorneys reached out to the bank and the receiver with no response.
Please help us get them to comply with your order.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Valerie Eesserna, followed by Victor De La Cruz,
followed by Kevin Keegan, and Patricia Kinney Miyachos.
I apologize if I mispronounce.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Valeria Serna, a resident of Pacific Palisades
for over 20 years, speaking on consent order,
what Peter and Catherine spoke about.
The hillsides were illegally graded,
occurred at 636 and 720 Paseo Maramar,
sits inches from Topanga State Park.
An important coastal ecosystem.
Before the grading occurred,
this slope supported native vegetation
that helped stabilize the hillsides,
prevent erosion and provide habitat for wildlife.
Removing that vegetation not only destabilize the slopes,
but also disturb the ecological balance
that the sensitive habitats held.
The restoration required by the commission
back in December of 2024 presents an important opportunity
to replant California natives, fire resilient vegetation
that supports slope stability, protect sensitive habitat,
and safeguards the defendable space of our community.
Implementing the restoration will help
return the hillsides, protect the community affected
by the palisades fires, to a healthy and resilient
California coastal environment.
Our community of originally 70 homes, now 40 standing,
30 needing to be rebuilt, are trying to return to normal.
And we are simply in need of help.
Please help us restore our community back.
Additionally, I'd like to speak in opposition
of the proposed artificial turf installation
at the Palisades Rec Center,
directly above the Riparian Patero Park,
which would have devastating environmental impacts
to our community and marine ecosystem.
As from the entire life cycle,
artificial turf has a negative human
and environmental impact.
Thank you.
Good morning commissioners.
I'm Victor Dela Cruz with Manette Phelps and Phillips.
I represent Peter Kraus and the Miramar Homes Association.
Like others here today,
I, too, spoke at a prior commission hearing in 2024 to alert you to the illegal grading
that was taking place at Paseo Miramar in the Palisades. You were able to put an immediate
stop to this illegal work, and we could not be more grateful for the consent orders that
your staff negotiated, which included a remedial grading plan for the slopes below, several
residential properties that were destabilized by the grading on an active landslide. I understand
that the prior owner has defaulted, the bank has taken ownership, and a receiver has been
appointed. The receiver has requested additional time to comply with the
consent orders but this community has been waiting for approximately one and
a half years now. My clients have had an incredibly difficult year after the
Palisades fire devastated many of their homes and the last thing they need to do
right now is to continue worrying about the landslide risk that has been created.
We also don't think that the extension requests are in good faith given that
the bank has sent correspondence to the commission stating that they don't have to comply with
the consent orders. Never mind that the consent orders are a binding settlement agreement
with a successors and a science provision, and that on its terms runs with the land.
I have also reached out to the receiver's legal counsel on two different occasions and
have not once received the courtesy of a reply. To date, the receiver and the bank have also
not started to make the payments that are required by the consent orders, nor to my
knowledge have they executed and recorded the offer to dedicate fee title to one of
the lots as was promised.
These are things that could have been done a year ago.
Given this, we do not believe they should be given extensions on the restoration or
give anything.
We would respectfully request that the Commission require them to pay the stipulated penalties
in the agreement for every day they continue and breach.
We really appreciate any help that you can provide,
your staff put an incredible amount of work
into resolving the violations,
and it would be a real shame if this was all for nothing.
Thank you.
Kevin Keegan, followed by Patricia Kinney-Miatos,
Han Horman, Hans Horman, and Dan Reeman, and Ann Shore.
Commissioners, I am Kevin Keegan.
I am a Malibu resident and board member peer-to-peer,
grassroots organization dedicated providing clean safe and reliable water
ferry service connecting communities and business districts along the magnificent
SoCal coast. Our short-term vision is to have catamaran passenger boats running
between landings starting with Malibu Pier to Santa Monica Pier potentially
over to Venice or Marina del Rey cruising down to Redondo Beach before
arriving at San Pedro and Long Beach. Long term we want the ferry service to
run from Long Beach to Santa Barbara. Our California licensed vessel operator
plans to run carbon neutral catamarans that will service approximately 149
passengers. The boats travel between 24 and 30 knots. We have five goals. Increase
accessibility, support sustainability, enhance evacuation services, reduce
traffic, and stimulate economic activity. Currently we have close to 100 partners
at the city, county, state, and federal levels, plus nonprofit and private
organizations, engage with our effort including LA Metro, Caltrans, WEDA Coast Guard, Heal
the Bay, and more.
A critical partner is the Coastal Commission, and the reason I drove here today is to thank
your staff.
Over the past year, the staff members have been incredibly supportive and helpful to
us as we navigate the many challenges and stakeholder needs, with genuine gratitude
to extend a sincere thank you to the Coastal Commission staff members.
Lastly, per your, per introductions from Senator Allen, Assemblymember Irwin, Supervisors Horvath and Hahn, and the SCAG team, we've made inroads with the LA2028 Organizing Committee because our peer-to-peer water ferries service has the potential to be a legacy project for the 2028 Summer Olympics.
We hope Coastal Commission will be along for the ride. Thank you.
Patricia Kinimiatos.
Good morning Commission. I'm Patricia Keeney Macias. I'm the chair of peer-to-peer. First
I'd like to personally thank district director Steve Hudson for his excitement of our initiative.
Peer-to-peer's FAIRI mission is your mission to provide equitable access to the water. Imagine
arriving to today's meeting from the coastal cities to the Vantara Pier with a short shuttle
for the final mile. It would have been much better than my commute from Malibu. And this
This is not a pipe drain, this is future transportation with your help.
We are not looking to build massive new footprints.
Our plan is low impact, a modular rising tide gangway added to the Santa Monica Pier with
no other infrastructure needed.
It utilizes these iconic piers and we need to replicate what was done at Malibu Pier
on the Santa Monica Pier, especially now that the bridge is under construction, the Harbor
patrol has waited long enough for proper transportation for rescues.
Our vessel operator has a 30-year stellar environmental and safety record.
We are working with LA-28 to be the official transportation for athletes for the Team USA
from Pepperdine to their events and the village.
We are working with Cal OES and FEMA for future peer evacuations.
No one should evacuate the way we've had to evacuate in our recent Ventura and Palisades
fires.
Our inaugural ferry will be running out of Long Beach on January 5th for the City of
Long Beach who is hosting the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Obviously not stopping at Santa Monica yet until we get that gangway.
And then we will be following up with some events for the World Cup.
We are in final negotiations with the City of Santa Monica Pier Administration who has
approved our location of this rising tide gangway which means our
application is forthcoming to you and we want to thank all of you and your staff
for your help in the future to get this done. Thank you. Okay, Hans Hormann,
Hormann, Dan Raymond, and Anna Schor and then Anna Leveres and then we'll go to
good morning commissioners my name is Hans Horman and I'm on the board of the
California Short-Term Rental Association Santa Barbara I'm here because the Santa
Barbara short-term rental coordinates Commission just met the planning
Commission just met last week at the planning Commission mission themselves
raised serious unanswered questions about how STR is operating city what the to
TOT revenue impacts would be the accessibility,
proposed placement with homestay models,
and visitor capacity.
None of those questions were answered in the meeting.
Why?
Well, part of this seems interesting
because the city attorney wanted them to understand
that if they pushed back,
which is a commission's job is to ask questions,
is that they wouldn't meet a deadline.
Well, what deadline?
Planning commissions exist to review policy on its merits
not to meet political timetable.
As a host and an owner of a vacation rental management
company and an owner of vacation rentals myself
and having broke my knee on the Mesa in Santa Barbara
when I was a kid.
I can tell you the homestay substitute doesn't work.
Families don't book rooms in someone's home.
They book entire homes.
Data submitted during the public comments shows
that unhosted rentals represent roughly 88% of STR supply
in the coastal zone in Santa Barbara.
Homestays are 12%, replacing one with the other
isn't regulation, it's elimination.
I urge the commission not to rubber stamp a process
that the Planning Commission itself was uncomfortable with.
The Coastal Act deserves better.
So do the visitors you've charged
with protecting access for.
So basically, as much as I love reading off of my phone,
the deal is that things are getting rushed
And there's a political and due process
to make sure that when counsel or commission
ask questions that the questions get answered
before they make a decision.
And so I'm trying to make sure that this doesn't show up
and get posted.
Thank you for your time.
Dan Raymond, Anna Shore, Adam Lovers.
Good morning, Chair, commissioners, commission staff.
My name is Dan Reinemann.
I am an Associate Professor of Environmental Science
and Resource Management at California State University
Channel Islands.
and I'm really pleased to be here this morning.
I just have two quick comments.
One, I wanna acknowledge some of our CSUCI students
that are in the room.
They're here attending their first public meeting
during their free time,
and it's a level of engagement
that we're seeing in our students these days
that I think we should all be nurturing and encouraging
in these times that we live in.
I also wanna acknowledge some CSUCI alumni,
especially those that now proudly serve
on the commission's staff.
Brooke Lutz in the Ventura office,
don't think she's in here yet today, but keep hiring our alumni. I also want to
shout out some colleagues at Channel Islands, Dr. Kiki Patch and Dr. Jose
Castro Sotomayor. Together we run a really active research program on our
campus focused on coastal access and equity, environmental justice, and beach
resilience, and I really want to acknowledge the great partnership we've
received from Commission staff over the years, especially the environmental
justice teams, the statewide planning teams,
folks working on Seal the Rise.
It's been outstanding to have that level of engagement
as we work on the science with them.
I wanna close by just saying, please,
please continue to uplift your amazing staff
and support the work that they do
to rely on the best available science.
And I know that you will.
And so I thank you in advance
and congratulations on the anniversary.
and ashore at a leverage and then we'll be going
to our Zoom attendees.
So just make sure you guys are ready
to be promoted to panelists on Zoom.
Morning commissioners.
Thank you so much for all that you have done already
for us on Paseo Miramar.
I'm the last neighbor to speak today
about the illegally graded land.
I lived directly below the property
where the land was graded
and since the vegetation was removed
When the landform altered, storm water, runoff, and dirt from the hillside now flows directly
toward my property and the storm drain and the street below, creating ongoing concerns
during rain events.
Because the hillside was cleared and never restored and because the barrier was never
replaced, many hikers now mistakenly believe that this is a trail access point into the
park.
Without proper restoration or a barrier, hikers frequently gather there now, and there has
There has been the issue now of some urinating and defecating in the bushes above our home.
Our home is under construction there and very often carves weave through the cul-de-sac
and sometimes even drive up the abandoned road, sometimes even at night.
Restoring the hillside and vegetation as well as a barrier would help stabilize the slope
and help solve what has become a public safety health issue.
and visitors are subject to this. We respectfully ask for the restoration required under the
Commission's order to begin as soon as possible. Our community is trying to rebuild after the
fires and we simply need the hillside restored so our neighborhood can move forward safely.
Thank you so much. Good morning, Adam Loverns, if I could please have the tech folks call up my
slide. I'd like to thank each of you and staff for the part you've played in 50
years of protecting and preserving the coast and access to it. I'm certain
individuals in Newport Beach would have you believe that mooring permits
wherein the mooring tackle is owned and maintained at members of the public's
expense would be better off for the city to confiscate that tackle, maintain it at
taxpayer expense and put it under their high-cost short-term city mooring
license program. Voting typically isn't something that people get into on a whim
or for a short period of time. I built my first boat when I was in junior high
school. I'm not an affluent person and I don't strive to be. I strive to be low
carbon footprint and low impact, but even with that I was able to save and plan and
sacrifice and acquire a mooring and a boat in Newport Beach in October of 2023.
The slide shows several different pricing options in Newport.
If you're affluent enough to own a multi-million dollar home on the water, some of them listed
for $59 or $80 million, the dock pictured has space for five boats.
For a 10 year span, that individual would pay a little over $6,900 in tide lands fees.
The middle image is the mooring permit I bought, that's a satellite image of my mooring and
permitted boat.
Over 10 years, my cost is a bit over $46,000.
Yes, that's a lot of money, but I could come up with it.
The city's plan for the same mooring over 10 years would be $72,000 and that's without
a boat. They'd like you to believe that people like me incurring $26,000 more of expense
over 10 years is enhancing access. It's not, it's transitioning access for many like me,
many like people that have $59 million homes. You've heard from us, those that have been
on the commission for two years, you've heard from us every meeting for two years, we're
pleading for a CDP process. Thank you.
Thank you next is Kaylee Hilkama, George Hilkama, Jennifer Kristin, Hine Austin, Samantha
McDonald.
Good morning commissioners and thank you for your good work.
My name is Kaylee Hilkama and I'm a mooring permit holder for Newport Harbor.
The city of Newport Beach intends to revoke mooring permit transferability, devalue our
permits and raise our use rate of 500%.
proposed policy changes are recent examples of the city's inequitable management of our
public tight lands. Recently the state lands commission writes in its staff report 105
that the selling of mooring permits quote appears to violate the city's grant statutes
fiduciary obligations to the state and the public trust doctrine end quote. Though the
commission has had oversight of the city's management of the tight lands for decades,
the state in relation to the
it makes a critical but
noncommittal assessment. City
policymakers have already used
a false rationale to blame
the permit holders for a
perceived wrongdoing but we
simply followed a procedure
that was designed and regulated
by them. The Commission
suggests a mooring transfer
phaseout to rectify this
fact that there are many kinds of permits that are purchased by people seeking a legal right
to gain access to the same trust asset, California's public tide lands, and these permits have value
and can be sold in transfer when they are no longer needed. Those with residential
peer permits like general public mooring permit holders use the public tide lands for private
long-term boat storage. If the private sale and transfer of permits is indeed a violation,
the city should be compelled to end the transferability of all use permits that allow private use of the
public tide lands and have value and can be sold. The state lands commission and the city of Newport
Beach should not be allowed to use a different standard of scrutiny to determine the potential
violations of the public trust doctrine. Otherwise it will be yet another blatant example of the
financial and regulatory discrimination perpetrated against mooring permit holders. Thank you for your
your help in this matter and for all the other wonderful things you do for our California coast.
Thank you, George Hilkma. Good morning, Chair Harmon and Commissioner. My name is George Hilkma,
and I'm a mooring permit holder. I was bitten by the wooden boat bug about 75 years ago in the
middle of a Michigan winter. Fame sailor Irving Johnson came to my high school and told fantastic
tales of his travels at sea. I was hooked and began my dream of having a sailboat of my own.
I eventually settled on the Balboa Peninsula block from Newport Harbor where I'd moored my
Ang open sea witch catch for about 40 years. Many of us who dreamed of boat ownership had to figure
out how to make that happen. We worked overtime side jobs and we scrimmed and saved. We knew
we needed a place to store our boats. And when we did our due diligence to find out how we could
acquire Newport Harbor mooring permits, we were told by the city or county staff that we could
purchase one from a permit holder who had one for sale. We learned that there was no standardized
permit fee, that the waitlist was ineffective, and that buying and transferring mooring permits
had been done for decades. Many of us paid tens of thousands of dollars for our Newport
harbor mooring permits, we also pay annual use fees and biannual mooring tackle maintenance costs.
The city defined the process, regulates its procedures, and even sold moorings to the
highest bidders. So understandably we've had the expectation that we could recoup
or permit deposits when we transfer our mooring permits. There's been a lot of focus on changing
policy that negatively affects us and it seems that we've been priced out of the harbor. We don't
know why the city treats us unfairly and why the state lands commission has overlooked its
oversight responsibility and its commitments to the principles of equity and promotion of public
access. Those of us who dreamed of owning a boat and having adventures at sea never imagined.
Okay next is Jennifer Kristen followed by Hein Austin, Samantha McDonald and then we'll go
Carol Archibald Elena Tillman. Good morning commissioners and
staff I'm Jennifer Creston and there's my slide. I previously shown a graphic
comparing the rates of five side-by-side residential piers in Newport
Beach with their fees ranging from $318 to $556 a year. That same
graphic showed a closely adjacent permitted mooring over the same public
Tidelands, which now pays $1,670 per year. As you've seen, residential peers are
well-appointed, including walk-on, walk-off access to the vessels, their
birthed, as well as electricity, water, dock space, etc. They also hold multiple
boats for that one rate. And for over 10 years, the city's policy has allowed
peer owners in Newport Beach to pay only for the area covered by their docks and
not for the space that the boats secured to the docks occupy over public waters.
The fees are just for the docks, so you can have a dock with six boats on it and all you
pay for is the dock.
Addressing this, the State Lands Commission spoke before this Commission in October of
2024 of, quote, incredible discrepancy between the peer rates and the mooring rates, end
quote.
The slide before you now is reflective of how State Lands, as of December 2025, will
allow the City to address the substantial rate inequity between the less affluent and
out-of-town mooring permit holders, and those fortunate enough to have means to own real
property fronting public waters in Newport.
For residential peers, state land says that, quote, fair rental value may be as much as
double the current rate, end quote.
And with respect to the city's preferred appraisal of mooring rates, with public records giving
strong indication of that being curated, and clear indication of the involvement of parties
with financial interests, state land says, quote, the appraisal was generally reasonable,
the city could rely on it for setting mooring rates. State land says they do not control
rates in Newport. Coastal, though, can, should and has a history of assuring rates protected
access for all. Commissioners, my concern is do a property owner's dock rates doubling
to only $182 annually and an adjacent mooring permit holders rates, which are already more
than 18 times higher than the property owners, increasing by an additional 430% comport worth
with your definition of equity and access.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Austin, Samantha McDonald,
followed by Carol Archibald, Eileen Tillman,
and Ron Asselin.
Good morning, commissioners.
Hi, I'm Austin, could you bring up my slide?
Thank you.
On February 10th, the city of Newport Beach
established a public trust lands management ad hoc committee
to develop recommendations in response
to the state lands commission report
issued in December 16, 2025 regarding the city's
administration of granted tight lands.
The committee consists of two council members,
which allow it to operate outside the typical notice,
participation and open meeting expectations.
Harbor stakeholders have repeatedly requested
to the opportunity to participate,
but those requests have been declined.
These two council members moved and seconded
the July 9, 2024 action increasing morning rates
by roughly 300 to over 500%
while residential peer rates serving adjacent homeowners
were increased by only about 1.8% annually.
The State Lands Commission noted
that certain city decisions
appear to be politically influenced.
As shown on slide one,
these actions on July 9th followed
the State Lands Warning on April 9th
regarding the significant disparity between residential
peer and mooring rates and the commission's concerns
that such disparities could undermine
equitable coastal access.
Since the committee's formation,
stakeholders have continued requesting participation,
but those requests, again, have been declined.
Because the city must demonstrate progress
to the state lands within six months,
we respectfully ask the Coastal Commission
to encourage a transparent process
that includes affected stakeholders
while recommendations are being developed.
Not after the decisions are finalized.
The State Lands deadline is on June 1626
with commissioners scheduled to meet
the following week on June 23.
Thank you for your time and your concern
about the Newport Beach matter.
Thank you.
Thank you, Nexus Samantha McDonald-Fiblall,
followed by Carol Archibald, Elena Tillman,
Ron Aslin and Nathan Brenner.
Please accept the being asked to promote to panelists, please.
Hi, this is Samantha McDonald of Newport Beach.
I'm not sure what's going on with moorings in San Diego from the first public comments
of the gay, but I hope you're paying attention, whether it's private mooring companies in
San Diego or cities in Newport Beach.
Clearly everyday boaters are being surveilled, harassed, and priced out of access to recreation.
Next slide, please.
I just wanted to note that I was able to have
a private meeting, me and Adam,
with staffer Jeff Polyvnick and attorney Ben Johnson
from the State Lands Commission last month
discussing liveabords in particular.
And I wanna make it clear that from this meeting
that the staffers made it clear
that they are not opposed to liveabords in Newport Beach,
given the way that our current policies
and structures are set up.
And that the State Lands Commission did not ask the city
to remove liveabords.
That city is doing so without an explanation
And the SLC has even considered asking them to explain themselves of why they're doing this because for us, it seems clear but there is no explanation.
The state lands commission also agree that live boards can align with public trust and although the writing comes off as saying that they're generally not.
There is very much evidence and precedent for us being there, and the state lands commission agrees that there are instances where live boards are public trust and recreational lines, and I think I've made the argument many times here that we are very much so.
So, again, like everyone else, I am please, please asking you to require CDP by the City
of Newport Beach, ask the City to explain their actions, recognize liveabords as public
trust aligned, and really see the discriminatory nature happening with rates in these actions
of the City trying to kick us out from our homes and our opportunity to sail the high
seas of California.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Carol Archibald?
I see online if you can unmute yourself.
We're getting feedback Carol can you mute your other item if you have two of them can
you unmute one and unmute the other mute and unmute the other Carol if you can unmute okay
we'll come back to you let you figure that out we're gonna go to Elena Tillman and then
Ron Asman, and then we'll come back to Carol Archibald.
Hi.
Carol's presentation actually precedes mine.
She goes over the first couple of slides.
I can jump to my portion of the presentation, however, hers does precede mine.
Okay.
Let's try again with Carol real quick one more time.
Carol, we see you unmuted.
Go ahead and speak.
Okay.
Hi.
I'm Carol Archibald.
I am speaking for the Sierra Club seals society, pardon me.
It's not us, it's you.
We need you to mute the other item you have.
You have two on Zoom.
So we need you to mute one of them.
That's all we're asking, one.
Okay.
Can you put up the first slide please?
The slide is that we just need to hear you properly
when you talk.
Okay, what would you like me to do?
I have unmute.
Go ahead and speak.
Your sound, you sound perfect, go ahead.
Okay, so I've done the first slide
and we are on to the next slide, please.
The sea lion puppying season begins May 1st.
That is 51 days from today.
The Sierra Club's goal is to have zero sea lion pup deaths
caused by unsafe human wildlife encounters.
Sierra Club has presented to the Coastal Commission
over the past year to advance this goal.
The commissioners have been supportive of our requests
for increased ranger presence at La Jolla Cove
and the use of cones and tape on the beach
to separate people and sea lions.
Commissioner O'Malley made it clear
that the city of San Diego rangers
need to be on the beach, on the Cove Beach.
Commissioner Hart suggested the city of San Diego
purchase cameras to monitor the Cove Beach
for public safety after dark
when the rangers have gone home.
Commissioner Jackson said it was common sense
to have rangers on the beach
and to use A-frame signs, cones, and tape
to separate people from the sea lions.
Commissioner Lopez noted the importance
of an educational component for safe wildlife viewing
by tourists who arrived at La Jolla Cove on the buses
before they disembarked.
Next slide, please.
La Jolla Cove was recently ranked the number one beach
in the United States by TripAdvisor.
Many reviews highlight the sea lions.
This recognition will increase tourism and visitation,
raising the risk of the cove and its sea lions
being loved to death.
Increased tourism brings increased management challenges.
Proactive management is critical.
It takes late progress.
But additional actions are needed.
I thank you.
Go ahead, Elina.
Sure.
And I'll just have you advance to the next slide, please.
OK.
So good morning.
My name's Elina Tillman.
These slides here show these images
show what's happening regularly at La Jolla Cove.
You've seen our videos of harassment each month.
People are approaching surrounding and crowding
sea lions at extremely close distances,
often within a few inches.
In some cases, visitors are sitting
amongst resting animals or blocking their access
to the water.
On the western stairs where sea lions frequently haul out,
people often gather directly around them,
creating situations where animals
feel trapped between the crowd and the ocean.
This is not only harassment under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, it's also a public safety issue.
Sea lions that feel stressed or cornered
can react defensively.
When people push too close, it creates risk
both for the animals and the visitors.
And this becomes especially critical
during the popping season.
Pups are born in the cove, and human encroachment
can separate mothers and pups or force animals to flee suddenly.
Each year, pups have died in the cove
after being displaced or trampled
during chaotic human interactions.
As visitation increases, especially
after La Jolla Cove recently ranked
number one beach in the nation, these situations
are becoming more frequent.
Without clear management and consistent enforcement,
crowd pressure will continue to grow exponentially.
Next slide, please.
So there has been important progress,
and we want to acknowledge that.
City rangers have recently increased the presence
at the Cove and are making announcements
to educate visitors.
In one case, a ranger asked a family to leave
after children were throwing rocks and sand
at resting sea lions.
And yes, that behavior occurs regularly.
The city is also installing new signage
with clear viewing guidelines, including visual icons
to help visitors understand appropriate distances.
We've been working with Parks and Rec
to improve coordination and communication.
So these are meaningful steps in the right direction
and they show that active management works.
But for these efforts, I apologize,
but for these efforts to be effective
long-term coordination is essential.
Rangers and Lifeguards both play critical roles
at the cove and success of the management plan
depends on them working consistently together.
Our next speaker will talk more about how that coordination
between Rangers and Lifeguards is key
to making those protections actually work on the ground.
Thank you.
Thank you, next is Ron Asselin, Nathan Brenner,
Diana Heineck and then Nancy Witner Smith.
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
I'm Dr. Ronald Aschlin,
Conservation Chair of the San Diego Sierra Club.
As Elena mentioned,
the city of San Diego's rangers and lifeguards
need to work closely together to manage La Jolla Cove Beach.
The San Diego Park and Rec Department
has requested that CCC commissioners
share their recommendations for tools
that rangers and lifeguards can use
to manage and protect sea lions
at La Jolla Cove Beach.
Commissioners should clearly communicate
these recommendations to local CCC staff
for a modified coastal development permit.
The Sierra Club urges the CCC to require the city
to use cones and tape, oh, next slide please.
To use cones and tape on La Jolla Cove Beach
to safeguard sea land pups and injured animals
by modifying the long-term management plan.
The City of San Diego Rangers
and City of San Diego Life Guards must work together
for the management plan to be successfully implemented.
Next slide, please.
As we've discussed at previous coastal commission meetings,
many areas along the coast use temporary signs
to protect sea lions, as well as the public,
by directing visitors to maintain a safe distance
from sea lions.
Next slide, please.
Rangers should be authorized to temporary close
the western stairs when sea lions are resting there,
prevent unsafe human wildlife encounters.
the eastern stairs would remain open at all times
to maintain public access to the beach.
All these actions are practical, straightforward
and improve both animal welfare and public safety.
Thank you and now I'll turn over to Nathan.
Nathan Brenner.
Good morning.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Nathan Brenner.
If we could go to the next slide, please.
In the past sea lion pumping season,
San Diego has lacked a robust management plan at Loia Cove.
As a result, several newborn pups died.
In 2024, nine pups were born and only two survive.
In 2025, eight pups were born and only four survive.
Sierra Club recommends several management actions
that will help achieve our goal of zero pup deaths.
These include rangers on the beach to manage crowds,
the use of cones and tapes to provide barriers
keep people and pups apart and at a safe distance, closing the western stairs when pups are present,
and the use of A-frame signs on the beach and installing cameras to monitor the cove beach.
If the city rangers and city lifeguards work together, we can achieve the goal of zero
pup deaths in 2026. Next slide please. Puping season begins May 1st. With the recent national
rankings as the number one beach in America, the La Jolla Cove is sure to have an increase in tourism.
Without proactive management unsafe human wildlife encounters will continue. Further pup deaths in
past popping seasons demonstrate the need for a robust management plan. Taking action now can
prevent avoidable deaths and improve visitor safety. Next slide please. In pursuit of our zero pup
death goal the Sierra Club respectfully requests this Coastal Commission make strong recommendations
to their local staff to support the increased sunlight at Lueco Beach to authorize the use
of cones and tape to allow the temporary closure of the western stairs and the commission should
support signage directing visitors to remain at least 20 feet away. Critically, the commission
should encourage coordination between San Diego city rangers and lifeguards. With these tools in
place. We can achieve our goal of zero pup deaths in 2026. Next slide please. Thank
you very much. We want this commission to be the champions for La Jolla's Sea Lions.
Thank you, and we are the champions. I had to, no pun intended. Diana Hynek, followed by Nancy
Whitney or Smith, Ryan Sinoff, and John Dow. Again, we'll be promoting you guys to panelists,
So please accept Diana Hynek.
Hi there, good morning.
I hope you can hear me okay.
I'm asking for your attention
to what is happening in Santa Monica
within our public school district.
Despite the city of Santa Monica
and every neighborhood association voting unanimously
against installation of artificial turf,
the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District
continues to move forward with plans
that include AstroTurf fields.
A recent example is the Smash School Campus on Ocean Park Boulevard between 5th and 6th
Street, which sits within the Coastal Zone.
The district recently completed an installation of AstroTurf there.
When this concern was raised during a Facility District Advisory Committee meeting, Chief
of Operations Kerry Upton stated that approval had been received from the Coastal Commission.
astroturf being banned for Santa Barbara and San Diego in the October 2025 also commission meeting.
Families in Santa Monica have been raising concerns about artificial turf for years. We
do not want our children exposed to microplastics. We do not want them playing on surfaces that can
reach temperatures of 140 degrees on warm days. We do not want their burns and injuries that come
were falling on synthetic fields. I'm asking the commission to please please intervene on behalf
of the children and the families of Santa Monica and to assure that coastal protections are being
properly enforced. The district has the resource and the time to remove this material and restore
natural grass before students return to campus in August. Please please prioritize this issue
and help ensure that our coastal schools protect the health of children who use them every day.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Nancy. Hello. Good morning. My name is Nancy Whitnower-Smith
and I'm a bird watcher, a conservationist, and a proud new grandmother. And as such,
I'm very worried about the proposed building at 501 Sandpoint in Carpentaria and its impact on
the carpentry of salt marsh. The salt marsh is an extraordinary gift to Southern California bird
watchers and nature lovers. While over 90 percent of California's wetlands have been lost, this
marsh still exists as an accessible ecosystem where visitors can closely connect with nature.
I've walked the Ash Avenue Park trail across the estuary where I viewed herons,
erids, turns and plenty of pelicans and on these walks I met fellow nature lovers visiting from
up and down the state and many were very grateful for the opportunity to view so many seabirds
and when I heard about the proposed building at 501 Sandpoint I knew I had to speak up.
This building threatens to narrow the flight paths of birds and the birds like to fly in
over the open space, not over buildings, and this building will significantly interrupt
the seabird's flight into the marsh.
Just recently I became a grandmother for the first time, and I feel an obligation to preserve
and protect this beautiful marsh, and I want my granddaughter to grow up knowing the joy
of watching blue herons and pelicans fly into the marsh, and I want her to inherit a marsh
is thriving and not a view of concrete and glass. I think we all have a responsibility
to every future generation to preserve this California treasure. And I urge you, commission,
to carefully weigh what the public stands to lose. Please make the right choice to conserve
the existing ecosystem of the carpentry assault marsh so that my granddaughter and your grandchildren
can access and enjoy a marsh that is fully accessible to seabirds that are meant to make
a project. Thank you very much.
Thank you and congratulations. Ryan Sinoff followed by John Dow, Tiffany Haler and Lydia
Ponce. Ryan Sinoff, Siniff.
Good morning Chair Hart and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
For decades our coastal energy infrastructure has been defined by once through cooling,
a system that disrupts the biological productivity
from marine resources, AB-2647,
represents a fundamental shift in this paradigm
by modernizing our moratorium
to allow advanced non combustion nuclear technology.
We can finally retire legacy gas plants
and replace them with closed loop or dry cooled reactors
that eliminate the entrainment of larval fish
in plankton entirely.
As this commission knows, sea level rise
is the existential threat to our coast. Advanced reactors from micro-reactors to large-scale reactors
are engineered for 21st century. They are seismic, hardened, and elevated to remain operational under
the most aggressive sea level rise projections for 2100. Furthermore, because nuclear energy
is the most land-efficient power source on Earth, repowering sites like the Hayes Plant or Skatergood
here in the Southland allows us to consolidate energy assets and seed perimeter acreage back
to the public for trails, parks, wetland, and salt marsh restoration. This is a rare opportunity
to shrink the industrial footprint on our coast while expanding our critical habitat.
Beyond the water and energy, this is an air quality environmental justice victory.
Transitioning to fission at these coastal brownfield sites eliminates 100% of the
Anactress oxides and particulate matter currently affecting the frontline communities in south
coast aerobation.
I respectfully request that this board send a formal letter of support for AB2647 to the
state legislature.
Let's align our energy policy with the Coastal Act to ensure a resilient biologically diverse
and carbon free coastline for all Californiaans.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have about eight Zoom speakers left.
John Dow, Tiffany Haler, Lydia Ponce, and Lois Asbury.
John Dow.
Good morning, commissioners.
Hold on one moment, please.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is John Dow, resident of San Clemente
and a member of Save Our Beaches.
San Clemente has five miles of iconic California coastline
shared with the rail corridor
whose stability is increasingly challenged.
The question that will soon be before you
not whether the rail line should be protected. The question is how. OCTA's answer is to continue
to hard armor and now includes a pending CDP that would hard armor nearly a mile of coastline
at San Clemente State Beach with a seawall. Approval of the CDP would authorize a seawall
that would effectively eliminate the public beach at one of California's most heavily visited
state parks. We already know what happens when this strategy is used. In San Clemente,
where large rock armory has already been installed, the beach disappears. The Coastal Act does not
authorize protecting infrastructure by eliminating the very public beach it was enacted to protect.
The Coastal Act allows shoreline armoring only in limited circumstances and requires that it be
designed to eliminate or mitigate impacts to shoreline sand supply and coastal resources.
Furthermore, OCTA presents the seawall as the only viable option, but the Commission
The solution was still determined whether less damaging alternatives exist, not simply except OCTA's most convenient engineered solution.
For more than a century, the rail line in San Clemente was naturally protected by a wide sandy beach.
Restoring that buffer, that beach buffer, by requiring consistent sand replenishment by OCTA in collaboration with existing and planned city and county replenishment efforts protects the rail line while preserving coastal resources.
Hard armoring does the opposite. It reflects wave energy, accelerates erosion, and locks the
coastline into a cycle of escalating structural intervention. Approving this permit would
sacrifice a public beach at a state park for a solution that ultimately undermines the very
shoreline that's meant to protect. We respectfully ask that you deny this permit and require OCTA to
pursue a collaborative, sand-based solution that protects both the rail corridor and this
this irreplaceable public beach for future generations. Thank you.
Thank you, Tiffany Haler, Lydia Ponce, Louise Asbury,
Emily Mayer, and Leslie Purcell,
and we're looking for Aileen Bochen and Johanna Valle. Tiffany Haler.
Good morning, Coastal Commission.
My name is Tiffany Haller and I am a resident of the Mesa,
and I'm also a property owner and a property manager
properties in Santa Barbara. Specifically on the topic of short-term vacation
rentals and the new draft ordinance that City Council is pushing through right
now. I attended a Planning Commission hearing last week and I was blown away
with what went down. If you haven't had a chance to watch the Planning Commission
hearing on March 5th from last week I encourage all of the planning or
Coastal Commission to watch it. I've been involved in this battle for over 10
years and worked with many people. I'm just concerned what is the goal of the City Council
right now in pushing this half-baked ordinance through and this deadline. Every single planning
commissioner at that meeting was very uncomfortable and spoke up about how uncomfortable they were
with this draft ordinance, yet the City Attorney told them at the 11th hour that they needed to
send this through, because it would not meet the City Council of Santa Barbara's
deadline to get it to you all. So after a decades long of Coastal
Commission precedents and letters, litigation, you'd think that we would
take the time to do this right for people in the Coastal Zone and for
visitors. This is a ban. I'm not going to even
try. It's a hotel conversion, if you all remember from before or you don't.
It's just repackaged. I represent owners in the coastal zone of property zone for hotel use,
and they can't even make it through this. So please, please investigate this further. There
should be no deadline on getting this right. It's been long battled, and it's just not right.
I can't say enough about why is there this deadline from the Santa Barbara City Council
right now to get this to push through.
Begs the question.
OK, thank you.
Lydia Ponce.
Good morning, relatives.
It's been a minute.
I am calling to communicate just some simple ideas to follow
through and follow up and try to do some investigation on how
the Olympics are affecting equal access and public access
for everyone economically feasible before,
during and after the Olympics.
Some people are really excited about it.
Other people are fearing it and dreading it.
I equate it kind of like our family is putting on airs.
The city of Los Angeles, we're bringing out the best fine China
for everybody else to eat off these plates.
And we're just the infrastructure is just really falling apart.
My point is that there are bench benches being removed on oceanfront walk.
We have an oceanfront walk committee for the Venice Neighborhood Council
that that is defunct. They treat participants really poorly, do what they will, shout and
say some really crude and rude things and they should even be sitting on that committee.
But the real problem is that the process that we're using for community impact statements have
been pushed aside. We have someone in the community who got a petition, 70 people signed
to replace the pagodas to their original status, the original form from 1931. And CD11 announced
they're going to forego the petition and the community impact statement and override it,
which we don't think that they can do, and it's right for a lawsuit. The pagodas are important.
They should be historically marked. They should be restructured and rebuilt. But in that,
there's no plan for seating under the pagodas so what we're talking about is ADA violation.
Do what we want and apologize later and the process is a whole ruse. This VNC neighborhood
council will not suffer any more under the pretense of a bare minimum president. We have
someone who rolled up their sleeves and is really going to do the work for the people and for the
community. Certain veneses for everyone and that's what we believe. Thank you for listening. I hope
to send an email with the latest Beachhead article. Thank you. Thank you. Louise Asbury,
Emily Mayer, Leslie Purcell. We cannot hear you. Let's unmute you. Hi, can you hear me? Loud and
clear. Okay, good morning commissioners. My name is Louise Asbury and I'm a resident of Santa
Barbara and general manager of Paradise Retreats. Like Tiffany Haller, I'm here to urge this
Commission to closely monitor the short-term rental ordinance that is being fast-tracked
through our City's Ordinance Committee. As you heard, last week our Planning Commission moved
the draft ordinance forward but they did so with strong reservations citing a significant lack of
data and concerns that the proposal is both unrealistic and unenforceable. This proposed
hosted only mandate is a de facto ban on accommodations that make the Mesa accessible
for families. Hotels cannot provide the kitchens and the living spaces these guests want and need.
As written, this ordinance strips away lower-cost alternatives that align with the Coastal Act's
mandate for public access. We're closing the door on the middle class with a model that is both
unrealistic for homeowners and undesired by travelers. This narrative that these homes are
owned by faceless investors is false. Our homeowners are local stewards who use their homes throughout
the year and rely on this revenue to survive Santa Barbara's rising cost of living. Furthermore,
with a six million dollar budget gap the city cannot afford to lose the millions in TOT tax
that these homes generate, funds to maintain the very parks and coastal roads our neighbors enjoy.
We need smart sensible regulation rather than a blunt blanket ban that punishes property owners
and his anti-tourism. We are risking our reputation as a welcoming accessible
destination which is also in direct conflict with the Coastal Act's mandate
for public access. I urge this Commission to look closely at the lack of evidence
supporting this ordinance and protect the balance that serves all parties in
Santa Barbara. Thank you. Thank you. Leslie Purcell if you can accept. Thank
you now we're waiting let's see if you can unmute yourself yes can you hear me
yes oh no we were having feedback so if you have a second item electronic item
you need to mute that we're getting feedback you're the last speaker so let's
Let's try to fix this expeditiously and how do we do that? I don't know. Okay, let's try and talk right now
You sound good right now. Let's go for it. Okay, great. So I'm in Ventura. I'm
Wanting to welcome the commissioners and the staff. I know you all do great work and
it's a long a long road that we've all been on with the Coastal Act and
protecting our special places.
I'm looking out at the west side of Ventura.
The hills are beautiful, they're green.
We had rain, it's wonderful.
And I just hope that you enjoy your time here.
I wanted to mention there's a special place
called Cemetery Memorial Park,
where, between Vermaine Street and Poli.
And you can see the sunset from up there.
You can see the ocean, the Channel Islands.
It's a wonderful spot in case you have time to go
on a little trip this evening or late today.
It's a great place to see the whole landscape
and the coast.
So I just wanted to mention that
and keep up the good work.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Leslie Purcell.
We're gonna call it three names we don't see again.
Emily Mayer, Eileen Boakin, and Johanna Valle.
If you are available, please use the hands,
the hand sign on the Zoom.
If you're using your phone, then you start nine,
so you can have the raise hand sign.
Okay, nothing, this concludes the public speaking.
Great, thank you very much, Simone,
and many thanks to the public for their testimony.
We always appreciate it so much.
Okay, so I'm going to turn to the commission
to see if there are any questions,
but I'd like to just first begin with a question
we heard early on in public testimony
from our friends at the Environmental Defense Center
around the issue of the Chevron Mountains.
So Dr. Hucklebridge, can I turn to you?
I know there's a huge amount of concern and interest,
particularly locally, I share that concern and interest.
So can you give us a little insight
and I think one of their specific questions
which is just around not only what's happening,
but what do we think might happen next?
What does that look like?
Yes, thanks, Chair, for the question
and thanks to EDC for coming
and their public testimony today.
We are very aware of the Shell Mounds issue.
It's been an issue, the commission,
along with State Lands Commission.
And as you heard, several stakeholders
have been engaged in for many, many years.
I think you heard a good history about
sort of how we got to where we are.
We have, we are aware state lands commission staff has been working on this issue.
It actually has been agendized a couple of times, although it has been postponed.
And we have been coordinating with state land staff over the past year on this issue.
Um, we concur with everything.
I think that EDC mentioned in their testimony, um, that this commission did
require a permit amendment from Chevron.
If they were going to leave shell mounds in place, we do have a permit application.
It has been incomplete for some time.
We don't have a specific timeline yet, however,
and so I don't have one to share with you
just to say that we confirm this is an issue
that will come in front of this commission,
and when we do have a better sense of timeline,
we can share that with you.
But we are wanting to see sort of
if State Lands Commission is going to act
and if what happens in that scenario
before we get more specific with our timeline.
But again, all the issues and concerns that were raised
will be raised in our staff review
and we'll come before this commission.
Great, thank you very much.
I really appreciate your close attention
and if you could just keep us updated
about how that evolves, that would be very helpful.
Thank you.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Just a couple of follow ups on public comments
that were made.
Apologies.
First, the Palisades landslide issue.
Can you bring this up to,
I know that there might be some enforcement concerns, but-
I'm gonna ask Lisa Heggie to come up
and give a quick update on that issue.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kate, and thanks for the question.
First of all, I wanna thank the amazing community
that has been involved here.
They were incredibly supportive and helpful
when we brought the order to you for consideration,
and since then, and we just really wanna thank them
for their active involvement and assure them
that we wanna work with them going forward.
I will say this is one of those cases
of the best laid plans.
Three weeks after the order was issued,
the fire swept through.
And so we have been working as has the impacted community
to try to figure out what to do
in light of the impact of the fires.
The homeowner that signed a consent order with us
with whom we have continued to have discussions
had foreclosure.
And so we've been dealing both with the,
and he's in a battle with his bank.
and so we have been dealing both with the settling party
and with the bank.
We've informed them that the orders run with the land
and they're still liable for doing the work
that was agreed to in the consent order.
We have a nova recorded, a notice of violation on the land,
so we have some power over getting future disposition.
Because of their legal battle,
the court appointed a receiver
and the receiver has been dealing with us.
We've been really fighting with the banks
to try to convince them to do the right thing.
We have as a result this morning of these public comments,
which again, we greatly appreciate.
We've been looking at it.
We did give them an extension of time
to comply with the order in part because the receiver asked
for it because of the fact that there was some legal dispute
and because of the fire impacts.
I'm sorry, I'm giving you probably more
than you ever thought you'd want to know about this one site.
But it's complicated and interesting.
And it just shows how we think, oh, spit spot.
The order's been issued.
Everything's taken care of.
Our work continues for years after each one of these orders.
And they're often very, very complicated.
this is not atypical of the kind of things
that we do after you all vote on your excellent orders.
So in any event, we're continuing to battle this.
We gave them a six month extension
to comply with most of the big items in the order.
We're halfway through that.
We're going to continue to track it very closely.
We do believe though that the interim erosion measures
were not stayed.
And so we are going to write them again today
and tell them that they have to comply
with those things immediately.
and that will address some of the most immediate concerns
about erosion.
These people's homes are right below the landslide,
this is why it was so urgent,
and also Topanga State Park is impacted,
and we care about both of those values,
and we're gonna try to do what we can.
I hope you answer any questions
if you have any left after all.
Through the chair, thank you so much, Ms. Hagee.
I really appreciate that,
and very grateful for the community
to stay engaged and to continue.
We are incredibly concerned about your situation for sure,
So we appreciate all of you bringing this up to speed
in any way that we can help.
I know that it is an enforcement issue,
so we have to kind of be careful about it.
It's all the legal rules,
but we are very concerned about what's going on over there,
so fear not for that.
And one last question about now Santa Monica,
what's going on in Santa Monica?
Going backwards here on environmental leadership,
This artificial turf in all their schools,
I find it quite problematic and quite counterintuitive
to the values that we are espousing here
in the commission and in California.
So any updates on that and what we can do about it?
Just a report that we did become aware
of a potential unpermitted installation of turf,
basically what the public commenter reported
and our enforcement team is looking into it.
And that's all we have to say yet.
I appreciate that.
I do.
I don't know, Mr. Hudson,
if you had any comments about any engagement
with the city leadership on this
or the sustainability committee,
I think that's what they're called?
Yes, we are reaching out to the city.
This is the first report in the city of Santa Monica.
We've had recent reports
and we've had speakers of the commission
regarding a project next to the city of Santa Monica.
It was actually within the city of LA,
within the Palisades area.
And so we're also looking into that matter.
There was a much larger park
and there was a project involving potential artificial turf
that the city was believing was exempt.
We reached out to the city and informed them
that requires a coastal development permit.
So we're working on multiple burners within that area,
areas within the Pacific Palisades,
we're working with the city of LA to inform them
that artificial turf triggers the need for a CDP
and we'll do the same when the city of Santa Monica.
Thank you. And to the public, I appreciate you guys staying vigilant on this and to continue
doing so and organizing. I think this is something that a lot of the environmental groups in the
region really care about. I know that Heal the Bay has been quite a leader on plastic
pollution and a very good educator on the impacts of that on public health, environmental
health. I mean, this is just another avenue to get fossil fuels into the environment and
to our bodies and we need to we don't we don't need it so this is something
that our children don't need to be exposed to so I hope that we can nip it
in the butt thank you commissioner Nada oh thank you though I was concerned
about decommissioning and the Pacific Palisades so that's been taken care of
just one other comment that you know I thought we were making progress in
San Clemente with some sand restoration on the beach there and I certainly hope
that we're going to continue to see that progress in any permits that come before us.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart.
My questions were the same as Commissioner Esgola.
Okay, Commissioner Presciado.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My questions are around the whole ecosystem of visitor, low cost visitor serving services
throughout the coast.
I visited our website pointed to by our public information
colleague, and I'm concerned that in this ecosystem of,
or mix of low cost visitor serving amenities
that we are through our regulatory process
or through our commission's work,
we are kind of ending a type of service
that is currently available.
I'm wondering if in our,
just like we do environmental studies
that address the environment,
I'm wondering if we can address what is happening
as a result of these significant changes
we're moving towards.
I appreciate that the local municipalities
are responding to their constituents
and updating their local development plans
in accordance with that.
but I'm also concerned about how we are serving
in that role in terms of balancing access to the coast
with supporting the local communities
and as they pursue new regulations.
I note that our website lists a number of projects,
low cost visitor serving projects that were approved,
maybe even negotiated and conditioned
but are still pending development.
And so that is clearly not a solution
of making other amenities available.
I also note that in the entire San Diego coast,
we don't have anything listed as low cost visitor serving.
And so while I don't celebrate
or want to do anything other than say,
short-term rentals have provided a service,
that'll be the extent of how I qualify their value.
I'm just interested in understanding
how we in the system of the coast are looking
at these micro changes that are occurring almost city
by city and then reducing the accessibility into the area.
Now I remember the first time I took a position contrary
to a local municipality was in Monterey County
where these things are allowed.
these short-term rentals are allowed
when they're home occupied, meaning the homeowner
or whoever has control of the property lives there.
But as was discussed by the public,
there's a big difference between the amenities
the public is seeking through Airbnb
and all these other services that are out there
for individual or shall we say renting something
by yourself or where you're not accompanied by the owner.
And so I'm just hopeful that we can start looking at this holistically.
I can see, you know, notwithstanding some of the comments about our Santa Barbara speakers
that suggested the Planning Commission was in a rush.
I've never seen government act in a rush, but I'd be happy.
I'd be happy to be corrected.
but I am more interested in the totality.
So how do we go?
Do we do this county by county?
Do we do this by municipality by municipality?
How do we understand what is available?
Because we do have clearly a mandate
to offer access to the coast.
But yet in what is available,
these short-term rentals,
We are quickly moving to kind of X them out.
Well, not by, maybe not as an act, but by default
by just creating a type of short-term rental
versus the existing short-term rental.
And I wasn't here at the last meeting,
but I know you guys did some.
Commissioner, I'm so sorry to interrupt you.
I just want to make sure
that we're confining our comments here.
This isn't on the agenda.
So if we could just-
Oh yeah.
I appreciate that it's not on the agenda,
but I did hear comments from the public
about short-term rentals.
And so I'm just interested in it.
Maybe I spoke too long,
but hopefully staff can respond or at the very least
we can schedule a discussion at a future meeting
where we can focus on short-term rental.
I'm just trying to raise awareness about the issue
and thank you very much.
I appreciate the Chairwoman's indulgence.
Thank you.
through the chair, thanks for the comments and thoughts,
Commissioner Prociado, as I think you've hit the nail
on the head, this is an incredibly active
and important issue all up and down the state currently.
And as you're well aware, the commission has kind of weighed
in on several ordinances that local governments
have been working through and there has been sort of an arc.
So in sort of addressing your question
is how do we have a larger conversation about this
that's more holistic?
I think that's a great idea.
And I want to think about the best way to do that.
So I don't have a response right now,
only to say that I agree.
I think that would be a really worthwhile conversation.
Maybe we can schedule something for later in the year
to look at doing informational here,
a briefing or something along those lines.
But let me take that question or that comment
and think about it and I can speak with you offline
and then maybe report back on sort of what we as staff
think might be the most appropriate way
have that type of a conversation because, um, you know, I think it is, it goes to one
of the commission's fundamental charges, which is this balance of uses and, um, you
know, public access, uh, being a key one, you know, and then, but also trying to listen
to some of the concerns communities are raising. And that's been a real big challenge for all
of us. So I think having that type of holistic conversation could be really useful. So yeah,
thank you again for the suggestion. And maybe we can speak a little more offline about format
and things of that nature.
I appreciate that, Madam Chair.
I wonder if I could extend my remarks
on the seal matter in San Diego.
Please.
So since I joined the commission in May,
I think at every meeting we hear about our seals.
Now there's a new initiative to have zero pup deaths cause,
I guess, impacted by visitors or people
And I'm just wondering if right now we have access
with accommodations or mitigations.
I'm just wondering what it would look
like if we had no access as an alternative.
And whether or not the community of San Diego
would be tolerant of such a move.
Because I don't know other than trying
to create a pristine natural environment
for these mammals, how we can manage that.
I just wanted to comment on,
I mean, there are four commissioners quoted
as to how they would bring solution,
but I'm just wondering what alternatives
are available to us and what our responsibility is.
We have, I assume there's a permit that allows them
to function in that particular matter?
And how does it escalate to maybe the total ban?
So what are we waiting for for the total ban?
And I'm not desirous of a total ban.
I'm just trying to understand how to meet the goals
of the advocates and the goals
of all the users of this space.
Thank you.
Through the chair.
Yeah, I think I have a couple thoughts on that front.
Again, here we are, like this is the commission's charge
trying to balance multiple uses at the same time. And here we have a public access, balancing
with habitat and protection of species. And so we have really tried to work with the city
to find a balance so that we don't have to close public access completely to this area.
I don't think that that necessarily is off the table, but we've been trying really hard
to avoid that in part because there've been, as you heard, you know, we did a little more
of a history a couple was it last month I think it was and we went through the
history of all the areas in La Jolla and how we had they have been closed a
couple you know down the down the coast because of concerns related to the sea
lines so we've been trying to find a balance here that protects the sea lines
and provides public access it was interesting to hear at the Seal Society
comments that this was I rated the number one beach by TripAdvisor in part
because of the sea lions, which, you know, just underscores the, the challenge that
we have in front of us. I did want to just note from both the seal society
comments and from our own experience, just, we are making progress and, um, I
appreciate the, the Sierra club folks for noting that it's our experience too.
Like we are, the city is working with us. They are making progress. We have more
work to do. There's no question about that, but I just want to appreciate the
for working with us on these things we my understanding is that we have they
are working on new signage they have submitted drafts to us and to the
stakeholders for review that will be going up soon to try to address that
concern and so I feel like the the positive steps that we've made we have a
little bit better relationship now in trying to work on this problem together
and I I'm appreciative of that and I think we want to continue on that front
and moving forward as we get closer to pumping season
to see if we can't make even more incremental progress
and find the solution that everybody's comfortable with
in the interim.
51 days to pumping season.
Yes, exactly.
I know that, I can't believe I know that.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lowenberg, then Commissioner Wilson.
I think you should force the issue of closing the beach.
I think, you know, it's enough is enough already.
This, that's my personal opinion.
And if there's a way the city could create
Viewing platform could they above the stairs have something where people can see it
But see it from a really big distance where there's no temptations to throw or touch
I just think that that we have an obligation and if it's for an X amount of time per year
You know, it's not you're not closing the beach forever. There will be access to the beach. But during this particular
Three four week with however long it is. It's off base. So I would encourage you to
Rip off the band-aid and close the beach
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson
Yeah, I just want to
Frame just first. I'm gonna be very I'll try to be very brief
In relation to some of the discussion around short-term rentals
The existing condition that we're in right now
Was not done with CEQA or the process
So when we're asking for a review and these changes
for many of these communities, we've
had wholesale land use changes, conversions,
commercial conversions of residential areas
and the impacts of that without review.
And in many of these communities,
these are currently non-conforming illegal uses
that they're trying to adjust and get updated.
And so the existing condition that we're in right now
didn't have a review, so the impacts that are trying to be addressed are, that's what's
happening.
And so I just want to just kind of frame that, that what we're seeing right now, we just
kind of, you know, the frog in the pot kind of situation.
And again, in many of these communities, when you wholesale, say we convert 300 houses into
Commercial rental air uses if we were to do that for a single hotel
People would lose their minds and so I just want to be clear that we're we're trying to review
These situations in you know from a lens of what the impacts have already become
So that's just I just want to help frame where we're at and it is true that this commission reviews more short-term rental ordinances
isn't probably any body on the planet.
And it is a significant issue.
And I think that at some point, the state
needs to deal with this.
It is more profound in these coastal areas, for sure.
And the impacts and the values of that are extreme.
So thanks.
Thank you.
And I just want to gently and with love remind my colleagues
that while I really appreciate the conversation,
and in fact wish that I could align myself
with some of the comments I will refrain
because this is an opportunity really for us
to just ask staff specific questions
and to voice interest in agendizing matters in particular.
So thank you, Commissioner Presiado.
Just remind us to stay focused.
I appreciate it, Commissioner Jackson.
Appreciate the nudge and reminder and the love.
Thank you.
I just wanted to I want to align myself with my colleague Commissioner Lowenberg I
Was mentioned in public comments along with my colleagues. That was our first meeting in San Diego back in June and
For the life of me, you know again, I'm a simple-minded kid guy
I just can't understand why if you've got pups on the stairs
You put yellow tape and at the top of the stairs and you take the other stairs that are just on the other side
There are two access points. One is where the pups like to hang out the other one or they don't if they're hanging out
You block it off again. I'm no rocket scientist a lot of smart people here, but with my Florida education
I can figure that much out
You got the pups and you got all the pups congregated in an area put up some cones and put up yellow tape
It's not that hard
But every month we hear the same thing and the frustration builds in my my colleague. I think
sense the frustration and
vented and
you know, I I don't want to pile on but I'm gonna pile on because I think this is just unsaid and
Again, I I applaud La Jolla and and the city and the county for their efforts, but this isn't that hard
Thank you
Commissioner Lopez or sorry. Yes, Lopez. Yeah from the peekaboo chair down here
Just wanted to
On the STR issue, I'll just say that I would love to see that agendized and brought back
for a full discussion.
And on the SEAL issue, I remain concerned, I think it was two or three meetings ago,
that I suggested closing it and so I remain in that position and look forward to continuing
that conversation.
But hopefully seeing action before that.
Thank you.
Perfect.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Any further comments, questions?
Seeing none, thank you all very much for the discussion.
and thank you to the public for sharing of your time
and your testimony.
We appreciate it.
So I'm gonna suggest we take a quick break
if we could please come back at five minutes after 11.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you everyone.
Hope you had a nice break.
We will resume our calendar
and that brings us to item six, Director Hölkelberg.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So, as usual, my published executive director report, item 6A, can be found on the commission's
website, but as usual, I will spend some time going through several of these items.
So first up, I am pleased to announce that the 2026 to 2030 strategic plan that was adopted
by this commission in December of 2025 has been finalized and is available to view on
the commission website.
So we've added some pictures, and it looks like the presentation is a little bit stepped
So if you want to take a look, I would recommend.
Next, we have also just completed the key metrics
report for 2025, summarizing the agency's 2025 actions
on permits, appeals, and LCPs.
It's a great snapshot of the commission's workload,
processing times, and year-over-year trends.
As has been the case for several years,
our South Coast office continues to process
than twice as many projects as other district offices, primarily because of the number of
uncertified jurisdictions within LA and Orange counties. Cities that lack a certified LCP rely
on the Coastal Commission to issue all of their coastal development permits, a dynamic that was
never intended to still be in play 50 years after the passage of the Coastal Act. So in keeping with
progress made in past years, the Commission continues to act on CDPs well within Permit
Streamlining Act deadlines. The average last year was just 47 days from completed application to
final hearing. It's worth noting that the agency denied only one project last year which involved
a proposal to reconfigure public boat moorings for small vessels in Newport Beach Harbor.
Of the of the let's say 1,290 locally issued permits about 3.5 percent were appealed to the
Commission. Of those 44 appeals, 29 were dismissed for raising no substantial issue,
and the remaining 15 were approved with conditions. There's a lot of additional information in the
report, which is pretty short and has a lot of great graphics, so I really encourage you to take
a look. A big thanks to our PIO Josh Smith for producing this report, as well as Robert Cook in
our IT unit who helped compile the data, and Sarah Christie for helping pull it all together.
It was a very busy month for commission staff that included participation in
several events, workshops, and trainings that I'd like to share with you. So first,
last week I traveled to Washington DC with our Deputy Executive Director
Madeleine Cavalieri and our legislative program manager Sean Drake for the
annual meeting of the Coastal State Organization and the NOAA program
managers meeting. Discussions during the meeting covered a range of issues
issues, including NOAA's current policy priorities and budget outlook, supporting climate resilient
communities, and upcoming actions related to outer continental shelf resources, including
sediment, critical minerals, and energy.
We joined our colleagues at the Coastal Conservancy, BCDC, and the San Francisco Bay, Elkhorn
Slough, and Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserves to meet with members and
staff in California congressional offices in support of the FY25 and FY26 funding for
California's coastal management program, and to discuss mutual topics of interest, including
resilience and offshore energy.
Staff emphasized the critical importance of federal funding for California's coastal
planning, regulatory enforcement, research, education, and public access programs.
On February 3rd, 2026, commission staff attended the California Natural Resources Agency's
outdoors for all convening in Sacramento.
The statewide gathering included community-based organizations, tribal partners, advocates,
practitioners and state agency staff focused on shared learning and collaboration to expand
equitable access to the outdoors.
The discussions emphasized that California's coast belongs to everyone and explored persistent
barriers to coastal access, including distance, cost, transportation, accessibility, cultural
relevance and safety alongside strategies that center on belonging, community partnership,
and stewardship.
During that event, I was honored to deliver a trailblazer talk, marking the Coastal Act's
50th anniversary, honoring its legacy of protecting the coast for all Californians while underscoring
the continued importance of public access, shared stewardship, and a sense of belonging
in the outdoors for generations to come.
A link to the recap of the convening can be found on my written report.
On January 29, 2026, California Sea Grant fellow Katie Barr attended California's first
Nature-Based Solutions Summit, hosted by the California Natural Resources Agency in Sacramento.
And this event also brought together a diverse group of practitioners, agency staff, nonprofit
reps, and tribal leaders to advance nature-based solutions across the state.
The summit marked the release of the 2025 progress report
on the state's nature-based solutions climate targets
and launched a series of landscape-specific convenings.
A coastal focus session will be hosted later this year
in partnership with the State Coastal Conservancy.
On March 4th, 2026,
Coastal Program Analyst Cindy Schmitter
and NOAA Coastal Management Fellow Margaret Campbell
partnered with staff
from the Bay Conservation Development Commission, BCDC,
to host a table at Stanford University's
Do Good Now career fair.
The event brought together mission-driven companies, nonprofits, local governments and
worker unions seeking talented young professionals dedicated to advancing the common good.
On February 5th, 2026, California Ocean Science Trust's Sea Change Scholars Navigating Your
Future webinar series featured a panel of Coastal Commission staff who described the
Commission's work and shared how their day-to-day roles connect coastal science with state policy.
The webinar is part of OST's broader investments
in career development opportunities
and support for ocean and coastal science graduate students
across California who are interested in careers
at the science policy nexus.
Perhaps maybe some of our guests today
would like to go back and check it out.
It was pretty great.
Let's see, on February 2nd, 2026,
commission staff participated in local outreach
connected to the National Geographic Society
Slingshot Challenge, a youth program
that invites students ages 13 to 18
to create one minute videos proposing solutions
to environmental issues.
Commission participation supported student teams
at the Los Angeles County High School for the Arts
and helped elevate an ocean and coastal focus
on issues like ocean acidification
while encouraging students to frame their ideas
as clear, compelling water stories.
Staff also shared practical approaches
for communicating complex commission work clearly
and accessibly to various audiences
including personal coastal stories
and examples of the Commission's efforts
to protect coastal resources.
From March 2nd to 6th,
Commission ecologist Dr. Corey Clatterbuck
participated in a banking
and compensatory mitigation training course
provided by the Conservation Fund
in California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
There was an inter-agency training
focused on California mitigation issues
while covering key compensatory mitigation topics,
including federal and state authorities,
regulations and policies, um, development of mitigation banking instruments and
the role of inter-agency and conservation bank review teams.
Uh, next up, I have a couple of announcements from our public education
program, uh, the boating clean and green program, a partnership between the
coastal commission and California state parks will hold 13 dock Walker trainings
in 2026.
Uh, you can visit the dock Walker webpage for more details on that.
This program will also be attending the Sacramento Boat Show on March 5th or
8th or already did staff will be sharing information or did share information
with show participants about boating safety and clean boating practices,
including how to properly dispose of oil absorbance and boat sewage and
environmental and safe boating laws.
The boating clean and green program, um, and the California state parks,
boating safety and education unit released a new doc side podcast episode
that goes behind the scenes with the experts
at the California State Lands Commission
to explore how they balance global trade
with environmental protection,
innovative ways they regulate ballast water
and biofailing and what you can do to help.
Finally, as I described last month,
I will conclude each of my executive director reports
this year by highlighting events and achievements
related to the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
So first I'm pleased to announce
that State Senator John Laird and Assembly Member Greg Hart
have authored joint resolutions commemorating
the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Coastal Act
and the Coastal Conservancy Act.
More than 40 bipartisan co-authors
have already signed on.
And Sean Drake will have more to say
about this in a bit during the legislative report.
But you can view the press release
at a link on my written report.
Next, on February 25, I had the privilege
participating in a dynamic panel discussion hosted by Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary
of Natural Resources, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act and reflecting
on five decades of coastal stewardship. We explored the state of our coast, emerging challenges,
and how we collectively shape coastal protection to meet California's needs in the coming decades.
I was joined on the panel by several esteemed colleagues, including Amy Hutsell, Executive
Officer of the California State Coastal Conservancy, Susan Jordan, Founder and Executive Director
of the California Coastal Protection Network, Marsa Gutierrez-Groudin, Founder of Azul and
Vice Chair of the Governing Board of the California State Coastal Conservancy, and Patrick Barnard,
Research Director of the UCSC Center for Coastal Climate Resilience.
A huge thank you to Secretary Crowfoot and my fellow panelists for joining me in this
important conversation and to the staff at CNRA, the Coastal Commission, and the
Coastal Conservancy who helped organize the event. And if you're interested you
can view the full panel discussion on YouTube at the link in my written report.
A reminder to everyone that we are asking that the public share some of
their personal experiences with the coast as a way to celebrate 50 years of
public access and illustrate the many connections we have to our coast. They
can be brief or more involved and pictures or even short videos will help
paint a more vivid picture but aren't required. Memories can be submitted
anonymously. Please visit our 50th anniversary web page to upload your
story and help us understand how the Coastal Act has impacted you. Also linked
on my written report and on our web page, the Coastal Commission and Coastal
Conservancy recently put together a two-pager with some good facts on Coastal
protection achievements. So feel free to check that out. And
then finally for this month's act to action, the first 50
years of coastal protection, we have two highlights to share with
you today. The first is a program spotlight on the
Commission's actions and achievements and habitat
conservation and restoration. And the second, from our access
spotlight, I'll turn it over to Linda to talk about the Channel
Islands Harbor area. But first, I'm going to turn the mic over to
senior commission ecologist Dr. John Engel to provide this month's act to
action and our on our ecology program and conservation. Thank you Kate can we
bring up the slideshow please. There we go. Good morning honorable Chair Harmon
and commissioners. As part of our ongoing celebration of the 50th anniversary of
the Coastal Act I'm pleased to be here today to highlight examples of the
Commission's work protecting sensitive coastal habitats over the past 50 years
and to share a little bit about the role and evolution of our agency's ecology
group. Next slide please. As we all know the Coastal Commission's mission is to
protect conserve restore and enhance the environmental quality of and public
access to the California coast and ocean for present and future generations. This
This mission is accomplished through careful planning and regulation of environmentally
sustainable development, rigorous use of science, strong public participation, education and
effective intergovernmental coordination.
All of our commissioners and staff, past and present, have contributed to the mission and
a look across the 50 years of implementing the Coastal Act reveals how successful we've
been.
Next slide, please.
Some of the key mandates of the Coastal Act relate to the protection of rare and sensitive
coastal habitats and wetlands.
I've listed here some of the primary policies that guide this natural resource protection.
Although largely unchanged from their original drafting 50 years ago, these policies continue
to meet the needs of the present and show the continuing relevance and foresight of
the Coastal Act.
Next slide, please.
To analyze and implement these policies, the Commission makes use of a team of technical
staff with extensive training and education in the fields of ecology, marine science,
botany, and wildlife biology.
The need for and role of these technical staff has grown over the years in response to the
agency's evolution and continuing efforts to better implement and enforce the COSAL Act.
While in the early years we relied heavily on help from partner agencies and ad hoc teams
of planning staff with scientific backgrounds, in 1997, Dr. John Dixon was hired to be the
agency's first official ecologist.
Dr. Dixon served in that role for nearly 20 years and contributed to a range of significant
projects as well as to the development of methods of scientific analysis that our staff
continue to rely on today. Over time several more ecologists were hired including myself in 2006
and our current supervising ecologist Dr. Garski-Garcia in 2015. But it wasn't until this decade
that we've been able to more thoroughly respond to the growing needs of our agency and its mission
to rely on the rigorous use of science by expanding our ecology team. This has been accomplished in
part through generous support of partner agencies like Caltrans and we now have a team of six.
This allows us to provide dedicated technical support across all of the Commission's districts
and other teams and to engage more in that early coordination and proactive planning
work that is so often needed to achieve outcomes that can meet both development and conservation
objectives.
Since the inception of the COSLAC, the issues and challenges facing natural resources have
ballooned.
However, over time we have been able to protect natural resources and special places through
preservation and restoration of impacted habitats and mitigation for permitted work.
This has set the stage for long-term habitat resiliency such that these places are removed
from the direct threats of development
through conservation easements, deed restrictions, preserves,
and state and local lands, and are better suited to persist
or adapt to climate change.
Moreover, the preservation of natural spaces
provides for the continuance of natural functions
and processes in perpetuity.
Next slide, please.
Over the life of the commission, the challenges
facing the California coast have only increased, along with a growing population, development
pressures and climate change.
In response, our expanded team of ecologists are now based in regional offices across the
state, and are more available for reviewing and updating LCPs, collaborating with academics
and other agency scientists, and reviewing habitat restoration and mitigation plans.
In addition we are better able to track emerging issues such as the challenges of sea level
rise and the need for beach nourishment, nature-based adaptation strategies, fire resiliency work,
advanced mitigation programs, aging infrastructure, and new industries like offshore, wind, energy,
and government and commercial space programs.
Ultimately, our role is to translate best available science to practical implementation
consistent with the Coastal Act.
In this way, our ecology team help guide the Commission's protection of rare and sensitive
habitats through preservation and restoration to better ensure their existence and availability
into the future.
Next slide, please.
Every commissioner and staff member plays a role in protecting coastal habitats by virtue
of our work implementing the Coastal Act and agency's mission.
Through the lens of the Coastal Act natural resource policies, we also contribute to the
state's 30 by 30 goals of protecting 30% of marine and terrestrial habitats in California
by 2030.
This is not something new though.
Since the COSALAC was signed into law in 1976, tens of thousands of acres of native coastal
habitats and wetlands have been protected through conservation, restoration and enhancement
along with the rare plants and animals and communities they support.
Some notable examples from past years are identified on the following slides with the
habitat types and acreages protected through the Commission's decisions.
Next slide please.
Total habitat conservation successes in Northern California include those at Tolowa Dunes,
Ocean Ranch, Mendocino Coast Mitigation Bank, and Gleason Beach.
Through a cooperative agreement in 1979 by the Coastal Commission, Department of Parks
and Rec, Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Wildlife Conservation Board, and State
Lands Commission, the Lake Earl, Lake Tolowa Dunes complex in Del Norte County became part
of a 5,000 acre state park, including six miles of beach front, dune communities and
a coastal lagoon system. In 2021, in partnership with the NOAA Restoration Center and Department
of Fish and Wildlife, the Commission facilitated an 850 acre restoration project at Ocean Ranch
near Humboldt Bay that includes restoring diked former tidelands to native estuary and
dune habitat. Last year, the Commission approved the Mendocino Coast mitigation
bank, which will include the restoration of more than 140 acres of seasonal
wetland, riparian, native grassland, and grand fir forest habitats. Once performing,
the bank will be the first to offer ESHA credits as a mitigation option for
project proponents and is expected to support a variety of efforts throughout
the region. At Gleason Beach in Sonoma County, the Commission's partnership with Caltrans led to
the managed retreat of nearly a mile of Highway 1, allowing for not only a safer transportation
corridor in the face of sea level rise, but the remediation of fish passage barriers at Scotty
Creek, and restoration of more than 40 acres of wetlands, riparian, and upland habitats supporting
sensitive species like the federally listed steelhead, California red-legged frog, and
myrtles silver spot butterfly.
Next slide, please.
Among many notable examples along the central coast, the Commission actions in Marina, Monterey,
San Luis Obispo, and Point Conception stand out.
In 2017, the Commission issued an enforcement order halting operations of the CEMEC sand
mining facility in Marina.
and required restoration of the central fordoon habitat as well as the sale of the property
to an entity that would protect it in perpetuity.
Cemex was the last coastal sand mining plant in the United States.
Its operations have ceased, and its closure will ultimately result in approximately 400
acres of restored dune habitat.
In 2012, in a follow-up LCP amendment that reduced development potential through down-zoning,
the Commission permanently protected 635 acres of Monterey pine forest and Maritime Chaparral
in the Del Monte Forest on the Monterey Peninsula.
More recently, the Commission's decision on the Yawbo Canyon power plant license renewal
set the stage for thousands of acres of coastal bluffs, coastal terrace prairie, coastal scrub,
riparian canyons, Bishop pine forest, oak woodlands, and maritime chaparral to be
permanently protected and made available to the public. And in 2017, the Commission
approved consent cease and desist and restoration orders to the then owners of
the Bixby Ranch. The orders were issued to address multiple violations that
significantly impacted Esha and wetlands. The orders required full restoration and additionally
hundreds of acres of habitat mitigation. Soon after the orders were issued, the Nature Conservancy,
through a generous philanthropic donation from Jack and Laura Dangermon, acquired the nearly
25,000-acre private ranch located at and around Point Conception, a major biogeographic boundary,
and they are now in the process of completing restoration of the unique headland bypass dune
system, oak woodlands, wetlands, riparian and coastal prairie habitats on this property.
Next slide please. In Southern California, the Commission's efforts in the Santa Monica Mountains
at Santa No free, Newport Banning Ranch and San Alejo warrant highlighting. In 2014, the Commission
certified the Santa Monica Mountains Land Use Plan establishing proactive
planning and resource protection policies for over 52,000 acres of
recreational and open space lands in LA County leading to protection of
thousands of acres of sensitive habitats and species. Certification of the Santa
Monica Mountains LUP was voted the best decision by the 2014 Coastal Commission
Conservation Voting Chart. In 2016, the Commission denied development of the largest privately owned
open space remaining in Coastal Orange County, the 400-acre Newport Banning Ranch, due to impacts
to wetlands, sensitive habitat, and endangered species. Subsequently, in 2022, the Trust for
Public Lands purchased the property for permanent protection and open space, renaming it the Randall
preserve after the Randall family who generously donated 50 million dollars
toward its purchase. In 1974, the Commission's decision on Southern
California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station led to mitigation
involving the creation of 300 acres of kelp forest habitat and the restoration
of 150 acres of wetlands. And in 2016, the Commission approval of the Caltrans
Highway 5 re-widening project led to restoration of the entire San Alejo
Lagoon ecosystem including 960 acres of tidal west wetland and upland habitat.
Next slide please. Over the past decade in support of the Commission's work the
ecology group has aimed to increase the consistency of applying the Coastal Act
natural resource policies across the state. We have updated and developed
guidance for preparing habitat mitigation and restoration projects, biological surveys,
and wetland delineations.
We developed a mitigation framework that provides more flexibility to applicants while ensuring
fair and proportional resource compensations, and we are implementing an advanced mitigation
program in partnership and support with Caltrans, and finally we have participated in the establishment
of several mitigation banks and are evaluating the potential for in lieu fee programs as
alternatives to mitigation in challenging situations.
We are also collaborating regularly with our team of partners staff, technical staff in
mapping water quality engineering and geology to analyze issues and projects and identify
appropriate solutions.
Next slide, please.
While I've noted some examples from the commission's distant and recent history, they collectively
highlight the types of commission decisions and efforts that have led to the conservation
and restoration of tens of thousands of acres of sensitive coastal habitats across the state
along with the protection of untold numbers of rare and endemic plants and animals.
These are the areas and species that make the California coast such a unique and special
place and that inspired the people of this state and its legislature to protect it half
a century ago through creation of the Coastal Act and Commission.
And although development pressures will continue to pose challenges for maintaining that protection,
the Coastal Act and its natural resource policies have stood the test of time and with our agency's
use of strong science and expert staff, we look forward to many more successes over the
next 50 years. Thank you. Thanks, Jana. For this month's Access Spotlight, I'd like to
turn over to Linda Lachlan, who's joining us by Zoom. Linda's the Commission's Public
Access Manager, and she will describe public access accomplishments required by commission
permits approved in the Channel Islands Harbor area in the city of Oxnard. Linda?
Thank you. Thank you, Kate. Is my camera working? I can't tell. Yes, we can see you.
Okay, great. So today we're highlighting a three-mile long network of beautiful
public access walkways located in the city of Oxnard at the North Channel
Islands Harbor. The Coastal Commission required these ADA accessible pathways
as part of the approval, which was more than 23 years ago, for two waterfront
housing projects. Located inland from Oxnard, State Beach, and Ventura County, the projects
include dredging to create an extended harbor and constructing almost 1,000 homes. The Coastal
Commission required the developer to provide substantial public access amenities, including
the pathways along the harbor, as well as pocket parks and free public parking. These amenities
have helped to make this a popular visitor serving area which offers also a variety of
shops and restaurants. We're pleased to share that this social media video is available both
in English and Spanish. We will continue producing our Spotlight on Access series in both languages
and it's suggested by several commissioners at a recent public hearing. I want to extend my
gratitude to everyone who worked on these videos. It's a lot more work than you would believe
and these people include Luna Taylor in our public education unit, Javier Padilla and Chino
So Yuzo Wije in our environmental justice unit, our former intern Julianne Lilly, and our public
information officer Joshua Smith. So now please roll the videos. Thank you. Do you know where
there's a beautiful public walking path that runs right along a harbor? No, this isn't Newport Beach,
This is North Channel Islands Harbor in Oxnard, California.
Located around the perimeter of various housing communities such as Westport at Mandalay Bay,
Whitesales Village, and Seabridge, there is public access to the water.
There are several public playgrounds around the walking path with lots of grassy lawns,
public parking lots, and restrooms nearby.
The path meanders along the water behind the homes and the neighborhoods.
Along the walkways, you'll find plenty of benches, picnic tables, and various outdoor fitness stations.
Some roads on the interior side are private and for vehicles only, so make sure to look for the
public access signs around the perimeter as the public walkway is accessible to all pedestrians.
The path is paved and ADA accessible and even includes a pedestrian bridge over the canal.
This is the perfect place for exercising or relaxing and is great for kids and dogs.
At the northeastern corner of this community you'll find Seabridge Harbor,
which has a fully public dock, as well as shops, restaurants, and more free parking.
And there's even a public tennis court.
Thanks to the California Coastal Act and measures implemented by the California Coastal Commission,
this area is publicly accessible to all. So check it out next time you're in Oxford.
Great, thank you. Thanks to everyone for helping with that video. As Linda said,
it's quite a lot of work but I think we're really excited to be able to present these videos to you
this year and really kind of focus on some of the good works of the Commission over the last 50 years.
Yes, we had one more video, also show the one in Spanish. All right.
The largest center is in the bank, the picnic, and various stations of the city. The city is also in the area of the city.
The city is also in the area of the city and the city is also in the area of the city.
The city is also in the area of the public area of the city.
The city of the public is accessible to all of the people.
The city is also in the area of the city and is accessible to all of the people.
esta son es accessible para todos.
Así que, mi sí de la próxima vez y efté no cosar.
Thanks.
I'm so glad you interrupted me, Linda.
Thank you for showing both of those videos.
So as the last item, I have one more thing
before I turn it back to you, to Herman.
I have the sad job of announcing the retirement of John
at Engel.
So after 20 years of dedicated service
to the Coastal Commission and to the state of California,
Dr. John Engel is retiring.
In addition to working directly on some of the agency's
most technically complex projects,
John has also led the commission's team of ecology staff
for the past decade.
John came to the commission in 2006
after a productive academic career
that included degrees in physical geography,
marine science, and ecology from UC Santa Barbara,
the Moss Landing Marine Lab, and UC Santa Cruz,
as well as extensive research work
along the California coast,
particularly the Santa Barbara Channel and Channel Islands.
She's the commission's longest serving staff ecologist
and has been instrumental in advancing
and championing the agency's rigorous use
of sound science and facilitating consistency
in the application of scientific knowledge
to policy and decisions.
Over the past decade of her career,
she's overseen the evolution
of the commission's ecology group from a staff of two
to the current team of six that provides technical support
for all the commission's districts and programs
across the state.
In addition to contributing her expertise
to advance the efforts of countless working groups
and advisory bodies over the years,
Johnna's research in ecological analysis
was critical to the protection of the sensitive maritime
chaparral habitats in Big Sur and the Santa Monica Mountains
and to conserving the Randall Preserve at Newport Banning
Ranch, one of the last intact wetland bluff ecosystems
remaining along the coast of southern California.
On a personal note, John has served as a mentor to me
and one of my very first assignments at the Coastal
Commission on the Song's Mitigation Program.
Never one to seek out the spotlight,
some of her most meaningful contributions
have been behind the scenes, however.
Her humility, positive attitude, enthusiasm,
boundless curiosity, and unfailing support for her staff
helped countless interns and graduate students
along their careers and has left us
with an extremely capable core of passionate ecology staff
ready to continue her work.
Johnna will be dearly missed by her colleagues
and her contributions to coastal protection
leave us forever in her debt.
We wish you a joyful retirement
with many days exploring the coast.
She's worked so hard to protect
whether by surfboard or horseback.
And Johnna, on behalf of the staff,
I would like to present you with this book of photography.
of the California Coast. This book has made its way up and down the coast, gathering messages
of gratitude from staff all over the state. So, Johnna, thank you.
I brought my tissue.
Thank you. It's been a pleasure. I've loved this job. I've hated it sometimes. But I couldn't
have asked for a better job or working with better people, so I'm going to shut up because
I'll start crying. Thank you very much. Back to you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Dr. Engel,
thank you. I know we all will probably have a lot to say. So before we jump in, I will
ask if there's any public comment. None. None? Oh, thank you. Okay, well, first I'll start
by thanking Director Hucklebridge for your report. And Dr. Engel, I just want to say,
first thank you I'm gonna take prerogative to go first but what a
moving presentation today and so reflective of what a long way we have
come and I think Vice Chair Hart and I were just remarking seeing those maps
and the numbers it's such a gift to all of us here in this state and I think
about where we will be in the next 10 20 30 years I mean generational impact so
Oh, thank you.
All right, I'll turn to my colleagues.
Vice Chair Hart.
I just have to say how much,
there really are no words, actually,
to express our appreciation
for your incredible contribution and your work,
which I have a feeling
is not going to be concluding with your retirement
because the kind of dedication that you have,
it just never ends.
I mean it will stay with you and I know in addition to everything that you've done you're
gonna continue to do wonderful things but I hope that you have a wonderful retirement
as well you deserve it and I hope that every time that you visit these places or think
about your life and your accomplishments you feel so good about what you've done and the
legacy that you've left but I don't get to talk to you that much John and we
don't communicate that much but every day I appreciate you so thank you so so
much. Commissioner Nada. Yeah if you look at the record of the big projects
that the Commission has been able to navigate and only with the expertise of
staff like you. So thank you so much and what a legacy. I did also want to just call out
the metrics report. Thank you so much for putting that all together in a very user friendly,
easily understandable format. And just want to make sure, I'm sure that Mr. Drake and
others are getting that out far and wide because it actually, you know, tells a factual story
as opposed to a lot of these tales that are told about how the process works so I really
appreciate that and I wanted to lift up the metrics report and if there there's some good
meaty stuff in there so there are some pieces in there that we might want to focus on in
an informational hearing sometimes maybe about permitting processing time or some of those
kind of unsexy issues that really matter a lot
to how well the commission works.
So I didn't want to just say thank you for that.
And I find it very useful when I'm talking with folks
about what does the commission do and what it doesn't do.
And to have that type of data is very useful.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Eckerle.
Dr. Engel, I also want to say thank you
for all of your work.
I had the privilege of meeting you 20 years ago,
which I can't even believe it.
Does this mean I can retire now?
When I was hired in the Ventura office
for the Coastal Commission, and you were an incredible mentor,
a friend, you taught me how the work of this commission
really impacts the coast, how to protect the environment
and our resources and do it with integrity.
So thank you for teaching me for all of your work
and also wishing you the best in being able to play
in this next chapter of your life.
Thank you. Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Real quick, those videos were phenomenal.
I just wanna congratulate all our communications team
and public education team.
Really fantastic work on the social media campaigns.
I think they definitely are building this new image,
fresher, younger, more up-to-date and better connected.
So I appreciate that and I appreciate these little videos
and you guys are doing it in Spanish, that's good, I've heard.
So as always, I don't wanna take Javier's job,
but I'll volunteer if you need a voiceover.
noted.
Me first.
And I'm looking at Lopez and Gracia for Dr. Engel.
It's always hard for me to see these retirements
and the loss of institutional knowledge and love
and the credibility and integrity, really,
that you have sort of solidified around all of your work.
And I have never seen any commissioner question
your expertise here and it's, you know,
I assume that we'll hire somebody just as talented as you,
but it will definitely, we'll miss you.
And it's a big loss as far as I,
it'll take some time for us to rebuild that kind of trust.
However, you left an enormous legacy
and hopefully whoever comes in and the rest of the team
will be able to step in your shoes
and hold up to those standards that you are leaving behind.
So enormous gratitude.
And of course you'll always have a friend here.
So, you know, just always come back and hang out with us.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lee.
Thank you.
I just wanted to congratulate Dr. Engel on her retirement.
And although we didn't have a chance to personally
work together on my short time on this board,
the lasting impact of the work is phenomenal.
I have that book, the California Coast Book, I love it.
My children are too young to sort of understand
what we do here and it's easy for us to lose sight
when we're going through agenda items and planning
and doing the work here.
But they look at those photos and they say,
wow, is this in another country?
Is this really far away?
I wish I can go there.
And I say, that is our coastline.
That is the state where we live in.
And the echoes of the work and what you have contributed
help to preserve the beauty, to protect our coast,
and to make sure that we all have access to it.
And that is a stark reminder for me each time
I was showing it to them last night, actually,
and we were looking at these beautiful photos
of Crescent City, and I said one day we're gonna go there.
And there are so many people who are working really,
really hard to make sure that just the astounding beauty
of our state remains front and center for all of us.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you, Dr. Angle, thank you.
Okay, Dr. Hucklebridge to you and Mr. Drake, I believe.
Yes, next up, item 6C.
I'll turn it over to Sean Drake.
Good morning, commissioners.
This is the legislative report for March.
The deadline for new bills to be introduced
was February 20th.
This month's written report includes all the new bills
that have come into print so far this year
that are relevant to the Coastal Act or to the commission.
At this point, there are five newly introduced bills
that would amend to the Coastal Act,
and those are listed in the first section of staff's report.
I'll go through each of them quickly.
The first bill is AB 1740
by Assemblymember Rick Zabur out of Santa Monica.
This bill would make two significant changes
to the Coastal Act.
First, the bill would create a process for coastal cities
to self-certify themselves as urban multimodal communities,
which is a designation created by the bill.
To qualify for self-certification,
In simplest terms, the city would need three things.
One of either a bus route, a rail station,
or a bus rapid transit stop somewhere
in its coastal access zone,
a bicycle lane somewhere in its coastal access zone,
and a local plan that includes targets
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle crashes.
Once a city designates itself
as an urban multimodal community,
a broad universe of project types would become exempt
from the Coastal Act throughout the city's coastal zone.
This includes multi-unit housing and mixed use projects,
expansions of any existing structure by 150%,
temporary events, bike lanes,
changes or removal of public parking
or creation of resident-only parking areas,
and outdoor dining expansions.
Under the bill, these projects would no longer be required
to comply with Coastal Act public access
or resource policies.
Separately, the bill would also allow for
the reconfiguration of any state highway in the coastal zone.
Including changes or removal of roadside public parking without a coastal
development permit.
This part of the bill would apply to the entire coastal zone statewide,
not just jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Staff have concerns about both pieces of this bill,
particularly the potential impacts on public coastal access that would result
creating broad exemptions for highway projects and other projects near the shoreline. Staff has
had a preliminary discussion with the author's office and has scheduled a follow-up conversation
with the author to discuss the bill and its potential impacts. We anticipate providing
the Commission with an update and a full analysis during next month's legislative report. The bill
was recently referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Another new bill that would
It would amend the Coastal Act as AB 2373 by Assemblymember Diane Dixon from Coastal
Orange County.
This bill would add language to the Coastal Act explicitly authorizing local governments
to use a neighborhood scale adaptation approach when developing sea-level rise policies for
their local coastal programs.
The concept of taking a neighborhood scale approach to sea-level rise planning is something
that the Commission and local governments have discussed in the Commission's local
government working group.
in conversation with the bill's sponsor, the League of Cities, to learn about the intended
effect of putting this concept into statute. Next is AB-2410 by Assemblymember Stan Ellis
from Bakersfield. Relevant to the Coastal Commission, this bill would exempt from the
Coastal Act certain types of vegetation removal done as part of wildfire fuel reduction projects
in the coastal zone. The bill would also create a similar exemption under CEQA. Additionally,
the bill would require the resources agency and CalEPA to write a report on implementation of
the governor's March 2025 executive order suspending certain state laws including the
Coastal Act for wildfire fuel reduction projects. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee. Shifting over to the Senate, SB 963 by Senator John Laird would add language to
the Coastal Act establishing requirements for how the commission processes the de novo portion of
of appeals of local CDPs.
Specifically, the bill would require
that when the commission finds that an appeal raises
a substantial issue, the commission would have 30 days
to provide the applicant with a list
of all the information needed for the commission
to hold the de novo hearing.
The commission would then be required to review
any information submitted by the applicant within 30 days,
similar to how the commission
currently reviews CDP applications.
Once the commission has all the information
it originally requested, it would be required
hold the de novo hearing within 180 days.
Staff are currently in conversation
with the author's office about the bill.
Overall, we believe the process envisioned by the bill
would be productive for increasing regulatory certainty
and predictability for those local CDPs
that the commission finds raise a substantial issue,
which as this morning's 2025 metrics report notes
was just about 1% of local CDPs last year.
One final note on SB 963, that bill went into print after staff published our written report.
So you'll see it show up in the bill list starting next month.
The last proposed Coastal Act Amendment we want to highlight today is SB 1229 by Senator Ben Allen.
This bill would clarify that the existing Coastal Act exemption that allows property owners to rebuild structures destroyed by natural disasters without needing to get a CDP
applies only to the person who is the property owner
at the time of the disaster.
Staff have no concerns with this proposal.
That bill was referred to the Senate Natural Resources
and Water Committee.
There are also several bills that,
while not amending the Coastal Act,
would affect the Coastal Zone or the Commission.
So for the sake of time, I'm going to highlight just a few
of them.
The rest are listed in staff's written report.
First is AB 2099 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez.
That bill would define customary maintenance
for billboards in the Outdoor Advertising Act
to include the fortification of a billboard
with stronger materials.
If this sounds familiar,
it's because it's a reintroduction of a bill
by the same author from last year, AB 770.
As with its predecessor,
staff observed that the effect of the bill
would be to expand the universe of billboard projects
that are exempt from local and state environmental review,
including under the Coastal Act.
More fundamentally, this would extend the life
of non-conforming billboards,
including those in sensitive habitats,
cultural resource areas, or designated scenic corridors.
While staff is currently primarily focused
on the proposed legislation
that would amend the Coastal Act directly,
we will be watching this bill closely
and we'll keep the commission updated in future reports.
That bill has been referred
to the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee.
Next is AB 2051 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.
This bill would require the secretaries of natural resources and environmental protection
to convene a working group of federal, state, and local agencies, including the Coastal
Commission and BCDC, for the purpose of developing a permitting roadmap for resilience projects
along the San Francisco Bay shoreline and along the coast.
The bill would also require the Commission and BCDC to convene an advisory group of agencies,
industries, and other constituents to oversee this multi-agency group.
Based on conversations with the bill sponsors, we understand that the primary focus of the
bill is on the San Francisco Bay shoreline.
That said, given that the current text of the bill would also apply to the whole coast
and to the commission, staff will be connecting with the author's office to understand their
priorities for the bill as it relates to the coast specifically.
Next is AB 2433 by Assemblymember David Alvarez from Southern San Diego County.
This bill would make a number of changes to State Density Bonus Law, including renaming
it the Affordable Homes Bonus Program, making density bonus projects subject to by-right
ministerial approval, increasing the number of development incentives that an applicant
is eligible to receive, among other changes.
Staff are currently reviewing the language of the bill.
It will be heard first in the Assembly Housing Committee.
Rounding out our list this morning, the last thing that we want to highlight is a pair
legislative resolutions, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 149 by Assemblymember Greg Hart,
and Senate Concurrent Resolution 136 by Senator John Laird. As Director Hucklebridge mentioned
during her report, these resolutions would commemorate the 50th anniversary of both the
passage of the Coastal Act and the creation of our sister agency, the State Coastal Conservancy.
In particular, the resolutions draw attention to the commissions and the conservancy's collective
actions to conserve more than 500,000 acres of natural open space, create more than 2,500
public coastal access ways, restore more than 50,000 acres of coastal habitat, and open
875 miles of coastal trail, among other victories.
Looking ahead to the next month, there are still several hundred new bills that are spot
bills, meaning that they currently contain just placeholder language.
deadline for legislators to amend those spot bills into something substantive
is March 25th. Staff will be reviewing amended spots as they come into print
over the coming weeks and anything relevant to the Commission will be added
to next month's legislative report. With that, Chair Harmon, unless there are any
questions that concludes the legislative report. Great, thank you very much Mr.
Drake. We'll see if there are any public comments before we go to questions.
Mitch Silverstein does have a hand come on up. Thanks Simone, sorry to make you
run. No worries, thank you. Morning Chair Harmon and commissioners, Mitch
Silverstein with Surf Rider Foundation. Just had a handout distributed and I
want to speak for Surf Rider Day on our concerns about AB 1740, the Ziber bill
that Mr. Drake had referenced. I speak for Surf Rider but I also want to note
that Azul, the California Coastal Protection Network and Environmental
Action Committee of West Marin also stand in opposition to this bill as
currently written so far. The first thing to note is that the author's
district includes Santa Monica. Santa Monica is one of a handful of cities
without a certified LCP. They've had 50 years to complete that. The made up
term urban multimodal community within this bill essentially characterizes
Santa Monica. The city should be applauded for their work on transit and
climate action but most if not all of what they're trying to accomplish with
this bill should be parsed out through the LCP certification process and the
bar for the bars not high for a city to self elect itself an urban multimodal
community. It's a little more than having a bike lane, a frequent bus route
with stops a quarter mile from the beach and greenhouse gas reduction
targets. Among our chief concerns, the bill would allow eligible cities to
give preferential parking to local residents along the public right away
with no regard for inland visitors who use those spots access the coast. It
It would allow removal of parking along major coastal thoroughfares, like PCH, with no meaningful
guardrails for access.
It would allow unlimited parking fee increases as well, disproportionately affecting inland
residents and those unlimited incomes.
It would exempt a wide array of coastal development from Coastal Act compliance, undermining affordable
housing in the coastal zone, and reducing safeguards for the environment and public
access.
Surf Rider and Partners feel it's important to highlight our opposition to this bill because
it threatens core provisions of the Coastal Act that we hold dear and rely on to protect
public access. And for the record Surf Fighter doesn't oppose outright bike lanes, changes
in parking and even parking fees in certain circumstances. It's just we want to ensure
they're compliant with the Coastal Act and they protect public access and coastal resources.
Thank you.
That completes the public comments. Thank you, Simone. Okay. First I'll turn to Commissioner
Wilson then Commissioner Nadeff.
Okay, I have a couple questions, comments related to a few of these items and like this
is a question for Sean.
It seems like, and I'm just trying to remember, some of the project types, and I'm going to
talk about, excuse me, 1740, AB 1740 to start with.
Some of the project types and the enhancements that are being addressed, I don't have specific
numbers in mind, but I think that in the past we've, there may have been
legislation to address some of these before in my work can help me. You were
calling that correctly Commissioner Wilson and we'll provide I think a more
comprehensive detail in our analysis next month, but just you know off the
top my head thinking of the past couple sessions or call that outdoor dining was
expedited statewide through AB 592 by Gabriel last year, bike lanes in the
Coastal zone create there was an expedited process created for those through sp 689 by Senator Blake spear, which I believe the Commission supported
the Commission recall supporting sp 484 by senator Laird which
Created categorical exclusions or will create categorical exclusions for affordable housing and then the last one that jumps in mind
The provision of the bill related to temporary events. We understand that that's really oriented around the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic games
Of course the Commission will recall that there was budget legislation last year dialing in the Coastal Act exemption for temporary events related to the Olympics
So those are a couple of the project types that have just been addressed in the past couple years
But we can provide a fuller list next month
Okay, and then just as a follow-up on kind of questions and concerns. I think you mentioned something called a coastal access zone
Is there a definition of that or yeah?
My apologies for not defining that that would be that's a term of art that would be created by the bill and it's essentially
the coastal zone of a jurisdiction plus a quarter mile in all directions. So when Mitch mentioned
that say a bike lane needs to only be within a quarter mile really it's needs to be
actually outside the coastal zone within a quarter mile. Is that right? And so the
coastal moans of a mile deep that bike lane could be a mile and a quarter away from the coast.
that's correct to qualify okay okay thank you and then just as a rural representative
someone who accesses the coast via our our highway system our state highway system
this really does concern me quite a bit you know those of us who fish and gather
as you know in and surf and paddleboard and all the other things that we do
from our coastal highways to not have a review of Caltrans projects or have an exemption
in terms of our access to that and then we're talking about highways that don't have public
transit access, might have a bus that runs once a day but certainly does not stop at
all of these locations and I certainly will be bringing this back to our tribal representatives
as well because I know that access to those resources is very important and and so that
is that's a pretty big concern I just want to kind of put a pin in that I think a lot
of times sometimes we get these sort of urban things you know legislation that doesn't doesn't
really see the whole picture and I just want to and I want to be really clear like as anyone
knows on this commission I'm not the friend of parking in it especially when
it comes to housing and other things but at some point we really there there is
no other way to access many of the things that we value on the coast and
and certainly for us rural communities this this is troubling and then I want
to reference AB 2099 again as a rural representative who has an who has
landscapes that are impacted by non-conforming billboard structures and
certainly there are many of them and they are in impacted and Esha and other
other important areas and also cultural landscapes and those are things that the
core proposal as you mentioned is basically no other structure in the
state of California would get this exemption which is that that it would
allow for the replacement and even the changing of materials for core structural elements
for these structures, which are supposed to be regulated by uniform building code, as
well as local codes, as well as state issues.
We have billboards that are attached to trees in state parks.
We have billboards that are in wetlands, many of them, and so, and in other sensitive locations.
So I just want to point that out, and that the laws since 1963 and to the 1970 from the
Federal Highway Beautification Act to our state Outdoor Advertising Act has been to
phase these out over time and this would basically be a billboard forever's act.
And I think that we need to, that has not been the tradition of the state in that way.
And also I want to remind those of us who are in local legislation, these things are
very, very unpopular.
Also I'd like to remind state legislators, these are very, very unpopular structures
And there's not a lot of support to have them stay around or to have more of them.
And this would definitely create that.
And so I'm hoping that our local legislators reach out to their associations to oppose
this.
And I'm hoping that we'll come back with some analysis in the future.
So thanks for letting me have that time, Chair.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Hart, or excuse me, Commissioner Nada?
I don't think I'm in the assembly.
So I also, you mentioned, thank you for the thorough report, you mentioned some sponsors
of the bills.
Is there a sponsor for AB 1740?
I'm trying to understand the motivation for them.
We understand there are three sponsors, the City of Santa Monica, and then two advocacy
organizations Abundant Housing LA and Streets for All are their names.
Okay, thank you.
That helps.
And I think I'm very glad that staff is going to be meeting with the author's office.
You know, Assemblyman Zabur is a longtime Coastal Act attorney.
He knows the law quite well.
He's a longtime conservation leader as chair of the California League of Conservation Voters,
which is now environmental voters.
So I know that he cares very much about coastal protection and public access.
So I hope that there's something that we could understand the motivation for this more and
see if there's something that we could come to some understanding on.
I also wanted to you noted that there's a lot of you know spot bills and also just to
keep an eye out you know we've heard I've already heard many references to potential
short-term rental bills, and so I know you're keeping an eye out for those and how they
would affect the coast.
As we were looking at the projects that the commission has been able to save lands and
balance development over the years, it just strikes me always that the coast is such a
thin strip of the California landscape.
We are just, you know, less, very small percentage of the acres of California.
So it's a very special place.
We are not going to solve all of California's problems in the coastal zone is, I guess,
my lesson on that.
So just please keep an eye out for those and look forward to further discussions with the
author's offices, and hopefully, we can work out something that works for everyone.
Thank you.
thank you commissioner vice chair hard thanks so much I just want to align
myself with the statements that have been made specifically with regard to
AB 1740 I want to just also express my appreciation for the environmental
record of assembly members a burger which is great I I find it I just am
having a very hard time understanding given all of the legislation that we've
discussed why at this point you would propose something that
would essentially gut so many aspects of the Coastal Act.
It's a monumentally dangerous piece of legislation.
At the heart of it, in my mind, I understand that Santa Monica
does not have an LCP as one of the few jurisdictions.
And this really is, it seems to me,
what he's going for here is more local control.
I was just curious if you, Dr. Hucklebridger,
someone could explain what is going on in Santa Monica,
it has causes because I find it hard to believe
this would be happening if they had an LCP.
I don't think we know yet is the short answer to that,
Dr. Hart.
I think that's, we're looking forward to meeting
with Assembly Member Zabur so we can get down
to the bottom of what, you know, what is the concern
that led to the development of this bill
so that we can really understand the motivation?
And, but just in short, we don't right now.
I really appreciate that.
And as a member of the legislative committee,
I know that we will be also looking forward to meeting
with the assembly member to discuss this, you know,
as a follow-up.
But I also just want to say, at this moment in time
we're celebrating 50 years of the Coastal Act and we've shown earlier in this hearing
how many incredibly important things have happened as a result just on the ecological
side of things but I just it's hard to believe at this moment of celebration where we shall
be acknowledging the incredible accomplishments of the Coastal Act that were confronted with
this very dangerous piece of legislation and I just don't think anyone should take this
lightly. It's a very serious situation, very serious piece of legislation, so I
want to appreciate the work that you've done, Sean, and Dr. Hucklebridge, and
look forward to where your conversations go with the Assemblymember. Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner Escalante. Oh, Santa Monica's breaking my heart today.
It's not even lunchtime and it's strike two on the greenwashing. This is very,
very scary and problematic, I think, especially from where it's coming from,
So I appreciate the NGOs, the organizations that are sort of on the front lines of this
and working in the building in Sacramento to try to stave off some of this or at least
you know sort of the more alarming parts of this legislation.
So I appreciate that.
I know that again Santa Monica has famed itself for being an environmental leader and has
a lot of organizations being small within its borders.
So I hope that we can stir some of that leadership on the ground because this is the legislation
itself is problematic, but also the authorship and where that's coming from is extremely
alarming.
So I look forward to hearing more about this discussion.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any further questions?
any further questions comments yes please I had a question about a B7 1740
and just with respect to me not understanding that we have so many
jurisdictions who already have a certified local coastal program and so
seeing that this is specific to you know one of the few jurisdictions that we
work with that doesn't 12 cities up and down the state they're one of the 12 if
If we are giving grants to communities to develop these programs with the hope that then they have local control, and they are the land use authority and are the permitting authority for whatever these types of activities are that that want to happen within the jurisdiction, what happens when we give grants to those communities, but they don't produce the lcp.
Through the chair, thanks for the question, Commissioner Kelly.
We don't have a stick here.
In other words, when we provide grants, I mean, we do our best.
We have staff that work with each local government and I would note Santa Monica, I think we've
given three different LCP grants to over the last several years.
But we work with the staff at the at each local government to try to make it doable
for the amount of money, you know, make sure and then, you know, pull them along, push
them along, whatever needs, whatever support that we can provide to get them to the point
of submitting an LCP.
And most of the grants, that is the goal.
And that is one of the deliverables on the grant, is to present, do an LCP submittal.
We can't require that they have an approved LCP, because that's obviously a regulatory
process that you all are involved in, as well as the City Council and Board of Supervisors
city to local government. But we get to the point of a submittal. And we have sometimes gotten those
and sometimes not. And we don't really have a mechanism or have not found one. And that includes
in the Coastal Act when local government doesn't have an LCP other than so it's carrot focused as
opposed to stick focused.
Interesting. I mean, I think that presents like a really unique challenge and that we want to help
support them these are incentives they're carrots but also we our funds
are finite these are public resources and I just have some really strong
negative reactions to AB 1740 for this and in a number of other reasons but I
also I think that for for someone who represents an inland community just
knowing access and parking and being able to access the coastline and the
state highway system being one of those key places where we both get to and then can park
for free along the coastline to have recreation and all the other amenities for the coast.
I just see this as really being a slippery slope that I'm incredibly uncomfortable with.
So I'm looking forward to learning more about 1740 and getting a better understanding and
appreciate the steps you guys are gonna take but it's you know I'm chalking
frankly to see to see this so thanks. Okay appreciate it I don't believe
there's any action for us to take today so let's try to get through item D
before lunch if we can thank you thank you mr. Drake Dr. Oklebridge. Thanks
that brings us to item 60 which is action on the nature-based adaptation
Strategies Guidance and I'll turn it over to Karen Vue who's joining us via zoom. Thanks Kate,
slide. Good afternoon commissioners. Item W60 is on the commission's nature-based adaptation
strategies guidance which is available as exhibit one of the staff report. Staff is
recommending that the commission adopt this guidance as interpretive guidance. Next slide
please. So to recap this guidance is a deliverable of a five-year project that aims to support and
facilitate implementation of C. elveris adaptation strategies and is supported through funding from NOAA.
Nature-based adaptation strategies capitalize on the natural ability of coastal ecosystems
to protect coastlines from hazards, while also providing benefits such as habitat enhancement,
recreation and scenic resource preservation, water quality improvements, and carbon sequestration
and storage. Nature-based adaptation strategies are increasingly being recognized as resilient
practices to address sea-laborized impacts that can respond to and withstand changing conditions
while minimizing disruptions to communities and natural resources. This guidance provides
information on nature-based adaptation strategies including what they are and why the Coastal
Commission supports their use, as well as recommendations for how to design nature-based
projects consistent with the Coastal Act. In turn, this information is meant to promote and expand
the use of these strategies consistent with statewide goals. Next slide please. The guidance
starts with a set of principles shown here that are intended to inform the Commission's policy
direction and recommendations for nature-based adaptation strategies. These guiding principles
state the Commission's recognition of and support for nature-based adaptation strategies as a
potentially more resilient adaptation option, that these strategies can be supportive of many
coastal act goals, the Commission's commitment to coordinating on these projects, and encouragement
for local governments to plan for nature-based adaptation strategies. Next slide please.
The guidance also includes a summary of how various federal agencies are supporting nature-based
adaptation strategies and state initiatives to prioritize these projects. Other sections of the
guidance describes the Commission's permitting pathways applicable to nature-based projects
considering certain project components, such as cost or the potential for adverse impacts to
coastal resources. The guidance also specifically encourages local governments to prioritize and
implement these strategies, including through the development of LCP policies that support,
encourage, or require such strategies whenever feasible. The guidance also discusses the coastal
act policies that are most relevant to nature-based projects, as well as other themes and considerations
that relate to broader planning for these types of approaches. These topics include consistency
with the public trust doctrine, monitoring and adaptive management procedures that are critical
for evaluating the success of a certain project or strategy, implications that these strategies
could have for affected communities, and how such projects could complement and fit within
scaled and phased adaptation planning approaches. Each of these elements play a critical role in
ensuring that nature-based adaptation strategies are implemented in ways that address resilience,
protect public access, ecological, recreational, and cultural resources, and support intended
outcomes. Next slide, please. The draft guidance was released for 30-day public review on September
29, 2025. During the public review period, staff received 11 comment letters. Two additional
comment letters were received prior to the informational briefing on the guidance during
the December 2025 Commission hearing. I will summarize the categories of comments we received
during the public review period on the following slides. These comments were addressed through
revisions that resulted in the draft presented at the December hearing. In general, edits were made
to clarify correct, add context, and emphasize certain portions of the document. Next slide,
please. First, staff received a number of comments requesting that the guidance include more
information to harmonize it with other state efforts. These comments
requested that the guidance include additional information on the state's
30 by 30 and cutting green tape initiatives, discussion of how
nature-based adaptation strategies can contribute to carbon sequestration
efforts, and align the Commission's definition of
nature-based adaptation strategies with the definitions of other agencies.
The guidance was revised to include more information on various executive
orders and legislative bills that support the
expanded use of these strategies as a carbon storage and sequestration method.
Revisions also added more references to statewide efforts and guidance materials.
Lastly, staff reviewed suggestions to revise the definition of nature-based adaptation strategies
to ensure it aligns with other definitions. Staff made minor tweaks to the definition but
determined that overall the language and the guidance does not conflict with other definitions
while also capturing the goals of the coastal act. Next slide please. Several comments requested
that the guidance more clearly separate soft solutions from hybrid armoring, clarify how
permit review of soft solutions differs from hybrid armoring under the coastal act, and include
language that indicates that the commission supports one subcategory over the other.
Commission staff revised figure one in the guidance to emphasize the difference between
soft solutions and hybrid armoring approaches and added a caveat that the figure represents a subset
of common nature-based adaptation strategies. Staff also revised the guidance to emphasize
that generally hybrid armoring strategies may be more complex and involve greater impacts and
trade-offs between coastal resources as compared to soft solutions. However, there is no set criteria
for determining the extent to which a project qualifies as nature-based adaptation. A project's
classification as a nature-based adaptation strategy including as a soft strategy or as hybrid
armoring does not change the standard of review and the Commission should look beyond the label
assigned by an applicant to ensure that nature-based adaptation projects genuinely integrate natural
features, contribute to measurable habitat enhancement or restoration and align with community
priorities. Thus the Commission is supportive of soft solutions and hybrid armoring so long as the
project is designed to avoid minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to coastal resources and is the
alternative with the fewest coastal resource impacts. Next slide please. The commission received
comments relating to the topic of beach nourishment and requested information on how beach nourishment
fits under the umbrella of nature-based adaptation strategies. The comments here ranged in perspectives
with some indicating that beach nourishment is considered a nature-based strategy, others
stating that beach nourishment is not a standalone nature-based strategy, and still others commenting
that beach nourishment should always be considered a nature-based strategy. These differing comments
speak to the variable and potentially complicated nature of these adaptation strategies as a whole,
and to the fact that different entities have competing priorities and or constraints to
implementing such strategies. Commissioned staff included revisions that suggest that beach
nourishment projects could be considered as a component in a sediment management program
that helps to address regional scale sediment supply imbalances and promotes the potential
beneficial reuse of clean sediment in certain nature-based adaptation projects.
Next slide, please. Various comments recommended that the guidance clarify how nature-based
strategies fit into a phased adaptation planning approach. Staff revised the guidance by adding
more information on the use of nature-based strategies as a potential short to mid-term
adaptation option. Staff also revise the guidance to offer more context regarding spatial constraints
that can limit certain nature-based projects, including that they often require a larger area
to be effective, which may in turn require coordination with more asset managers, owners,
and jurisdictions. The Commission has and will continue to facilitate ongoing conversations
among various stakeholders and local governments to improve communication and coordination
to address these challenges. Next slide, please.
Commission staff received comments requesting that the guidance be revised to require the
implementation of nature-based adaptation strategies. Staff agree that local governments
and project applicants should consider and generally should implement nature-based adaptation
strategies over traditional hard armoring when feasible. The intent of the guidance is to provide
more information on the commission permitting process, coastal act policies, and other key
issues that should be considered. This is to help clarify and ease the design, permitting, and
implementation of such projects for both applicants and commission staff. The guidance also includes
principles emphasizing the commission's commitment to supporting and prioritizing nature-based
adaptation strategies. However, the commission currently cannot expressly require the implementation
of such strategies and the Commission does not have the authority to penalize project
applicants who do not implement such strategies. Rather, proposed projects need to be consistent
with relevant Coastal Act or LCP policies and should be the least environmentally damaging
feasible alternative. The Commission has advised and will continue to advise local jurisdictions
to explore the feasibility of implementing nature-based adaptation strategies. Next slide,
please. In addition to the general public comment period, staff sent notice of the draft guidance
with an invitation for consultation to California Coastal Tribal Representatives. Staff received one
comment letter from the coast known Romeson Carmel Tribe and one request for consultation
from the San Luis Ray Band of Mission Indians. Both tribes expressed support for the guidance
acknowledging that nature-based adaptation strategies closely aligns with and mirrors
indigenous practices that have sustained coastal landscapes for millennia.
In addition, both tribes encourage the Commission to continue outreach with tribes to ensure that
nature-based projects do not result in impacts to tribal cultural resources or restrict access to
traditional use areas. The comments did not require changes to the document and staff will
continue to coordinate on these topics with California tribes more generally as well as
individual projects consistent with the Commission's tribal consultation policy.
Next slide please. Before closing staff received two comments after publication of the staff report
that are also available in the correspondence. The comments noted that nature-based projects
should account for potential adverse impacts to the California coastal trail and of tree
removals on wildlife. Staff agree that nature-based projects need to be carefully evaluated for
ecological and public access impacts. The guidance addresses these issues in multiple sections,
and staff do not believe that any further revisions are necessary. In closing, the proposed
final draft of the guidance remains the same as the draft that was presented at the commission
hearing in December. Staff is recommending adoption of the Nature-based Adaptation Strategies
Guidance, and the motion and resolution are on page 3 of the staff report. This ends today's
is presentation and staff is available for questions.
Great, thank you very much.
All right, Commissioner Preciado.
I have a question for staff.
I don't know if you need to make the motion first.
Let me just ask if there are any public comment first, please.
Thank you.
Yes, we have Dawn Smith, Mitch Silverstein.
They're both here in person.
And then we have Ron Melser, who is on Zoom.
So Ramy, I'll be moving to panelists soon.
Good afternoon, commissioners, Don Schmitz.
I'll keep it brief for two reasons.
Chair Harmon will require it, and also you
want to get the lunch.
I just want to express how excited I am over this.
I have been, this has been a cos celeb of my career
for over 10 years.
There's been the working group that a number of commissioners
have been involved with with the League of Cities.
previous executive director Jack Ainsworth and Dr. Kate Hucklebridge have attended our Smart
Coast California seminars that we have had, bringing experts from all over the state and
all over the country to come up with solutions to have a Smart Coast. We can do better. We can have
both the protection of our communities where we're not having individual property owners dumping
rocks on the beach and the commission being obliged to legally to allow that.
We have solutions now scientifically proven that can protect not only our communities
but can protect and enhance our beaches, can enhance the environment.
For instance, there's only been a couple of reefs that have been installed in the state
of California and they've been installed to enhance the marine habitat that have been
approved by this very commission.
We still have a lot of work in front of us.
This is something that requires partnerships by both the California Coastal Commission
and local jurisdictions.
There's one coming down the pike, down the ocean side, they're calling it the ReBeach
Project, where they're going to have artificial headlands, beach nourishment, and an artificial
reef on a section of coastline which is currently just rocks and one big giant revetment.
But I am so very excited that we find ourselves here today.
I've reviewed the staff report. It is excellent. The document is excellent. I
just want to tip my hat to your staff and for you, for your leadership on this
issue with both other governments and with private organizations. Thank you
very much. Yeah, this is on the presentation. Hello again. Mitch Silverstein with
Surf Rider. Surf Rider is fully in support of this and really just wants to
thank staff for their amazing work over these last few months. I don't know how
not long but for a long time getting this out and we're really hoping it inspires communities
up and down the coast to use this guidance and do nature-based adaptation and I want
to use the rest of my time to play a video and feel free to start it. Next slide, sorry.
Won't be able to finish it but feel free to play this. This is one of the finest, if not
the finest example in the state of nature-based adaptation to save beaches and it's right
down the street at Surfer's Point. I was, I was. Okay well I'll use the rest of my
time then to just give a short unprepared statement. So Surfer's Point
Ventura Beach, it's one of the best waves, it's the best way of Ventura if not one
of the best in the state and in the late 80s the city and the county
fairgrounds where that where those dunes and that healthy beach ecosystem is
right there was a parking lot in a bike lane that is pretty much as soon as they
Installed that started crumbling and falling into the ocean and the area was a total disaster zone
Surfrider the Ventura chapter and a gentleman named Paul Jenkins who couldn't be here today
Came up with this idea to
basically retreat this area shoreline get rid of that that parking lot in the bike lane and
Rewild it basically restore this beach so that we don't lose this amazing asset in this amazing surfing beach
This took over 30 years to do the phase two of the project is still underway today
It is almost finished, but but the results have been extraordinary. We've got native dune habitat
Thriving with life. It's it's probably the one of the wildest
healthiest beaches that you can find in an urban place, you know right in a city and
Of course, it's one of the best waves as well. And and this project has helped save that wave
Surf Rider deserves a lot of credit, but definitely not the only one, you know, the city of the county, the fairgrounds, this was a huge group effort and it just shows what is possible when we harness the power of nature to fight climate change and save our beaches.
So thank you, and please vote yes.
Ron Meltzer, I see you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Ron Melzer. I'm an Environmental Program Manager within the Natural Resources Division at California State Parks, where I oversee the department's Coastal Resilience Program.
California State Parks supports the Nature-Based Adaptation Strategy's guidance and appreciates the thoughtful framework the Commission staff has developed for advancing nature-based approaches to coastal resilience.
We support staff's recommendation for adoption of the document.
I want to acknowledge and appreciate the collaborative process and opportunity for
my team to review earlier drafts and see our comments incorporated.
We also appreciate the document's acknowledgement of ongoing coordination between parks staff
and the Coastal Commission staff regarding permitting pathways for nature-based adaptation
strategies.
We're pleased to see case studies highlighting projects on state parks land, including the
Cardiff State Beach Living Shoreline and the South Carlsbad State Beach Dune Habitat Pilot
Project, which demonstrate how nature-based adaptation approaches can support coastal
resilience, ecological restoration, and public access. As the trustee for natural resources
that we steward, State Parks continues to advance process-based ecosystem restoration across our
coastal park system. Although dedicated sea level rise adaptation funding and staffing was redirected
in recent past years, our teams have remained engaged in piloting adaptation efforts. With
the passage of Proposition 4, we are now actively engaged in rebuilding department staffing and
capacity and advancing this work in partnership with the Commission. In closing, State Parks looks
forward to continuing to work the Commission and staff and partners to advance nature based
adaptation and coastal resilience across California's coast. Thank you.
Thank you. That concludes our public comments. Great. Thank you very much. All right, I'll
return to the commission and begin with Commissioner Preciado.
I just wanted to see if staff could comment. I noted earlier today in the public comments
there was reference made in San Clemente about the hardening structures that are used for
the rail line. And I'm just concerned that, well, it's not a concern, I'm just trying
to see if there's congruity with how we approach saving these beaches that are on that rail
line with nature-based strategies and then the unfortunate challenge we may have one
day where we have to make a choice between the asset of railways rail line service for
passenger and commercial and potentially the challenge of using nature-based adaptation
strategies to protect that rail line.
This weekend or this past weekend the rail line was not working because of continued
challenges it's facing. And so I guess one of the things that I appreciated in the presentation
is there was a claim made throughout the slides about feasibility. And I guess that gives
us enough flexibility. But I'm really I really see that in Oceanside and Carlsbad as was
referenced we're trying to recover the beach. But in other places where we have this much
space I'm just concerned about as we as we just experienced a few months ago
when we were dealing with a nuclear power plant we had environmental goals
that we wanted to meet but we also had this thing extraordinary statewide
resource that we needed to protect so I'm just pointing out if there if we've
considered what the challenge will be when we adopt this excellent policy
that's being presented and when we won't be able to do it because of
feasibility. Through the chair thank you for the question and comments Commissioner
Prossiato I think you know we agree that you know first of all what we're
presenting today and asking for the Commission's vote on is a guidance
document that talks about when it's appropriate to look at these types of
solutions and how and what are the options and as you saw we actually
received a public comment asking us to require it and we did not feel that that
was appropriate because this commission always looks at each case and the facts of that case
in front of it.
And I think the idea is that when it's feasible to do a nature-based solution, that's what
we should be going for.
That's sort of that.
And in the case of San Clemente and OCTA, one of the principal components of the discussion
we've been having with them is the feasibility of San replenishment as an alternative.
And that's something they're looking at.
We're working with OCTA on as part of their overall package of options for that rail line,
so it's part of the discussion.
But I think we all acknowledge that there are places, you know, you have to look at
the facts of each case, and there are, you know, on the open coast, we have some very
energetic coastlines where there are places where nature-based solutions, depending on
what you're talking about, of course, may not be effective depending on your goal, and
other places where it is very effective.
And I think what I appreciate about the guidance here and what we're trying to communicate
to practitioners and to the public is when it's appropriate, this is where we should
be headed.
And that's why you see words like feasibility because there are cases where it may not be.
And we're governed by the Coastal Act and what's allowable under the Coastal Act, and
so we have to focus on that as well.
So I'm not sure I've totally answered your question, but I understand you're ... Yeah,
Yeah, I know, I really understand what you're saying and again, the theme of today, maybe
the Commission in general is balance and trying to understand how do we look at each case
and figure out the best way to protect the coastal resources and communities and all
the things that we want for our coastline.
And that's our continued challenge.
And this is one tool and a very important tool in our toolbox.
And just one quick comment while I'm on, I have the floor is the Surfers Point example
is a great example where that was, it's been a very successful example of resilience, a
nature-based solution providing that resilience for this area of the coastline.
I think we're going to be back in winter in July and we had been contemplating trying
to do a field trip down to see it.
We weren't able to do it this month given our compressed timeline, but we'll see if
we can't pull that together because I think it illustrates that there are places where
this makes sense and it's doable, it's feasible, and is the best solution for a number of reasons.
And so we want to make sure we're highlighting those examples where possible and looking
for all other opportunities to implement nature-based solutions.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, just to notice, as an engineer who's done several projects, bioengineering projects,
and with tribal clients, I heard two definitions of traditional today.
was traditional engineering in terms of rocks and then traditional in terms of tribals.
So I want to reference that sometimes we use the word conventional now as opposed to traditional
because we don't know whose tradition we're talking about and we don't even know how long
it's been.
So I just want to point that out for future reference.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
I just want to acknowledge the work that went into this and I personally am thrilled to
see this come before us.
I'm happy to make a motion unless anyone else would like to speak on this.
Okay. I move the commission adopt the nature based adaptation strategies,
guidance pursuant to the staff recommendation and ask for a yes vote.
Second.
Some motion by vice chair Hart, a second by commissioner Wilson.
They're asking for a yes vote. And for this first vote, we'll do a roll call.
Thank you. All right. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley. Yes.
Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante. Yes. Commissioner Hart.
yes. Hart. Yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson. Yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly. Yes. Commissioner
Lee. Yes. Lee. Yes. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Lowenberg. Yes. Lowenberg. Yes.
Commissioner Notoff. Aye. Notoff. Yes. Commissioner Presiado. Yes. Presiado. Yes. Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Awesome.
Thank you.
Excellent work.
Thank you very much.
And now we are going to break for lunch, please.
Everyone, we plan to be back at 2 o'clock.
Commissioners, we're going to go into closed session
in the back room, please.
We have lunch, too, just for commissioners.
The lunch is in the right.
If you go out the store, I wait across the hall.
OK.
I tried.
Thank you.
I hope everyone had a nice lunch.
Thanks guys.
We are going back into session now and I believe we are on item 7, the administrative.
Oh, yes.
Council, please go ahead.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
At lunch, the Commission met in closed session.
It received litigation information and advice regarding Costumera Homeowners Association
versus Coastal Commission.
And it voted to vacate its July 10th, 2019 approval of CDP 216-0784 for proposed shoreline
armoring by two Murata Ownership Group and Casimir Homeowners Association.
The Commission also received litigation information and advice and took action on the following
cases.
Porter versus California Coastal Commission, California Coastal Commission versus Surface
Transportation Board, Pond versus City of Del Mar at all, and Bel Air Bay Club versus
California Coastal Commission. It also received litigation information advice
on Space Exploration Technologies Corporation versus California Coastal
Commission and that concludes my report. Thank you Ms. Warren. Okay now we are at
item 7. Thank you. Thank you and item 7 is the administrative permits for all
districts on our agenda today. Staff is not aware of any opposition to the two
administrative permits being reported and we are asking whether four or more
commissioners object to the approval of the administrative permits being
reported today. Thank you very much. Are there any ex partes to report? Any public
comments? We just have one Marissa Morales available for questions. No
public speakers. Great. Thank you very much. Do four more commissioners object
to either of the items on the administrative calendar? Seeing no
objections the Commission can curse thank you and that brings us to item 8
which is the consent calendar for all districts on the agenda today there are
two items on the consent calendar and staff is not aware of any opposition to
these matters both applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendation
and your staff is recommending the Commission vote and approve this item
great thank you mr. Hudson any ex partes any public comments no speakers great
Thank you. Any comments questions or I'll entertain a motion. Move to second. That's
a motion by Commissioner Lowenberg I believe a second by Commissioner Kelly.
Any objections to unanimous consent? Seeing no objections the consent calendar
is adopted. Now to those items that have been removed from the regular
calendar please. Thank you and that does bring us to item 9. Applications to be
Be moved from regular to the consent calendar, and that's for all the districts on the agenda today
As mentioned during the agenda changes this morning
There are five items that staff is recommending be moved to consent those are item 11 D the city of Malibu
LCP amendment dealing with a rezone for two parcels
item 11 e
the county of Ventura
LCP amendment time extension for an ADU ordinance and that's a time extension only
Item 14a the City of LA Department of Public Work CDP application
Item 14b the Lucky Eights LLC CDP application and item 17b
that is the Port of Long Beach and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife joint CDP application
Now there is an addendum for item 14a
That is the CDP application for the city of LA is retaining wall that retaining wall would be
320 feet long and would support the failing Vista Del Mar roadway
which is the first public road adjacent to Dockweiler County Beach and
our
Our addendum addresses comments raised during the Commission's tribal consultation process
After publication of the staff report coastal Commission staff received an email from the Gabriel a no band of Mission Indians
Quiche Nation requesting that our Special Condition 6, which requires monitoring by
both a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor, be revised to only allow
for Native American monitors from their particular tribe to be used.
However, Special Condition 6 requires the city to invite all Gabrieleno-affiliated
Native American tribes recognized by the Native American Heritage Commission to be monitors
for the project's ground-disturbing activities, and in this case, Commission staff would note
that there are multiple Gabria-Lano-affiliated tribes within this area that would potentially
qualify, and thus limiting the potential monitors to a particular tribe would not be appropriate
in this case or comply with our environmental justice policy, and thus, staff continues
to recommend this item be approved with the special conditions listed in the staff report
without changes.
In closing, staff is not aware of any opposition
to any of the other items being moved to consent today,
and we're recommending the commission vote
and approve this item.
Staff is available for questions.
Great, thank you.
Are there any ex partes?
Any public comments?
Yes, we have a couple speakers.
I'll just note that for item 11D,
we have two people in person, Joseph Smith and John Heights.
They're available for questions.
For item 14B, we have Brandon Strauss on Zoom.
Brandon, go ahead when you're able to.
Brandon, I see that you're unmuted.
Okay.
Yes, I'm sorry.
I was joining while you sit now speak.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
My only purpose in speaking is to attain the right
to speak if there is a full hearing for item number 14B.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Moving to item 17B, we have John Carter.
John Carter, when you're able to, please unmute.
Hi there.
Thank you to the California Coastal Commission,
Chair and Commissioners.
On behalf of the Amigos to Bolsa Chica,
I wanna offer our full support
of this coastal development permit
that will result in the removal of non-native vegetation
and installation of fire-resistant native plant species
within the lower Bolsa Chica Mesa
of the Bolsa Chica Eglot Reserve.
I wanted to commend the commission staff,
College Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Board of Long Beach, and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust
for their efforts in putting together
and presenting this plan
that will convert these mitigation credits
into additional restored habitat at Bolsa Chica.
This application includes really well thought out conditions
that protect the adjacent coastal sage scrub,
the wetlands, other environmentally sensitive habitat areas,
the animals therein while also minimizing impact on the underlying land and maintaining sensitivity
to the importance of dislocation with our local tribes. Although this funding provides only for
about two acres of restoration effort and three years of monitoring, this is going to be a great
test case for what one day will hopefully be a much larger effort to restore fire resilient
native habitat on much of the lower bench of the Bulsa Tica. It's also especially pleasing to know
that all the plants to be used in the restoration effort will be sourced from seed taken from
within the reserve and that will be grown on site by the Bolsa Chica Land Trust Stewards.
And just want to thank everybody again for this effort. Thank you all.
Thank you. For item 17B, we also have the applicant's representative, Holly Harris,
in person available for questions, as well as two people from the Bolsa Chica Land Trusts
available for questions on zoom for item w19a there's one available for
questions there are no other speakers great thank you very much I will return
to the Commission any comments questions or a motion I move approval of items
consent items removed from the regular calendar thank you second it's a motion
by commissioner not off a second by Commissioner Kelly any objections to
unanimous consent the motion carries thank you mr. Hudson thank you and that
does bring us to item 10 this is the deputy directors report for the South
Central Coast District which this month includes two emergency permits one
emergency waiver and one certification review in regard to that first emergency
permit I would note that it was issued to the University of California at Santa
Barbara, UCSB, for temporary placement and operation of five self-contained solar-powered
mobile security units and these are small trailers equipped with security surveillance
cameras and lighting and their purpose is to deter crime in remote areas of the campus
where there is limited or no lighting and this is a temporary measure while the university
develops a plan for a more permanent security lighting system that would be appropriate
for sensitive habitat areas.
Now, as some commissioners may recall,
members of the student body spoke at our public comment
period a few months back regarding concerns,
regarding student safety, and this emergency action today
is in response to their concerns.
Now, your staff coordinated with the university staff
to ensure that this is a temporary measure only,
as these lights are relatively bright.
and they would be allowed for 90 days only
with the requirement that the university
come back to the commission
with a notice of impending development
for more permanent security lighting
that would be more appropriate for these natural areas.
In addition, the second emergency permit
was also issued to UCSB,
and that was for the temporary placement of 700 sandbags
for erosion protection of the university's Lagoon-Burm Road,
which is located at Campus Point,
for a period of approximately two weeks,
after which time the sandbags were required to be removed.
There is also an emergency permit waiver
by the Santa Barbara County Flood Control District,
and that is for work pursuant to section 30611
of the Coastal Act, and it allowed for removal
of a little less than 15,000 cubic yards of sediment
from Carneiro's Creek and San Pedro Creek and debris basins
and deposition of the material
on the surf zone at Galita Beach.
and that was necessary to prevent flooding
of surrounding urban areas.
Now, lastly, we have one certification review
being reported today, and that's for an LCP amendment
by Santa Barbara County that was to update
its housing ordinance that primarily rezoned four parcels
to accommodate multifamily and affordable housing
necessary to meet the requirements of state law.
The county's amendment was approved by the commission
at our November meeting, and the executive director
has determined that the local government's subsequent action accepting all of the Commission's
suggested modifications pursuant to a resolution is legally adequate and thus this amendment
will become certified, certified upon being reported today.
This matter is being reported pursuant to our regulations and does not require any additional
action or concurrence.
Staff is not aware of any opposition to any of the items being reported and we are asking
Seeing whether three or more commissioners object to any of the items for which action
is needed today in the deputy director's report.
Staff is available for questions.
Thank you Mr. Hudson.
Any ex partes?
Seeing none, any public comments?
There are no speakers.
We just have one from the county of Santa Barbara available for questions.
Great.
Thank you, Chris.
Do three or more commissioners object?
Seeing no objections, Mr. Hudson, the commission concurs.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, and that brings us to item 11a which will be presented by Sam Fuhrer, a coastal program
analyst in our south central coast district. We do have a powerpoint for this if we could pull that up.
Right, good afternoon commissioners. Item 11a is an LCP amendment proposed by the,
thank you, proposed by the county of Santa Barbara to add provisions to its certified
implementation plan slash coastal zoning ordinance to implement new state housing law
that would incorporate streamlined permit processing and ministerial review for qualifying
housing projects in certain areas of the coastal zone. Specifically, the amendment incorporates
the requirements of Government Code Section 65913.4, which is also referred to as Senate Bill 423.
Because the proposed amendment only includes changes to the implementation plan portion of
of the LCP, the standard of review is the policies of the County Certified Land Use
Plan.
Government Code Section 65913.4 creates a streamlined ministerial approval process for
eligible affordable housing development projects located in jurisdictions that have not yet
met their housing element targets related to regional housing needs or that have not
yet adopted a compliant housing element.
The law also includes criteria to determine a project's eligibility for the streamlined
ministerial approval process, requiring that the proposed development is a multifamily
housing development that contains two or more residential units, provides a certain percentage
of affordable units, is located on a site where at least 75% of the perimeter of the
site adjoins parcels developed with quote-unquote urban uses, and meets certain labor and make
made and wage requirements. In addition, project sites are required to be located in an urban area
zoned for multifamily housing and not located within the commission's geographic appeal
jurisdiction within 100 feet of a wetland on prime agricultural land in areas vulnerable to
five feet of sea level rise or within other designated statewide exclusion areas.
Local governments in the coastal zone are required to approve a qualifying streamlined housing project
ministerially if it is consistent with all the objective standards of the certified LCP.
The proposed amendment creates a new ordinance to establish procedures for a streamlined
ministerial approval process for coastal development permits for qualifying housing projects.
Rather than restating the requirements of the government code section,
The LCP largely relies upon external references to the applicable sections of the law.
While the proposed ordinance is consistent with the requirements of current state housing law,
the ordinance also includes external reference to the term successor statutes of government code
section 65913.4 in order to accommodate future changes to current state housing law.
although government code section 65913.4 currently contains safeguards for coastal resources
through citing requirements and through application of objective standards protective of coastal
resources future updates to or successor statutes of government code section 65913.4
could have adverse impacts to coastal resources staff is therefore recommending suggested
and modifications to strike reference to successor statutes, to include the effective dates of
the external codes referenced in the LCP amendment, and to provide clarification regarding project
eligibility.
There is an addendum to this item that incorporates several minor changes to staff's suggested
modifications, providing additional clarification and adding two additional exhibits, and also
addresses issues raised in public comments on the item.
Two interested parties submitted comments for this item.
Following publishing of the staff report, two emails were received from Yana Zimmer
who requests that additional suggested modifications be required by the Commission.
Ms. Zimmer asserts that the proposed amendment should be modified to clarify that
that, quote, qualifying streamlined housing projects, unquote, as defined through the
Government Code section, includes projects that contain two units to require that qualifying
projects not be subject to a preliminary application or notice of intent requirement and to allow
qualifying housing projects to obtain exceptions to objective fire hazard standards.
The County of Santa Barbara has reviewed Ms. Zimmer's comments and has provided a response
letter which states that the county is not in agreement with any of the changes requested
by Ms. Zimmer and notes that the county is currently in litigation with Ms. Zimmer regarding
implementation of Senate Bill 9, a bill that was mentioned in Ms. Zimmer's comments but
is unrelated to the proposed amendment.
Commissioned staff concurs with county staff that the changes requested by Ms. Zimmer are
unnecessary as the provisions of government code section 65913.4 which is incorporated by reference
in the LCP amendment already provide that projects involving two units may qualify as multifamily
development. Secondly, the removal of a requirement for preliminary application or notice of intent
for eligible projects would be inconsistent with the county's LUP and would reduce a local
government's timeline for engagement in tribal consultation, a process that is protected
through the provisions of SB 423.
And thirdly, a waiver of objective fire hazard standards for eligible projects would be inconsistent
with the county's LUP and would constitute a discretionary action, which is incompatible
with the requirements of SB 423.
Animal criteria for eligible projects that would qualify for expedited processing are
listed on this slide.
Thus, staff recommends denial of the amendment as submitted and approval with two suggested
modifications as listed in the staff report, with only the minor changes made pursuant
to the addendum.
If modified as suggested, the proposed implementation plan amendment will conform with, and be adequate
to carry out, the applicable policies of the certified Santa Barbara County Land Use Plan.
The two motions to carry out this action begin on page five of the staff report.
This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions.
Okay.
Wonderful.
Thank you very much.
I will turn to my fellow commissioners and ask if there are any ex partes to report.
I will note that I did receive an email from Yana Zimmer that reflected the same information
that was referenced by our staff and I did not respond.
That was the extent of our communication.
So with that, I will open the public hearing
and I will turn it to our staff.
There are no speakers.
Okay, no speakers.
Not even from the local government?
Madam Chair.
Okay, great.
Could you disclose the date of that email please?
Yes, just a moment.
was it within the last seven days?
Thank you.
Yes, it was.
Okay.
Then I will close the public hearing
and assume that our staff doesn't have a response,
but I'll turn it to you if you would like to make one.
Mr. Hudson?
No response, thank you.
Great, thank you.
Back to the commission, comments, questions.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'll move that the commission reject
County of Santa Barbara implementation plans,
backslash Coastal Zoning Ordinance Amendment number,
LC p-4-s tb-2 4-0 064-2 as submitted. I recommend a yes vote second
That is a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly. They're asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimous consent
Well, I had a question
Commissioner not off could I ask the staff? So
Do I understand your reasoning for?
Not not amending it so that because you think there's sufficient flexibility to require
multiple units
Is that correct because we want we want to?
encourage multiple units and affordable by design
Construction in these areas. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for asking that and yes, we we do feel that it does have all the flexibility
necessary to accommodate multifamily the
Essentially the county incorporated SP 423 in its entirety in the ordinance and so we have this reference incorporated into the LCP
The requests were really what we believe is unrelated to the need for multifamily housing
Thank You Commissioner. Okay any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none. The first motion is adopted Commissioner Wilson the second motion
I move that the Commission certify County of Santa Barbara implementation plan slash coastal zoning ordinance amendment number LCP dash four dash STB
Dash two four dash zero zero five. Oh, excuse me six or
Dash two if it is modified as suggested in the staff report second
Motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion is approved. And if I got that one digit wrong on the first one so noted
So noted, thank you very much. Okay, that brings us to item 11 B, please
All right. Thank you. And item 11 B will be presented by Michelle Kubran the Coastal Resiliency Coordinator in our South Central Coast District
We do have a PowerPoint presentation for this and if we could pull that up, please and Michelle take it away
All right. Thanks, Steve. Good afternoon commissioners. Item 11b is a request from the County of Ventura
to amend its LCP to update existing coastal hazard policies and provisions in response to sea level rise.
As illustrated on this slide, the County's LCP divides the coast into three
geographic sub areas. The North Coast sub area extends from Rincon Point to the city of Ventura and has six distinct
residential communities, and relatively narrow beaches.
The Central Coast sub-area has wide sandy beaches
and active agricultural fields,
along with the residential beach communities
of Hollywood and Silver Strand.
The South Coast sub-area includes agriculture,
naval-based Ventura County, the Santa Monica Mountains,
two pockets of beachfront residential development,
and narrow beaches.
Ventura County received two grants
from the Coastal Commission's
local assistance grant program to address sea-level rise in its LCP.
The first grant assisted in the preparation of the County's sea-level rise vulnerability
assessment and adaptation strategies report, and the second grant assisted with development
of the LCP policies and provisions of the subject amendment.
Next slide, please.
Included in the updated policies and provisions are new coastal hazard screening area maps
that identify areas potentially affected by hazards
as a result of future sea level rise.
The amendment would also add a framework of procedures
for evaluating proposed development
in these coastal hazard areas.
This framework includes
requiring site-specific coastal hazard evaluations,
as well as citing and design techniques
to minimize risk from hazards
without reliance on shoreline armoring.
The suite of design techniques required by the amendment
include requiring structures on a bluff
sandy beach to be designed for relocation or removal and requiring structures to be elevated
above flood levels while ensuring consistency with the visual resource protection policies of the LCP.
The amendment also adds new definitions such as a definition for substantial redevelopment
that establishes thresholds for when a structure is so modified that it should be considered a new
structure and be subject to the current standards of the LCP. Additionally, the amendment adds new
standards for shoreline protective devices and preserves the language of
Coastal Act section 30235 including that only coastal dependent uses, public
beaches, and existing structures in danger of erosion are entitled to
shoreline armoring. Commission and county staff have coordinated extensively on
specific language for the proposed policies and provisions including the
suggested modifications a few of which were requested by the county and all of
which are intended as clarifications
rather than substantive changes.
For example, proposed policy 1.34 requires applicants
to acknowledge that their development may encroach
on public trust land in the future.
However, the policy as proposed does not clarify
that such encroachment is not allowed
without proper authorization.
Commission and county staff worked together
to come to agreement on LUP suggested modification one
and IP suggested modification two,
which clarified that the county's approval of development
in a coastal hazard area,
does not permit encroachment on public trust land.
And if the development comes to be located
on public trust land, it must be removed
unless the commission authorizes it to remain.
Another example of commission
and county staffs cooperation is regarding a proposed
broad exception to the LCP's coastal hazard policies
and provisions for public works projects.
Commission and county staff worked together
to craft LUP suggested modifications two and three
to clarify that if it would be infeasible
to design a public works project
to the sea level rise scenario required by the LLCP,
a lower sea level rise scenario can be used.
There are two addendums to the staff report.
The first addendum adds a suggested modification
at the request of the county for a minor clarification
as well as adds three letters of correspondence,
none of which raise any issues
that have not already been addressed in the staff report.
The second addendum response to a letter
received from the Surf Rider Foundation
after publication of the staff report and the first addendum
that expresses general support for the amendment
and outlines several concerns,
including the use of the amendment certification date
as the baseline for counting cumulative development
that would meet the definition of substantial redevelopment.
This and Surf Rider's other concerns
are addressed in the second addendum.
This morning we received an additional letter
from Surf Rider requesting the county
use the earliest incremental alteration documented
in county or commission records
as the date for cumulative redevelopment.
Staff would note that while we would also prefer alterations
that occurred prior to this LCP amendment
be counted toward the cumulative development threshold,
the county does not agree with this approach
since they lack sufficient records
and commission staff believe the proposed language
was a necessary compromise to bring this amendment forward.
I would also like to note that county and commission staff
have worked together for almost 10 years
to bring this amendment that contains many important
coastal hazard and sea level rise updates
to you for certification.
And county staff are in agreement
with the staff recommendation.
In conclusion, commission staff believes
that the suggested modifications
that have been cooperatively developed with county staff
for the proposed land use amendment
meets the requirements of and is in conformity
with the chapter three policies of the Coastal Act
and the proposed implementation plan amendment conforms with
and is adequate to carry out the land use plan amendment,
land use plan as amended.
As such, staff recommends that the commission
reject the proposed amendment as submitted
and approve the amendment only if modified
pursuant to the suggested modifications.
Because this amendment includes changes to both the LUP
and IP components of the county's LCP,
there are four separate motions necessary
to carry out the staff recommendation,
which can be found on pages six through eight
of the staff report.
Lastly, I'd like to thank county staff,
including Dave Ward, Aaron Engstrom, and Brittany Weber.
It has been a pleasure to work with them,
and we sincerely appreciate the extensive coordination
and collaboration required to process this amendment.
This concludes staff's presentation,
and we are available for any questions.
Great, thank you so much.
Are there any ex partes?
All right, seeing none, we'll open the public hearing.
I'll turn it to you, Chris.
All right, we have nine speakers for this item.
We have seven in person.
We'll start with Don Schmitz,
followed by Robert Bruner and Dave Ward.
Don Schmitz.
Afternoon commissioners, I'll keep it very brief.
These are complicated documents.
I was happy to assist with the consultant
with the county of Ventura,
try and iron out some of the wrinkles
and I can see that a lot of work was done
by Dave Ward and his staff, with your coastal staff.
There's a couple issues that perhaps, from my perspective,
I'd like to see a little bit more fine-tuning on,
but I do recognize that this is a very well thought-out
document.
It's important that we get these LCP amendments done
to address coastal hazards.
I do note that there is specific verbiage in there
to deal with nature-based adaptation policies
as you just adopted.
It seems like those reference specifically infrastructure
improvements and things of that nature.
But that being said, I think it's a very well done job
by both the coastal staff and the county.
And I just wanted to put that on the record.
Thank you.
Next, we actually have Dave Ward and then Robert Bruner,
than Aaron Ingstrom and Mitch Silverstein.
Hi, I'm Aaron Ingstrom.
Can I speak for Dave Ward?
Let's see, he is still on his way down.
Can we switch our order please?
Of course.
How much time do you need, sir?
Just two minutes is fine.
Thank you.
So thank you, Chair Harmon and the commissioners
and Coast Commission directors and staff
for this opportunity.
My name is Aaron Ingstrom,
and I was the case planner for this project
also a planning manager. It's a pleasure to be here today. The sea level rise and LCP
amendment package has been prepared with extensive coordination with the
coastal staff here, both the local office and the statewide planning office, so
thank you. And we appreciate the guidance that was used to prepare these
amendments and basically they include statewide guidance that's used through
the lens of local conditions right and so the County of Ventura has
percentage-wise the most armored coastline in California I think 66% of
our coastline is armored and so these amendments basically proposed to get on
a page to reduce reliance on armor over time and so and also is consistent with
the Coastal Act and so we think that this is a good starting point to really
plan for sea level rise and hazards moving into the future and so there's
29 miles of coastline and the amendments ensure resilience and resources are
protected as new development occurs that's expected to last you know 100
years right and so safety is the principal effort of this as well as
coastal resource protection. Programs are included for the future preparation of
neighborhood scale resilience plans and so right now this is planning for the
29 miles of coastline and then we can work on the neighborhood scale plans for
the eight distinct coastal communities working with landowners and you all to
to plan for those each each community in the future suggested modifications were
reviewed by county management and they do not alter the goals and policies that
in the amendments.
While the disclosure text we submitted was preferred, the modification adds more specificity
and is an accurate statement.
We appreciate the public comments that were submitted today and during previous phases
of the project.
The Surf Riders Foundation has supported the project in general.
We would like it to go further with removal of shoreline protective devices.
We agree with the staff of responses in the addendum that the amendments before you include
key compromises that are consistent with the Coastal Act.
Today we were notified of the request to modify a policy 1.9 to track cumulative new development
from the date of the earliest permit record.
This change would not constitute good zoning practice because it would set variable standard,
treat applicants differently based on permit records, and that's not a suitable basis for
for these critical policies moving forward.
Overall, these amendments represent a balanced approach
that phases in resilience as new development occurs
and requires planning for 100 years into the future
with the intermediate high scenario
for most of the development that's expected.
While reducing reliance on shoreline protective devices
over time, elevating to accommodate for sea level rise.
We think that the amendments are,
This approach is consistent with the Coastal Act and legal precedent and you know limits
neutral and protected devices for private development consistent with case law in the
Coastal Act.
So please certify the amendments before you today and we appreciate your time and thank
you for coming to Ventura County.
Thank you sir.
Thank you.
Is Dave Ward here?
Hello.
Thank you.
Chair Harmon, commissioners, Dave Ward, County Planning Director, Aaron Engstrom did a great
job providing you on the overview. We really do appreciate the time your staff
in particular spent with us both the local office and the state office. This
is an important issue for our community and obviously important for your
commission statewide. The amount and degree of time that staff spent with us
really allowed us to drill down on key provisions and make sure that the LCP
amendment that you have before you today really does fit and address the issues
of resiliency and specifically the local context and that part is really important that local
context and that our efforts will set the stage now for our future implementation at the neighborhood
scale and see how we can progress that for our important communities. So thank you again for
your time and intention and thank you for your staff for partnering with us on this amendment.
Thank you. Thank you. Next is Robert Brunner, Mitch Silverstein, Bill Hickman and Leslie Purcell.
Robert Brunner not seeing anyone approach.
Mitch Silverstein.
Thank you about presentation for this item.
Give our team a moment to bring it up.
Sure.
And I'll be sharing the same presentation with the following speaker as well.
So I'm sure leave it up.
Ready?
OK, Chair Harmon and Commissioner Mitch Silverstein, Sirfighter Foundation.
Sirfighter submitted several concerns regarding Ventura County's LCP amendment.
We really appreciate staff taking the time to consider our
and respond via an addendum.
Seeing there is conceptual agreement between us and staff
regarding LCP policy 1.9,
and in respecting the many years of work on this
between county commission staff,
we're asking for one simple suggestion
to strengthen this policy.
Next slide.
Gonna just dive in.
Policy 1.9 of this LCP governs substantial redevelopment.
The policy echoes current commission regulations.
Substantial redevelopment means
that when a structure is more than 50% replaced
at once or cumulatively over time,
it's treated as a new development and requires a CDP.
Next slide.
This is critical for existing structures,
those built pre-Coastal Act,
because they're entitled to certain types
of shoreline armoring.
However, when they substantially redeveloped,
they lose that entitlement.
Next slide.
New development is governed by section 30253
of the Coastal Act or policy 1.11 in the CDP.
Among other things,
new development shall not contribute to erosion,
destroy the surrounding area,
or in any way require construction of shoreline armoring.
This ensures that new developments must respect our beaches
and therefore public access to them as well.
Next slide.
Back to policy 1.9, we've identified one critical flaw.
If approved as written, it would set today
as the new baseline for calculating cumulative
redevelopment of existing structures
toward that 50% threshold.
This would reset the clock on 50 years
of incremental redevelopment for all existing structures
on the coast in the county.
This is unfair and out of line with the Coastal Act,
which has been state law since 1977.
We asked for 1977 to be the baseline date.
Next slide.
In their addendum, commission staff agreed with us,
in theory, but the county claims
to not have all these records,
and staff is willing to compromise on this.
Next slide.
With respect to both commission staff and the county,
we offer a simple compromise.
If the county or the commission
has accurate records of redevelopment,
then they must be accounted for.
I'll pass it to Bill Hickman. Hello commissioners, my name is Bill Hickman
with the Surfrider Foundation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
Continuing on, if no records exist then you date the date you certified the LCP
prevails. This is in line with current Commission practice when attempting to
account for cumulative redevelopment and CDPs for existing structures. Next slide
please. To that end, we suggest an amendment to the sections of policy 1.9 that set the LCP
certification date as the baseline for the cumulative redevelopment. Replace the line,
insert certification date of LCP amendments in sections A, B, C, and F with the following
language or similar. The date this LCP amendment is certified or the date of the earliest
incremental alteration documented in county or commission permit records, whichever is earlier.
Next slide, please. The language would better balance the rights of the public with those
who own the existing structures on the beach. I would update the second line to shoreline
armoring is slowly destroying some of Ventura County's beaches, public access and surf spots.
In the presentation earlier, the north coast section that folks in Ventura refer to as
Rincon Parkway is heavily armored, probably 90% plus. Those are some of the most popular beaches
for people in Ventura. I live here in town and go to the beach between Emma Wood and
Solomare there on the summer. I need to check the tide charts before I go there to make sure that's
not high tide because there's going to be close to zero beach. That is so heavily armored right
before you get to Solomar, there's a section where the seawall ends. There's some rip-rap
there, but the beach is trying to expand further. That's where people can go hang out at high tide,
the only spot. So we really need to protect that area from further armoring that's going to
eliminate the beach, and we encourage you to entertain a motion to amend the language as
suggested in Policy 1.9 in keeping with the Coastal Act mandate to maximize public access.
protect coastal resources. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Leslie Purcell.
Good afternoon, Commission. I'm Leslie Purcell. I support what Surf Rider was just
speaking about. That seems like a reasonable intention. Also, of course, we
would support the natural protections and dune replenishment. One thing that
would help with that is when Matilla Dam comes down and we get more actual sand
coming down the Ventura River watershed. We need to of course focus on native
plants and coastal dune plants, we have a lot of our rendeau that's coming down
and re-sprouting along the beaches and other places it's a real problem so more
native plants we can get in there the better. I'd like to also mention tribal
involvement the local Schumash people should be involved in these issues and
finally thank you for your work. Thank you we were just missing one speaker
Robert Brunner if you are here now. Okay I'm not seeing anyone approach. There are
no more speakers. Okay thank you Chris I with that I'll close the public hearing
on return to our staff if they have any closing comments they'd like to make.
Anything from you, Mr. Hudson?
All right, thank you.
I'll just keep it brief then and note that we are available for questions.
First I'd just like to provide an overarching summary of how we got here and just note that
this has been a long effort and it has been about five years since we first began discussions
with the county on before we brought this LCP amendment to the commission.
That involved numerous quite literally uncountable meetings and negotiations over those five
years.
And in that early coordination, county and commission staff were much, much farther apart
on issues and policies.
And it may have even seemed insurmountable at times.
But both our staffs kept at it.
And first, I'd like to thank the county staff, and Dave Ward, and Aaron Inkstrom, and their
staff for continuing, not giving up and continuing to work with our staff, and we were successful.
Now, many of those disagreements that we began with, we were able to reach many, many changes
with the county, and that involved compromises, but in the end, it made it a much better and
stronger local coastal program amendment.
I would also like to thank Surf Rider today because the changes requested by Surf Rider,
our staff are not in disagreement with.
In fact, many of those are the same changes that your staff initially requested the county
make as part of their submittal.
However, during those many discussions, the county made it quite clear that those changes
are not acceptable to the county and thus we sought to find balanced compromise policy
language and staff feels that we've found that this is a very balanced LCP amendment.
Did we get everything that we would have wanted in a sea level rise update?
No.
But on the whole, we do feel that this is an incredibly strong LCP amendment which has
so many important updates to address sea level rise that we wholeheartedly recommend approval
of this.
And because this was such a long and complex set of negotiations, we do not recommend today
that we make any additional changes to those suggested modifications.
Of course, we leave that in your good judgment.
I would just note that we did talk with both the county and Surf Rider about these requested
changes and the County has confirmed that they're not in agreement with the
changes that surf rider is requesting today. We do believe that without those
changes that this is still a comprehensive LCP amendment addressing
sea level rise and so with that I'll just note that we are here for questions
and we leave this to your good judgment. Thank You Mr. Hudson. Okay well I will
I will return to the Commission, comments, questions.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yeah, thank you.
First I want to express my appreciation for all the work
that you all have done for the many years
at working through the county.
And I'm really happy to see any kind of LCP amendments
dealing with sea level rise welcome.
I mean, certainly.
I'm very sympathetic to some of what the firefighter folks said.
And I guess my question is, and I realize it's our prerogative.
We want to make changes, but I realize to some extent that
might be fatal one way or the other.
My question is about the 1977 date.
And I guess my question might be more for you, Louise.
We have some of the case that we talk about in existing
and whatnot.
So if we decide today to take it as is, as presented by staff,
does that in any way sort of put any of our previous
or ongoing discussions about what is existing
versus not existing in peril in any way?
I don't believe so.
I think that the same analysis would take place
for interpreting that term in this LCP
as our findings reflect,
and that the court decision would still mean
that that is the way that existing structures
should be interpreted for this IP.
All right, thank you.
Appreciate it.
Any other comments?
Motion?
Commissioner Wilson I know we've had some discussions with our local
government sea level rise group I'm just kind of wondering if there if that let
its way into through these discussions I'm sure indirectly they did I'm not
sure how directly in you know engage the local government working group has been
on this particular LCP but again as those discussions have evolved over time
time, the concepts we've talked about in that local government working group, you're seeing
them more and more come into these LCP amendments. So for certain, those concepts, many of those
concepts are reflected in this amendment.
Including some of the regional responses, AKA neighborhood. Okay. I'm happy to make
a motion unless someone else wants to do that. And it says four motions, isn't that correct?
I move the Commission certified land use planning amendment number LCP-4-VNT-25-0032-2 as submitted
by the County of Ventura and I recommend a no vote.
I'll second that.
So that's a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by me.
We're asking for a no vote.
Any objections to unanimous no?
Opposition?
opposition okay seeing no objections the motion I move that the Commission
certify land use plan amendment number LCP dash four dash V and T dash two five
dash zero zero three two dash two for the County of Ventura if it is modified as
suggested in this staff report and I recommend a yes vote second motion by
Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly any objection to
unanimous consent. Seeing none the motion carries. I move that the Commission
reject implementation plan amendment number LCP-4-VNT-25-0032-2
for the County of Ventura as submitted and I recommend a yes vote.
Second. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Wilson. Second by Commissioner Kelly.
They're asking for a yes vote. Any objections to unanimous approval? Seeing
And then motion carries.
And before I go into the last motion,
I just want to thank the staff for the work.
I want to thank the County of Ventura for all the work.
And I want to thank Surf Rider for all the work
because what was the term that Jose
that you had mentioned to me earlier today, Mr. Presiado,
is something about positive turbulence,
I think is what you called it.
Something to that effect.
Anyways, these, as we, these are not easy issues
and in its dynamic in so many ways, the ocean is dynamic,
that coastline is dynamic, time is dynamic
in terms of sea level rise, the boundaries
in which we are dealing with this change constantly.
And even the legal structures seem to be,
sometimes a part of the discussion.
And so I think everybody's working on this in a way
that is both positive and authentic.
And so with that, I move that the commission certify
implementation plan amendment number LCP-4-VNT-25-0032-2
for the county of Ventura if it is modified as suggested
in the staff report.
And I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
Motion by Commissioner Wilson,
second by Commissioner Kelly.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the commission concurs
and I echo Commissioner Wilson's gratitude
and congratulations, this is a very big deal, thank you.
Okay, let's continue on.
Thank you, and that brings us to item 11C,
and this item will be presented by Brooke Lutz,
coastal program analyst in our south central coast district. We do have a
PowerPoint presentation for this if we could pull that up please and Brooke
take it away. Good afternoon commissioners. Item 11c is an amendment to
the implementation plan portion of the City of Ventura local coastal program
or LCP. The proposed amendment would add new provisions regulating short-term
vacation rentals in home stays including definitions, development standards,
permitting procedures, nuisance response plans, and enforcement provisions. Next
slide please. The City of Ventura has regulated short-term rentals since 2007
when a local ordinance established the initial permitting framework in the
City's municipal code. However, these regulations have never been incorporated
into the certified LCP and therefore do not currently apply in the coastal zone.
Thus, the proposed amendment aims to incorporate the existing short-term
vacation rental and home stay framework outlined in the uncertified municipal
code into the certified LCP to regulate short-term rentals within the coastal
zone. Specifically, the amendment defines a short-term vacation rental as the use
of an entire dwelling unit other than a unit located in a hotel rented to a
tenant for a period of no more than 30 consecutive days and defines a home stay
as a short-term rental and an owner-occupied dwelling. Both unhosted
short-term visitor rentals and hosted homestays would be permitted in all
residential zones with a ministerial permit subject to annual renewal and
in order to minimize any potential impacts to the character of
residential neighborhoods and to preserve housing stock while still
allowing for continued operation of short-term rentals the city the city's
LCP amendment includes several limitations on short-term rental
operations including a new provision that new permits for short-term rentals
would be limited to no more than one per owner, with transitional provisions for certain existing
permits that exceed these new ownership or density limits. The amendment also includes
a minimum two-night stay requirement and standards for maximum occupancy, on-site parking, noise,
trash, and complaint response, including a 24-hour nuisance response plan. And these measures are
included to reduce any potential impacts associated with frequent visitor turnover. And further
enforcement provisions would allow for the suspension, revocation, or non-renewal
permits for non-compliance with these standards. Next slide please. The proposed
amendment would limit short-term visitor rentals to using less than 1% of the
total housing stock within the city. However, the proposal also establishes
area-based caps for non-owner occupied short-term rentals by dividing the city
into six neighborhood zones with limits tailored to each area based on historic
short-term rental usage and local conditions. This approach accounts for differences in
existing short-term rental concentrations and housing patterns, and notably there are
no limits proposed for homestays. As shown here, proposed caps would limit short-term
rentals in the Avenue neighborhood zone to a maximum of 40 units, 100 units in downtown,
100 in Pierpont, 35 in Midtown, 35 in the Harbor Keys, and 45 in Eastside for a total of 355
non-owner occupied short-term rentals citywide. Based on data provided by city staff, there are
currently 27 permits in the avenue, 84 in downtown, 103 in Pierpont, 19 in Midtown, 17 in the Harbor
Keys, and 19 in Eastside. Thus as proposed the amendment would allow for short-term rentals in
approximately 0.6 of the existing residential units within the city, consistent with historical
use patterns for this area.
In addition to these area-based caps, the amendment establishes density limits, specifically
in the Pierpont neighborhood, and this beachfront community has historically had a particularly
high concentration of short-term rentals due to its location adjacent to the beach with
103 existing permits, or approximately 8.3 percent of the total units within this area.
Under the amendment, short-term rentals in the Pierpont neighborhood would remain capped
at 100, or approximately 8 percent of existing units, and would also be restricted to no
more than 10 percent of dwelling units on any individual lane, and this would typically
result in no more than 1 to 4 short-term rentals on any given lane.
These additional density limitations are intended to preserve neighborhood character while still
balancing short-term rental use with residential needs. Next slide, please. Staff believe that
this amendment represents a balanced approach that allows for an unlimited number of homestays
citywide while placing reasonable restrictions on short-term vacation rentals to protect
neighborhood character, ensure housing availability, and maintain compliance with the Coastal Act
policies. Staff recommends denial of the amendment as submitted and approval with four suggested
Suggested modifications 1 and 2, clarify that the city's short-term rental
vacation and homestay regulations are a part of the certified LCP and apply both
inside and outside of the coastal zone. Suggested modification 3 reinforces
this clarification through revisions to the two maps that were included as
appendices A and B. And lastly suggested modification number 4 makes minor edits
to the proposed text to ensure consistency with the LCP and avoid
ambiguity. These modifications do not change the meaning or substantive provisions of the amendment.
In closing, staff finds that the proposed amendment with these four suggested modifications
is consistent with the city's certified LCP and will not have any adverse impacts on coastal
resources. The motion and resolution to approve this amendment are provided on page six of the
staff report and this concludes staff's presentation and we are available for any questions.
Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I'll ask my fellow commissioners. Any ex partes?
Commissioner Preciado.
I want to report that I had an ex parte on March 4th,
2026 at 4pm via Zoom. And it was initiated by Annie Blemker. And this
Exparte was with two representatives of the short-term rental industry or BMB
That would be Susan McCabe and Jose Alvarado
We discussed recent actions by the California Coastal Commission with regard to Encinitas
the city of Encinitas and the city of Del Mar and then we reviewed the city of Ventura's new proposal and
This is city of Ventura LCP 4 mal
25-007-76-2. And one of the things that was striking about this proposal is the, or that
we discussed, was the level of detail block by block that was proposed in this particular
And whether or not some grandfathering was going to exist.
And lastly, the continued vision from their point of view of this home stay versus short-term
rental unhosted availability of assets that some of these changes can cause or not cause.
And so I just wanted to report that as my ex parte and I'm turning in the form because
I thought I had sent one in earlier today but it was the wrong form.
But anyways, here's the new one.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you.
From the penalty box, I will report that I had an ex parte communication with Jose Alvarado
which was initiated by Susan McKay, Jose is a representative of Airbnb.
We had a 15 minute conversation where concerns were expressed specifically about past action
of the board of the commission approving grandfathering and that not being part of this particular
application and the row by row permit allowance perhaps being to restrict.
Okay, Commissioner Jackson, thank you, Madam Chair.
I also had a conversation yesterday at 1235 with Mr. Alvarado as well initiated by Susan
in McCabe, discussing specifically the potential grandfathering, the Pierpont neighborhood,
and the street by street analysis.
Great. Thank you. Okay. Now we will open the public hearing, and I'll turn it to you,
Chris.
All right. We have five speakers for this item. We'll start with Monica Delahoya from
the City of Ventura here in person.
If you could turn the mic on, Ms. Delahoya.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners. My name is Monica Delahoya.
I'm an Assistant City Attorney for the City of San Buenaventura and in the audience is
Maluja Clense, Assistant Community Development Director. And we are here on behalf of the
City in support of the staff's recommendation. Our presentation is brief and will serve to
provide the Commission with history of how we got here, as well as inform the Commission
of the Extensive Outreach and community support and input that helped us get here.
And may I ask how much time do you need?
Maybe six minutes, is that, yeah.
Thank you, six minutes.
The short term vacation rental ordinance
was first established as said earlier in 2007,
and that was established to address noise,
parking occupancy, other nuisance conditions,
often caused by tenants occupying
single family dwelling duplexes,
some other type of multi-family dwellings.
particularly those concentrated in the Pure Point area.
So performance standards were adopted
in ordinance 2009-004,
following a public engagement process
to create tighter restrictions
and better accountability measures.
And then in 2016 and 2017,
the city held two large public meetings
in order to address the impacts and benefits of...
Oh, sorry.
Next slide, please.
There it is, 2009, the performance standards.
And then you can see that there in 2016 and 2017,
there was outreach again with the community meetings
that I just mentioned.
And then in 2023 is really what kicked off this process
and that got us to this ordinance.
And that was when the city council adopted a goal
of updating the STVR ordinance.
So toward that end,
because, you know, we saw it as, you know,
that there was competing sides to the issue.
The city contracted with the mediator
to convene and conduct a stakeholder process.
However, a year later, the council,
after receiving the stakeholder assessment report,
and in order to move more forward more efficiently
and decisively with the 2023 goal,
they directed staff to return with a review
of Coastal Commission approved ordinances
and that focused on enforcement and other issues.
And then they also directed that we meet
with community members that had different perspectives
on STVRs.
And the four Coastal Commission approved ordinances
that we analyzed and learned from were Oxnard,
Carpentaria, Oceanside and Newport Beach.
Next slide, please.
So as directed by council, staff met
and conducted interviews with 10 community members who provided their perspectives on
homestays, dividing the city into different areas or zones, enforcement parking, improving
program administration, they also provided other issues they wanted council to consider.
And those interviews and that data gathering happened in the summer of 2024.
And this group comprised of community members with STVRs, without STVRs, it included a venture
unified school district board member, business owners,
owners of long-term rentals, members of the community groups,
and STVR neighbors, all city residents.
So October 21st is when a staff first presented
the initial draft version of the ordinance
to a city council subcommittee,
which is the housing and homeless subcommittee.
That version was based on the data from 2016 and 2017,
public hearing input, the interviews with the 10 community members that volunteered
their time.
They had amendments.
We changed it and throughout the next few months, the ordinance, you know, took different
turns and kept being modified based on the input and recommendations we received following
public hearings, whether it was planning commission or city council.
So there was, finally in November 19th, ordinance was introduced.
There was more modifications made.
It was the first reading.
December 10th is when the ordinance was finally adopted.
And then in February and March, we had additional public hearings to be able to submit the LCP
amendment.
So council approved the ordinance in 2024, December 2024.
And what's before you today is a product of ideas from community members who volunteered
their time, Planning Commission, the Subcommittee City Council, and many residents that come
from different points of view regarding STVR, their public comment, their time, their energy.
And so the regulations are guided by actions at other coastal cities, how they regulate
their short-term vacation rentals, and also a desire to balance public access and visitor
serving use of short-term vacation rentals with the need for long-term housing opportunities
in the city. So we appreciate staff's effort and how quickly they were able to bring this
to hearing and the community development director for the City of San Juanamenturas
in support of the suggested modifications and our plan is hopefully after today to return
as soon as possible to council with the next steps before you. Thank you. And we're here
for any questions. Thank you. Next is Terrence Foley. And then we'll move to our Zoom participation
the pence Suzanne McCombs more O'Neill and Jose Alvarado. I'm understanding I
have two minutes is that correct? Great. My name is Terry Foley. It's a big day
for me. Thank you very much for being here. Today marks the 111th month that
I've been asking the city to please put in a STVR ordinance that worked for
everybody. So I'm real happy I like to compliment the city on the work that
they did on getting something that works for everybody.
And when it was accepted by the city in late 2024,
the supposition from the city council was that
the thresholds for the scaling back
of how many individual STVRs one owner could own,
there's a five year sunset for that indicated.
And the city felt that, I'm speaking for the city
and they can correct if I'm wrong or clarify,
but that threshold would take place,
that sunset would take place five years
from the time of adoption by the city.
Now, it took almost eight months for the city
to develop the ordinance into a package
to submit to the Coastal Commission,
and it's taken about another seven months so far
to get to where we are today.
So as we approach two more years,
we don't want it to be, speaking for myself
and the Pierpont Bay Community Council Executive Board
of which I'm a member.
We don't want it to be that this is pushed out
in another two years for the sun setting
of the people who own many, who own multiple STVRs,
while people who are waiting for new STVR permits
are kept from being able to access their permits.
So what we wanna do, what I'm asking on behalf
of the Pierpond Bay Community Council
is that the Coastal Commission have an open mind
that if the city comes back and says
we want the sunset to be at the end of 2029
that the Coastal Commission would allow that
to be incorporated into the form
which is finally adapted and accepted
by the Coastal Commission and by the city.
I hope I've been clear.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next, Suzanne McCombs.
Good afternoon.
Thank you, commissioners and staff.
Sorry, I only have one device active.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this matter. The ordinance revisions were
the result of extensive discussions between concerned parties with the goal to balance
the concerns of neighbors with consideration for the substantial investment made by owners
of affected properties. A critical element of these discussions was the provision of
a sunset period for those permits that were non-compliant that the ordinance took effect.
where existing legal permits might exceed the new caps and for owners that held more
than one existing permit. The presentation of the public hearing in November 24 stated
that the ordinance revision would take effect 30 days after the second reading. Thus, if
the ordinance revision was passed, it was presented. The sunset period would expire
in January of 2030. After public comment was closed, language was added so that the ordinance
revision would not take effect until the Coastal Commission had certified an LCP amendment.
This change without a matching adjustment in the relevant section regarding non-compliant
permits effectively extends the sunset period for an independent period.
After the second reading, the city staff told certain citizens that a clarification would
be included in the LCP amendment presented to the Coastal Commission to express this
unintended extension of the sunset period.
No such change was incorporated in the LCP amendment before you.
I urged the Coastal Commission to include a clarification on the definition of the sunset
period to match the original intent presented to the public. Specifically, note for the
renewals for non-compliant permits after January 2013. I provided specific suggested language for
this clarification in the relevant ordinance in my written comments submitted last week.
Without this clarification, the effective date for the ordinance provision results in the sunset
period being extended 18 to 24 months or longer, which prevents new applicants from being eligible
to the legal permit in areas where permits are restricted.
Please add the suggested clarification
to the motion you consider.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Maura O'Neill.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Maura O'Neill and I'm a policy analyst
at Better Nevers LA.
We're a coalition of hosts, tenants and housing activists
that work to regulate short-term rentals
to preserve long-term housing.
Sorry for the echo.
I'm not sure if it's on my end, but I'll just continue.
So better name was LA, we urged the commission
to amend the LCPA to permit only true home sharing
within the coastal site.
Failing that, we propose that the commission
amend the LCPA to include a primary residency standard
and to establish platform accountability
through data sharing and enforcement.
The Coastal Act requires the commission to encourage
and provide lower cost visitors serving accommodations.
Our data in a recently released report shows
hosted short-term rentals are quantitatively more affordable than unhosted short-term rentals.
True homesharing is an effective way to ensure the coastal acts that people have access to the
coast while also preserving housing for working families. If the Commission chooses not to proceed
with a true homesharing only standard, there are regulations that could protect housing while
allowing short-term rentals to continue to operate. The current ordinance includes a limit of one
short-term rental per owner but only for new short-term rentals. Existing short-term
rentals are not held to the same standard. Additionally, the ordinance removed provisions
that would have required platforms to share data with the city, remove non-compliant listings and
refrain from completing bookings for non-compliant listings. We recommend that the commission amend
the LCPA to include a true primary residency requirement and also include platform accountability
to preserve both housing and to make the ordinance more enforceable. Thank you.
Thank you. It sounded fine on our end. Jose Alvarado.
Thank you. Chair Harmon, commissioners and commission staff, my name is Jose Alvarado
and I'm the public policy manager for Airbnb here in California. Thanks for the opportunity to share
my comments here today. I'm here to respectfully urge the commission to reject the staff's
recommendation to certify the SLCP with suggested modifications and ask for the following amendments.
uh first we're hoping the Commission will grandfathered existing short-term rentals in the
city of Ventura, similar like they did uh for the city of Del Mar and city of uh Encinitas
during the last month's hearing. We'll also ask the removal of the lane by lane permit cap in
the neighborhood of Pier Point and also the striking of the ADU restriction in the ordinance.
As clearly drafted the Ventura LCP would establish a 355 permit cap CD wide distributed across six
individual neighborhoods. These caps are not based on any demand analysis, projected visitor volumes,
or any evaluation of whether the cap supply is sufficient to serve the public's need
for overnight coastal accommodation. This ordinance also introduces two limitations
on short-term rentals in Pierpont, a beachfront neighborhood with 5 visitor demand.
first day, cap 100 permits and a per lane density which would prevent exceeding 10 percent of
homes on any given lane. This lane density rule acts as a de facto prohibition for many properties
even when a neighborhood cap has not been met because issuing a single permit can make an
entire short block knowledgeable. And lastly the ADU exclusion and the ordinance raises some serious
concerns uh this provision prevents homeowners within ADU from listing their primary residence
as a short-term rental essentially punishing residents who have invested and added added
a housing stock to the city of Ventura. Approving this restriction will establish
a detrimental precedent within the coastal zone and we ask that you remove it. Thank you for your
time and your consideration. Thank you. There are no more speakers. Okay thank you. With that I will
We'll close the public hearing and return to our staff.
Thank you.
I'll keep it brief and just note our staff
is available for questions.
Just like to note, in response to the first speaker,
there was this request for the currently proposed five-year
transition period for owners of multiple short-term rentals
to come into compliance with the one short-term rental per owner.
And they were requesting that to be shortened
to track from the date of the first local ordinance,
rather than the date of certification of the LCP
amendment.
That made sure in the period by it wasn't quite clear
if that'd be some period of months, 12 months, 18 months.
Now, we just note that the city has requested
the five year period and our staff agrees
that this seems to be a reasonable period of time
to allow for the new regulations.
We just note the city council added that provisions
late in the city's process at their local hearing
prior to the submittal to the commission for certification.
That said, our staff didn't have,
we don't have a Coastal Act provision
or a concern about that.
But we would note that if there were questions,
we'd refer those questions to the city representatives.
In regard to the other comments,
I've just note that in your staff's opinion,
we believe that this is a balanced,
a very balanced amendment.
And we've seen other amendments
that were very restrictive, others.
The goal here was to protect housing stock
while allowing for a balanced short-term rental program.
We believe that this accomplishes that.
So with that, I'll just close or end the staff comments
and note that we're here to answer any questions.
Great, thank you very much, Mr. Hudson.
I'll start by turning it to Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks, I'm sorry.
I probably missed something, but I'm a little bit confused.
So assuming that we move forward today
and approve this vacation rental plan for the city,
can you describe to me what the next steps are
and how long they take, including the sun setting?
Cause I just became confused somehow in this conversation.
Sure, yeah.
So upon certification, a five year compliance-
Let me stop you with that certification of what?
Upon approval of this LCP amendment.
Okay, so the LCP amendment approval today.
Yes.
Okay, thanks. Correct.
So I just want to clarify that to those that are concerned.
That's what we're talking about today.
Correct. Okay.
And so that would begin a five-year compliance period
for existing short-term vacation rental permit holders
to comply with any new provisions,
including the provision
that they may only operate one permit per owner,
the density limits outlined in PurePont.
And then there's other separate provisions
regarding TOT, like taxes.
Yeah, that part I'm all clear on,
but I think it was just important to,
at least for me and probably there are others
that are confused to understand that today is the day
on the LCP amendment to be approved,
assuming that we go forward.
And then there's a five-year period
for all of these things to happen.
At the end of the five-year period,
everyone must be in compliance with this new LCP amendment.
Correct. So parties are able to renew it within that five-year period and then after that they would need to be in complaint with
These provisions that are approved today in this amendment. Okay, it sounds like Steve has okay and yes just through the chair just one
Small clarification just to note that we approve this today
But the actual certification of the LCP amendment occurs once the city accepts our suggested modifications
Commissioner not off
That was my question is because but that could be another
year six months six months so no later than within six months the five-year
clock starts ticking that's correct thank you
Commissioner Presiado yes and I'm wondering if anyone in the city could
respond to this I'm interested in the exclusion of the owner the ADU and the
and the or the primary home as possible assets for short-term rental. In in my
community it's very common for seniors or people who are transitioning to
build an ADU, transition to the smaller unit and make their home available for
rent. It's still possible to rent long-term. You are creating a or your
requesting that your new city regulation prohibit any use of the ADU or the primary home for
this purpose, but it could still be rented as a long-term asset or I'm just trying to
understand why the restriction on that particular type of asset.
Please turn on the mike.
So separately from chapter 6.455, which is the short-term vacation rental ordinance,
in our municipal code, in chapter 24, which is the zoning code, there is a chapter on
ADUs.
This is a, you know, preexisting chapter, and that chapter, a section of that chapter
provides that no ADU or junior ADU can be rented for less than 30 days.
Yes, and my clarification comes from, so in my city, the state law that adopted the ability
to add junior ADUs and all of that stuff, prohibit anything that was built from when
the state law was enacted forward to do any short-term rental arrangement of any kind.
But I'm just wondering if anybody built an ADU in the past, if your municipal code as
you're describing it now prohibits irrespective of when it was built.
And I'm just going back to this grandfathering notion of people who have assets who built
those assets with whatever intention they had and whether or not they're losing the
availability to use those assets at their discretion.
Now I do know that when the state law changed in 2022 and you added, you know, you can add
a junior ADU and a mini ADU, in essence four dwellings into one private property, that
there is a restriction that cannot be part of a short-term rental asset.
Is that distinction made in your regulation you're proposing?
Not in the regulation that we're proposing and not in Chapter 24 either.
Okay, thank you.
And there is a grandfathering section.
We don't use the term grandfathering in what's in front of you, but it's a section called
Existing permits. Okay
Thank you Commissioner Wilson
As with many of these are some parts I think are great and some parts I don't but
But I do think the conversation is moving in a good direction. I and I do think Vinter it
Did a lot of work
Just a couple of things and one it was was mentioned by LA neighbors, which is the platform sharing
And I know that some folks are looking at that local jurisdictions.
There's a big fight about it at the state level about the sharing of the data
and the requirements to share the data from the platforms that do this.
And I'm just kind of wondering, I can't remember have we seen that as part
of these ordinances already and I'm just wondering do we care about that at all in terms
of like collecting data or whether, or the enforceability of these ordinances.
Okay, I can respond and say we haven't seen that sort of data sharing occur.
I do think it's pretty new.
So something to keep looking out for.
Because as, you know, when we started this STR discussion 10 years ago or whatever it was,
especially in my county, we started charging, we asked them to collect taxes.
But ultimately, we never got the data.
We just got bags of money, right?
And because the activity was illegal, right?
And so there was no data associated with it.
And we're still having trouble getting that data.
So we really don't know if what we're collecting as TOT
is actually audited and connected to the activities
that are on these platforms.
So that is something that we really need to update,
and I think is really important people need to understand.
So just because you collect taxes on something
doesn't make it legal.
That was an Al Capone sort of situation.
So, and, well it's true.
I mean, I'm just saying that's a lot of what happens
and what people get busted for for doing illegal activities
happens to be on the tax evasion parts
of what they're doing.
Not saying that this is what that is,
but it has been an issue in terms of the data
collecting of the of the of the of the taxes and knowing whether it's audited
I'm glad thanks for the clarification on the sunset for the multiple units I
thought that was that was good to know I appreciate that and on the conversation
around the ADUs you know I think it's AB 1033 was one of the was one of the
legislative acts that basically said that you know the new ADUs is mr.
or excuse me, Commissioner,
Pressiata was mentioning, you know,
it can't be used as STRs because there just didn't,
there was this idea that if we're gonna give these,
if we're trying to build housing, is it housing?
And I guess, and I guess I, you know,
pushed back a little bit on this idea that,
that was being put forth in one of the comments,
which was that, you know,
if we're trying to create ADUs for housing,
then why would we just say that it's okay
to use them for STRs?
Maybe someday there'll be a sunset for that or something,
but I don't know, but I just wanna say
that that was kind of the point of that.
And again, a lot of this is there's an assumption
of the use of our assets in the discretion,
and I own a home, and I have a rental,
and I don't have discretion to convert those
to a dentist office, or just as likes like I don't have
necessarily or any other sort of commercial use,
and likewise we're discussing the conversion
to a commercial use as a hotel.
And so we just have to understand that as communities
are looking at their zonings and all those things,
there's just a lot of discussion in that,
and this is a commercial use in that conversion.
And then the last thing as I was appreciative of looking at the numbers in terms of the caps and even the neighborhood stuff
And I will say I also disagree with this of this idea that there's a de facto
Reduction that will occur just because when you're so limited in those neighborhoods that are right along the coast that one property
That's got the STR
Entitlement it that they're not it's very unlikely that they're gonna be giving that one up and if they do
someone on that block is gonna try and grab it
as quickly as possible because,
and again, going back to that cap,
as long as the cap is near or below what is existing,
what you prevent is people from speculating
when they buy property on basically generating revenue
more than they would for just general rent
for long-term rental because what happens,
and it's happened in my neighborhood, my neighbors,
where the property sells and the people coming in
to buy that property have an intention to do an STR
and they outbid the local families
and the first time home buyers and everybody else
because they can't afford to compete against
that conversion to a commercial use.
And so I appreciate the caps in here
and they're trying to address that problem.
And where I may not feel it's quite strict enough,
I acknowledge that they're trying
and they're doing their best under the sort of political
and sort of social and commercial confines
of their community.
And with that, I support this amendment.
Thanks.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you, and sorry for the laugh there.
It was humble bags of cash.
We've heard that before.
And so it was sort of like, whoa, we're back to that, right?
If I could, I'd like to ask the city representative
a couple of questions.
The first is to the point brought up
by Commissioner Prescado and that is I want to be clear in my mind if somebody purchases
a home with the intent of moving into the ADU let's say it's a thousand square feet
and renting out the main home would that be allowed under your ordinance because I felt
like that was a question that wasn't quite answered we heard historical and existing
but we didn't hear somebody now trying to take that route feeling that a thousand square
feet is enough and they could have somebody offset their mortgage and cover the rest would
that be allowed under your ordinance? My understanding is that it would they
could rent it as a long-term rental. The main home? Yes, a long-term rental. Okay, but not
as a short-term, that was a question. Okay, so they would not be allowed to rent the
main unit as a short-term rental under your ordinance. The other is I have a
question about the, and I don't know if it's Pier Point or Pier Pont, in all the
documents it's Pier Pont, and then everybody's saying Pier Point, so I was
Like, all right, same place.
The limits on units per lane,
as I counted in the exhibit in the upper right-hand corner,
it looked like an allowance of 81,
but the document says it's an allowance of 100.
And so I'm just wondering what that nearly 20% discrepancy
can be attributed to.
Sure, so thank you for the question.
One of the suggested modifications,
which is a great suggestion,
is to, this doesn't change the boundary,
but to put a line around what the Pierpont area is.
And once you see, once you can see that line,
then you can see that there are homes
on Pierpont Boulevard that are not on the lane.
So those permits would be dispersed
throughout Pierpont Boulevard, both sides of the street,
house after house after house.
So that's where they would be.
So that street will have 21 on it
while everybody else has one to three?
It's not a lane.
It's actually-
that it's longer but it's much longer but you're going to have a high density along that stretch
that's the intent well uh the intent is not to overly impact the smaller shorter lanes that go
out to the beach and to allow the remaining because there already is there already are
stvrs operating on pierpon so to allow those okay all right so those 21 would not be on a lane they
they would be on the rest.
So you're going to put 21 on the outer edges,
81 within the main body of the blades.
Within the boundary of the Pierpont area, yes.
Okay, that's helpful to me.
And I guess I'm going to echo the remarks
of Commissioner Wilson in that I'm not fully happy with it,
but at the same time, I'm able to support most of it.
Personally, I'd like to see that number to me
wasn't really quite clear so better clarification on how those were
attributed would have been nice but given that you know it's some sort of
grandfathering in of existing folks I'm hearing that I need to spend more time
with existing and so I'll do that now before we take this vote but I
appreciate the answers to the questions and that was a key for me as well but
largely I can support what's in front of us I just want to clearly state that I
really appreciate the two-night minimum I know that was a key issue at the last
hearing and I think that's going to give a lot of access to families who are going to visit the
coast through these particular neighborhoods, so thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Kelly.
I had a question about, sorry you can stay, sorry, how you determine, and we had this issue in my
jurisdiction in the county, when you have one unit per owner allowed, but oftentimes these are owned
by LLCs, how do you is that just someone would be declaring that they don't already have a permit
if say there's five different LLCs with different names, but they all are technically revenues going
to the same person? Sure, the proposed ordinance does have restrictions on who can be an owner.
And additionally, if for example, someone were to try to evade the one permit per owner,
and the city finds out and they can lose the permits. I mean there's a big incentive into
not lying because if you're caught then you can just lose your permits altogether.
And then can you explain under the same kind of issue if someone currently owns five short-term
rentals and then they can get one new one in the future but we're not doing anything about the fact
that one person might already own five? So what the ordinance envisions is for example if someone
let's say we're to have five units in,
I mean, it really depends on what part of the seat,
but let's say I'll give a few examples.
Five units right now just in Pierpont, right?
Which is the most impacted area.
So the ordinance provides that they would have five years
to wind down the multiple units,
and then they get to pick which one they ultimately want
to keep in the Pierpont area.
If those permits were spread out,
let's say in Midtown or Downtown
somewhere outside of Pierpont, then they would get to keep two and then they
would decide which ones, but they would have five years to basically wind down
their business. And are you as a community envisioning what types of
incentives could exist for helping people convert these to longer term
rentals, like helping them become landlords for housing for locals that
want to live there? I imagine this could be a good opportunity for the community
to recoup some of that housing for people who want to be living there I mean obviously people
may sell some of these properties or one person can own five homes and sleep in each one of those
places Monday through Friday if they're not renting it out but just curious have you do
has there been community conversation around what comes next? I think that's an excellent question
excellent topic of conversation but it was definitely outside of the scope of this very
year-long process. To my recollection, not a topic. And then for data sharing,
tell me a little bit more around the thought process on what kind of data you
envision having coming out of this and what would be best-case scenario for the
city and the community and for enforcement. I just, I feel like a lot of
this is relying upon people to just do the right thing and what we've seen in
other communities is that because there's so much revenue and money at
sometimes unfortunately we don't see people just doing the right thing, they're
just doing what they're gonna do until they get caught. And so if there is no
enforcement or if it's hard because the data isn't particularly clear and
clearly being shared then it becomes a little it actually becomes more
cumbersome I think for the for the jurisdiction to have to administer this
program. Sure, so I'll say three things on the topic. One is that the city does
does not have a rental registry yet.
And then, but if we ever get to the point where we do,
that could be information that we gather
as far as which ones are operating as STVRs,
which ones are long-term rentals, for example.
We're not there yet.
You know, maybe the city will head there
in that direction one day.
Another thing is that I know
that community development staff has pays for a service.
I'm guessing it's some sort of software.
don't recall the name, where they can track the rentals.
And they have used the same service for many years
where they can see if, for example,
under the current STVR regulations,
if they have the proper information listed.
And they can see if there's a listing there
for someone that doesn't have a permit, for example,
and then they can send out notices
that they're in violation.
And then the last thing on the topic.
I was asking a little about data sharing.
As far as between?
Just greater transparency between the rental platforms.
So I know that sometimes with,
like when you're collecting your transient occupancy tax
or you want to make a determination about usage of the units
and truing up if they're being rented or not,
without having that data sharing,
the software sometimes is not as,
they're making assumptions in the software algorithm,
that they're not able to make like a clear linear calculation.
And so-
And what we really are gonna rely on
is the continued use of the software to estimate TOT,
how much TOT should be used.
And again, the incentive is that if someone
has an STVR permit, but they're not using it
because they're not paying TOT,
then they don't get to renew it
because we want STVR permits to be used.
And if someone is paying,
has it consistently advertised
and our staff can see that,
and I think they can,
but then the TOT doesn't reflect that,
then that's a basis to begin an investigation
and they can lose their permit.
So there is an incentive to comply
because the penalty is that they can ultimately
lose their permit.
Thank you.
Commissioner Molson.
And just a clarification for my colorful terms
in terms of bags of money and those sorts of things.
I just wanna, it's just referencing,
it's not saying that anyone
is necessarily doing anything illegal
or sometimes they don't know
if they're doing something illegal
because they make assumptions
that they're paying taxes on something,
that that makes it legal
and that that is a permanent activity.
And so sometimes it's a surprise to people.
And so I don't want people, it's all figurative.
I don't want people to get all nuts about
some of this colorful language here.
So I just want to be clear that it's just,
we have a data collection issue on this
and when we need to address that moving forward,
that's not going to happen today.
And again, I support what we're doing here
to move forward, thanks.
Well, colorful language aside,
I want to associate myself with the comments
Commissioner Wilson made really whole cloth. So I will also be supporting this
today and I'll turn to Commissioner not offer a motion. Thank you I did want to
just appreciate some of the specificity in this. I know it really conveys that
you know your city very well if you're looking at block by block. Having said
that I think also I wanted to say that you know looking at other jurisdictions
Ordinances and how those have been evaluated when they came before the Commission
I want to commend you on that because I think you then do start getting at more of a statewide approach
Commissioner Preciado you start seeing how these regional
Ordinances can work together. So I wanted to commend you on that as well
It's very it's interesting to see the permutations of these in each
jurisdiction and I think it does really show that if you go through an extensive community process and in your case you've
Even hired a mediator to help you have these conversations
That you can get to something that does show a balance
And you know, there's these
platforms that
Have introduced short-term rentals, you know, I remember when they started they
prided themselves on being disruptive technologies, and I would say they have achieved their
goal there because it really has had, it has provided access to folks in a different way or
different ways to stay in regions, but it also is really, you know, I don't think you can argue that
there's, you know, quite a bit of disruption at the community level, and to see the way that
local jurisdictions are struggling with this
is, you know, really brings that home, so.
Commissioner, before the motions, if you're done,
there's actually a few more speakers, I apologize.
Commissioner Jackson, then Commissioner Preciado.
Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you for all the speakers.
Thank you for staff and for the city of Ventura.
You know, e-bikes and short-term rentals
are not going away, and they shouldn't,
but we need guardrails on both.
And, you know, there's a lot of frustration
between municipalities and with short-term rental owners.
And we've seen this over the last few months
with the hearings we've had and the challenges.
One thing that I've heard from several of my colleagues
is the data sharing.
And the challenges we at the municipal level
are constantly pulling.
There are over a hundred short term rental platforms,
a hundred.
So you don't know who's renting to whom in your cities.
And you can pay for a service.
But that service, I promise you,
is not capturing all those rentals
because it's impossible.
And these platforms and folks
have gotten very sophisticated.
So what we need, you know,
we mentioned Sacramento several times,
and I get on my little soap box here,
unless we get help at the state level,
where the platforms are mandated
to provide information to the municipalities,
not us trying to figure out which one of the 100
are renting in our cities, permitting these activities,
but they should be pushing the information to us
in a coordinated effort so that we could say,
hey, here are the 100, or in this case, 355 permits
that are authorized in our city.
Okay, you 100 short-term platform rentals.
These are the only 355 that you can rent.
We expect to see reports on a monthly basis.
We expect to see TOT remittance.
I mean, that's the way the process should be,
but they leave us struggling.
And that's why there's this constant tension
with the short-term rental companies, the owners,
and then the municipalities as we struggle with this.
It's a constant struggle and it's a constant frustration.
You got some folks that are like,
Heck no, I hate these things.
Heck no, we need more.
And again, everything with balance.
And the way we can have better balance, better coordination,
better cooperation, is if we get help from Sacramento.
And the platforms.
I mean, if the platforms were to say, hey, we get it.
Hey, Venture, you tell us 355 that are licensed.
And these are the only 355 that we
will permit on our platforms.
and we will make sure you get your TOT remittance
as opposed to you trying to figure out
which ones are being rented, which company's platforms
and then pulling information and spending countless hours
and countless time and countless frustrations.
So I'm off my soapbox.
I appreciate what you all have done.
I appreciate the time and effort putting a lot of thought
into crafting something that is a balance.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner Presiata.
I will attempt to be brief.
I want to compliment the city of Ventura for its extraordinary due diligence in thinking
about and involving all of your stakeholders.
I think one of the things that we see here is of course there are people on different
sides of the issue and how you should proceed, but it seems to me that you are pursuing a
a very balanced approach, and all the little nuances in particulars, you know, will find
their detractors, but this is not a, as I've seen before, this is not an elimination of
short-term renewal.
It's an attempt to harmonize it with your existing community, and I think I appreciate
very much that you looked at other experiences and then I'm hoping that people can see or
look to your experience. I did want to comment, I'm always fascinated how these three and
four and five and six million dollar homes are seen as homes that are part of the housing
stock as if it's workforce housing or if it's housing for college students or something
like that.
And so I'm always interested in thinking about how this policy applies to the coast, which
would be different from how it applies in, shall we say, non-coastal neighborhoods where
you don't have these extraordinary costs.
Even the mobile home types that are near our hotel where we're staying, none of them appear
to be, well they all appear to be for sale, the ones that are, for half a million dollars.
So I'm just curious about how we think about housing stock on the coast and how we distinguish
between affordable based on the median income or, you know, the usual ways we think of for
affordable housing for working families.
So with that, I do want to appreciate the involvement you have and acknowledge that
it's really hard work to get to these particulars and commend you moving forward.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Commissioner not off to you.
Okay.
You ready for motion.
I move that the Commission reject City of Ventura implementation plan coastal zoning
ordinance amendment number lcp-4-sbv-25-0043-1 as submitted and recommend a yes vote.
Second.
Motion by Commissioner not off second by Commissioner Kelly they're asking for a yes vote any objections
to unanimous consent seeing none so approved okay second motion I move that the Commission
certify city of Ventura implementation plan coastal zoning ordinance amendment
number lcp-4-sbv-25-0043-1 if it is
modified as suggested in this staff report and requesting a yes vote.
Moved by not off second by Kelly asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimous
And a mis-consent.
Seeing none, so approved.
Commissioner Notoff.
No.
That's it.
It's an IP only amendment.
It includes the amendments.
The second motion included the suggested amendments.
Congratulations.
Thank you for all the work and thank you to my colleagues for a great discussion.
We're going to take a brief break now if you could be back five minutes after four, please.
Okay.
Everyone, welcome back.
We are now on item 12, the Deputy Director's Report for the South Coast District.
Mr. Hudson.
Thank you.
And item 12 is the Deputy Director's Report for the South Coast.
It includes three permit waivers and a memorandum responding to objections to a previously
reported immaterial permit extension.
The memorandum addresses three objections, which were each received within the 10-day
period for public comment for an immaterial permit extension that was previously reported
at our February hearing.
The objections were received from Robin Rudicell on behalf of Citizens Preserving Venice, Edward
Ferrer and Margaret Molloy for Citizens Preserving Venice, and the groups, let's see, I believe
that was it, and that is for the second one-year time extension of the CDP for the Venice Place
Hotel project by the applicant Wincoo Properties LLC. Now that item was
originally approved by the Commission at our December 2022 hearing. The project
was for demolition of an existing restaurant, small private school, office,
retail, and commercial space in a private parking lot and three existing
residences and it included construction of a new two to three story mixed-use
78-room hotel with 10 lower-cost rooms, retail space and restaurant space and
four new residential units and this is located in the Venice area within the
city of Los Angeles. Now as I mentioned this is the second one-year time
extension and as detailed in the memorandum the opponents raised
essentially the same objections that were raised during the Commission's
approval of the first one-year time extension last year.
The opponents again assert that the financial feasibility study for the project is outdated,
that the cumulative impacts analysis for the project was not accurate, that the project
would result in parking impacts, and that the city's contemplated outdoor dining program,
in conjunction with the approved hotel and other projects that have been approved since
our original action on this could impact public access and parking.
However, these issues were fully evaluated as part of our approval of the underlying
project, which found that the project would not result in any new significant adverse
impacts to coastal resources, including public access.
Specifically, in regard to the financial feasibility analysis, I would note that a new study would
not change the findings made by the Commission relating to its approval of the project, decision
to require on-site affordable rooms, or replacement residential units.
The Commission adequately addressed cumulative effects to coastal resources as part of your
previous approval.
Moreover, in regard to the City's outdoor dining program, at the time of the Commission's
action, the City was already implementing a temporary outdoor dining program pursuant
to the governor's emergency action in response to COVID,
and a 30611 emergency waiver by the commission.
And the city's contemplation
of potentially making such program permanent
at some point in the future
does not constitute change circumstances
relevant to this project.
Moreover, such an action by the city
would require either an amendment to the city's
certified Venice land use plan or a new CDP.
and potential effects to coastal resources,
including access and recreation would then be evaluated
and addressed by the commission
as part of those future actions.
Now, in addition, the email from Edward Ferrer
and Margaret Malloy state that Ted Harris,
agent for WNCU Properties LLC is a registered lobbyist
for California Strategies and Advocacy
and not for the applicant, WNCU Properties.
However, as commissioned legal staff have previously explained to Miss Malloy,
lobbying policies are not part of the Coastal Act,
and Wind Crew Properties LLC provided all proper authorizations for designation of Ted Harris
as their agent for the purpose of the Coastal Development Permit extension and CDP application,
which is required pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30319.
So we do believe that the applicant's representatives have met all their legal obligations in terms
of our agent authorization needs.
Thus for all these reasons and as addressed in detail in the memorandum, staff does not
believe the comment letters provide evidence of any change circumstances.
Pursuant to Section 13169 of the Commission's regulations, in order to deny a permit extension
Objections must identify change circumstances that may affect the
consistency of the development with the Coastal Act or certified LCP. It does
not provide an opportunity to rehear the merits of the project and for these
reasons staff does not believe there are change circumstances affecting the
previous developments consistency with the Coastal Act and thus your staff is
recommending the immaterial time extension be approved today. Staff is not
aware of any opposition to the other items being reported today and we are
asking whether three or more commissioners object to any of the items
in the deputy director's report. I'll just note the staff is available for
questions. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Hudson. Are there any
ex partes to report? Okay. How about public comments? We have four speakers.
Robin Rudecil, David Ewing, Margaret Molloy and Amanda Seward. They are all in
on Zoom. Robin Rudisill, when you're able to, please go ahead.
Thank you. Hi, it's Robin from Citizens Preserving Venice. This project is the largest and most
impactful Venice has seen, and that's why it's so important to us. And what's different
this year is that last year, staff said they did not consider the other major nearby significant
mixed use projects in a new cumulative effects analysis because they had not yet broken ground.
But now they have, and that is a significant change circumstance. Steph also told us they
are defining changed circumstances with a limited scope and say the new significant
projects we cite do not meet their definition of changed circumstances which they would say
are more things more like physical conditions such as salt water intrusion. This definition
is too narrow and the law does not limit change circumstances like this. This project has been
delayed by the applicant and that delay matters. The reason for the extension review is for impacts
to be evaluated based on current conditions now, not the conditions in 2022. The alfresco
dining program is now permanent. The CDPs are being approved since the last couple of months.
Parking spaces are being permanently removed and the projected cumulative effect of the total
reduction in parking spaces is very significant. Also, in mid 2025, city planning determined that
Windward Circle qualifies as a transit hub under AB 2097, placing the area around the project
within the half mile exemption and further reducing required parking. These are exactly
the types of changes that should be considered change circumstances. Permanent Alfresco and
AB 2097 are very significant changes that are increasing traffic and reducing parking availability
at the same time new development is increasing the intensity of use on North Abbott Kinney.
that directly affects coastal access especially for surrounding residents in the Oakwood community
and working-class visitors who rely on street parking. Please require a full public hearing so
all of these significant change circumstances can be analyzed before extending a permit that rests
on outdated assumptions and concludes and conclusory findings. Thank you. Thank you. David Ewing.
David, I see you're unmuted. Please go ahead David. All right, we're gonna move to the next speaker
and come back to David. Margaret Malloy, go ahead. Hello commissioners, I think that the primary
issue is the lack of adequate adverse and cumulative impact analysis required for per
coast the like section 30105.5 in staff's original 2022 CDP approval as we argued last year
and even more so this year. This is especially true of the direct adverse and cumulative impacts
on Oakwood as the immediately adjacent residential community and for the young children attending
Westminster Elementary School at 1010 Abakini that has served the Oakwood community for over
100 years. The analysis must include a hotel mixed use development at 812 Main and a newly
approved CDP for a large mixed use development at 825 Hamilton, both of which are within 500
feet radius of this project, as well as a proposed development at 100 Sunset in the
former Metro bus yard for 100, 341 residential units in a mixed use project that is within 1400
feet of the subject site. Cumulatively means the incremental effects of an individual project
shall be reviewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects. These are real, these are existing
and on the table approved by Metro as their, you know, project of choice. So please allow
the denial of this extension and acquire the appropriate analysis that is not
on the table. Thank you. Thank you. Let's try David Ewing again. David, I see that you're
unmuted. If you are trying to speak, we aren't hearing anything. Okay, we're going to move on
again. Amanda Seward, please go ahead. Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you very much. When this project was approved, the Commission relied heavily on
on a financial feasibility analysis,
which was prepared during the height of COVID uncertainty.
And it claimed that the project would require
a higher rate of return than normal
because the hotel market was unstable because of COVID
and transaction data was lacking.
So, and based on that increase rate of return
was required to make the project feasible. There were certain decisions made that we
don't believe would have been made had they had new information about what a proper rate
of return for this project would be. And it only made a small difference actually. It
It would require one less hotel room than they wanted to make it feasible.
And one of the important things that happened was there were three bungalows that even the
applicant's own experts acknowledged were historic.
But because of the rate of return required for the project, it was decided that it wasn't
the city's city. The city's
city was economically feasible.
And so they didn't accept the
environmentally superior
alternative set forth in the
sequel analysis. And in another
way, it impacted the number of
or the site of low cost hotel
rooms. It is policy of the
of the high rate of return that was required for this project, it was accepted a off site
lower cost hotel room. So we're just saying that that should be reviewed now before the
project permissions are extended. Thank you.
Thank you. And now we have David Ewing. We've moved you back to attendee mode and allowed
you to unmute as an attendee. You should be able to speak now.
I hope so. Can you hear me?
Yes, now we can hear you.
Oh great, thanks.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
I'm David Ewing with Citizens Preserving Venice.
When considering a CDP extension,
the Coastal Act requires evaluation of cumulative effects,
including past, present, and probable future projects.
Staff's extension notice for the Venice Place Hotel
is based on its assertion without analysis or findings
that there are no changed circumstances.
That assertion is incorrect
and a cumulative impacts analysis that is frozen in time
is not legally sufficient
if the surrounding area has materially changed.
When the Venice Place Project was approved,
several nearby projects were just speculative or early stage.
Staff stated at that hearing
that they were not considering the following projects
for cumulative effects analysis
because they hadn't yet broken ground.
The mixed use hotel commercial and condo project
at 812 Main, also known as 881 Abbot Kinney,
is now far into construction.
And 825 Hampton, the mixed use project with 36 units,
retail and cafe is fully entitled
and final appeal period has closed.
So these aren't projections,
these are on the ground realities.
And together these large projects represent
significant intensification of use,
significant increase in traffic and service demand,
increased on-street parking competition
in the surrounding neighborhood,
and increased pressure on coastal access.
Extending the permit without revisiting cumulative impacts
undermines the Coastal Act's core provisions,
court protections. The Coastal Act requires that these substantially changed circumstances
be evaluated. Please direct staff to do so. Thank you very much.
Thank you. We have no more speakers. I'll also just note that we have Charles Watson
from California Strategies online and available for questions.
Thank you very much. Okay, I'll return to you Mr. Hudson if you have any comments you'd
like to make.
comments just to note that staff is here for questions. Great, thank you very much.
So returning to the Commission, do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the Deputy Director's report? Seeing no objection, the Commission concurs. Thank
you. All right, thank you. And that brings us to item 13A, which is the
substantial issue hearing for the, I'm sorry, if we could pull up the PowerPoint
please. And this is the substantial issue hearing and appeal of a local CDP
approved by the City of Los Angeles for the demolition of two duplexes and the
construction of a new 18,773 square foot 48 foot seven and a half inch high
four-story 25 unit apartment building and it is comprised of 19 market rate
rental units and six affordable rental units which are set aside for very low
income households. The applicants are Sandra and Henry Abouaf and the
appellants are Margaret Malloy and Dr. Naomi Nightingale. Next slide please. Now
as shown on this aerial photograph the project site is located in a developed
urban neighborhood approximately three-quarters of a mile inland of the
beach along Sunset Avenue in the Venice community in the city of LA. The site is
currently developed with a one and two story one story and a two story duplex
which total four units on the site and the site is a relatively large nine
thousand four hundred and fifteen square foot lot which is about twice the size
of most of the other residential lots within this area. The surrounding
development is primarily a mix of single and multifamily residential structures.
Next slide please. The city approved project includes the demolition of the
existing duplexes totaling four units, removal of two non-native street trees,
and the construction of the new 18 almost 19,000 square foot 48 plus foot
high 25 unit apartment building. Now all 25 units will be relatively small
including 11 studios that range in size from 344 square feet to 387 square feet,
13 one bedrooms that range from 570 to 657 square feet in size and the largest
unit is a single two bedroom that would be 962 square feet. Now the primary
contention by the appellants is that the project would be too large in size and
height and consistent with the neighborhood community character and
will have negative cumulative impacts including gentrification and cause
displacement of underserved communities within Venice. The appellants also assert
that with only 11 parking spaces the City Approved Project would increase
congestion, displace parking to surrounding areas, and impair public
access to the coast. The appeal also cites Coastal Act section 30244 with
respect to the City Approved Project's adverse impacts to historic and cultural
community character. However, staff would note that the section they cite sets forth
mitigation requirements for impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources, not community
character, and thus that particular contention does not rise to the level of substantial
issue. The appellants also contend that the city-approved removal of two large street
trees in front of the property would adversely impact visual resources and environmentally
sensitive habitat area. However, commission staff concurs with the city's findings that
the two existing street trees on site are neither native species nor do they provide
habitat for any sensitive species nor do they constitute environmentally sensitive habitat,
given their location on a densely developed urban Venice Street. Thus, this assertion
does not rise to substantial issue.
Next slide please.
The Appellants also assert that the project would contribute to the displacement of working
class residents, renters, and communities.
However, staff would note that although the city's Mellow Act determination for the project
did not designate the existing four units on site to be demolished as affordable, the
did find pursuant to its separate replacement unit determination, that these units may be
affordable and that at least three of the units on site must be replaced as affordable units.
Now, in this case, the approved project includes the provision of six new deed restricted affordable
units and represents a net gain of affordable units on site. And I would just also note that
this project would include a net gain of total units as well going from four units up to 25.
So your staff does believe that this project would be beneficial in terms of providing for
additional housing for an economically diverse population and in this area it would be well
served by public transit and with high quality amenities nearby. Thus staff does not agree with
the Appellant's contention relating to potential displacement of working-class residents, renters,
and communities of color and does not believe that this issue rises to substantial issue.
Next slide please. In regard to the Appellant's primary contention that the project is inconsistent
with community character, the Appellant's contend that the city-approved project,
which is a 48-foot high four-story structure, would be the tallest building in the area,
And staff agrees with that observation.
The surrounding Oakwood-Venice neighborhood
is characterized primarily by a mix of both one-
and two-story single-family residences
with a smattering of two- and three-story multi-family
residences of various sizes and architectural styles.
Now, while staff agrees that the height of this project
is greater than any of the other structures,
including the existing two- and three-story multi-family
residences in the neighborhood. The city approved this increase in height pursuant
to the density bonus provisions of the certified land use plan and in using
their uncertified zoning code and the state density bonus law together. And as
can be seen on this slide, which shows some of the
surrounding development.
I'm sorry, if we could go to the next slide, please.
Or, I'm sorry, back two slides.
Thank you, that one.
As can be seen on this slide,
the applicant in the City Approved Project
has utilized several different strategies
to mitigate the visual impacts,
including using increased articulation
and setbacks of the upper floors.
and that reduces what is seen,
the visual massing from the street,
including that upper four story,
which will not be highly visible
to pedestrians on the street.
Moreover, while the city approved development
will be the largest in the immediately surrounding area,
it is generally similar to other large multifamily structures
on larger lots within Venice.
The subject site is 9,415 square feet area,
almost twice the size of other lots within the area,
which average approximately 4,885 square feet.
And staff believe such larger lots
are appropriate for development with larger structures.
Now, for that and because the city has used
the process for the density bonus provisions
that are within the certified LUP,
I would just note that it's somewhat complex
in that the density bonus provisions of the LUP
would only allow for a 25% increase in density,
which would only get you to about eight units on site.
The city has utilized other tools,
including the statewide density bonus law
and a provision in the statewide, the state law,
which allows for local zoning code,
including the city's uncertified zoning code
and using their local density bonus provisions.
And by harmonize, the city has done their best
to harmonize these three different laws.
And in doing so, commission staff does concur
with their calculations that they were able to arrive
at the 25 unit size of this project.
Now, if we could advance two slides, please, to slide six.
I would also note that the appellants contend
that the reduced parking provided by the project
will have negative impacts on the public's ability
to access the coast as residents would take up
public street parking on the surrounding streets.
The city approved development would provide 11 spaces
rather than the normally required 57 pursuant to the Certified Venice Land Use Plan.
However, the City's findings did correctly address the discrepancy by noting that a recent
state law prohibits any public agency from imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement
on any residential or commercial project within one-half mile of a major transit stop, which
the subject site is.
Thus, the City did not require vehicle parking spaces pursuant to the Certified LUP in this
case. However, our staff would note that although the state law may preclude specific parking
requirements, the Coastal Act still provides that impacts to public access must still be
mitigated from any new project. And in this case, to address that issue, the city found
that in addition to the proposed 11 vehicle spaces that will be provided, additional mitigation
measures include two dedicated parking spaces for a vehicle sharing program, which are proposed
by the applicant, as well as provision of 31 bicycle spaces for tenants and their guests.
And the City's findings were that these additional measures would be adequate to mitigate the
significant adverse impacts to public access, and your staff concurs with the City's findings
on this point.
And we do not believe that the Appellant's contentions rise to the level of substantial
issue.
And final slide, please.
Finally, staff would note that there are two addendums for this item, which include minor
corrections to the exhibits and which respond to comments received from members of the public.
In addition, staff received a letter from one of the appellants, Margaret Malloy,
just this morning, and that letter asserts that the staff report contained inconsistencies,
primarily that the neighboring structure that was referenced in the staff report is lower in height
than was identified and that the four existing units on site should be considered affordable.
In response, I would note that first staff appreciates
and would like to thank Miss Malloy
for pointing out these discrepancies.
The height issue was an inadvertent error
in the staff report.
It was identified as a 45 foot high,
37 foot high structure
with a 45 foot high rooftop access structure
in the city's findings,
and that was carried over to our report.
However, as Miss Malloy pointed out,
we searched our permit records and confirmed
that based on our records, it's a 30 foot high structure
with a 35 foot high roof access structure.
And so we agree with Miss Malloy.
Now that incorrect height we believe was an inverted error
and was derived from the city's findings
and appears to be derived from the city's website
for Navigate LA, which is a mapping tool provided
by the city's engineering department,
which provides, among other information, building heights.
Regardless, staff would note that our analysis
would remain unchanged in regard to whether the structure
is consistent with the community character.
Our analysis is not based just on its reference
to one neighboring structure,
but to the community as a whole.
We agree that this structure will be larger
than the other surrounding structures,
but we do believe that on the whole,
it will be consistent with provision
of multifamily structures within the Venice area.
In regard to the determination
of whether there were affordable units on site,
I would like to clarify
that the city's record was a bit unclear.
The city's Mellow Act determination,
which was referenced in our report,
found that there were no units that were affordable
pursuant to the Mellow Act.
However, the city's RUD or replacement unit determination,
which is a separate process,
found that there were affordable units
and required a minimum of three affordable units
be replaced on site.
Now, regardless, the project provides for a net increase
in affordable units on site for a total of six,
and thus our recommendation would not change
relative to this clarification.
but I would note that staff revises its findings
on this matter to incorporate those corrections.
Now in closing, staff concurs with the findings
made by the city and believes that the city
provided adequate legal support for its decision
to approve the subject project.
Staff therefore recommends that the commission
find no substantial issue with regard to the contentions
on which the appeal has been filed.
The motion to accomplish this can
be found on page five of the staff report.
And next slide, please.
This concludes the staff presentation,
and I am available for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Hudson.
OK, are there any ex partes to report?
OK, seeing none, we'll open the public hearing.
And I'll go to Chris to begin with the appellants, please.
Yes, we have the two appellants, Naomi Nightingale
and Margaret Molloy, both on Zoom and Naomi Nightingale.
When you're ready, go ahead.
Naomi Nightingale, I see that you've just been moved in.
You should be able to unmute and begin.
Okay, good afternoon.
Excuse me, I'm having a little problem with my voice,
so I hope you can hear me.
We can hear you, ma'am.
Okay, thank you.
I'm Naomi Nightingale.
I'm the chair of the Venice Neighborhood Council,
Venice Community Plan Coastal Commission Program
Ad Hoc Committee.
The committee submitted its comprehensive community
recommendations last August 2025 to the LA City Westside
Regional Planning Department and also copied the Coastal
Commission staff.
I'm not representing the Ad Hoc Committee at this meeting
today, but I can concur with all aspects of significance
in the extensive appeal which we submitted, which aligns.
Naomi, it seems that you've been muted.
Can you please unmute again?
There you go.
Please continue.
Where it stopped, okay.
I am also executive director
of the Oakwood Preservation Coalition,
a nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation
of black history and culture in the Oakwood community.
In 1970, I was instrumental in preparing the proposal
that resulted in the 15 apartment units
that are dispersed throughout the Venice community now,
which started out as low, very low income apartment units.
The unit that is the subject of this Peel,
7th and Sunset is not consistent with the apartment buildings
that are compared to in the owner's report.
The units that were originally designed as low income
are not residential in nature
as the building started on 7th and Sunset.
When I met with the architect in terms of this building
and the discussion about setting back
the fourth level story of this building.
The concern was expressed at that time
about the concern from the community
with height of buildings that are not consistent
with the architecture and the accessibility
and the culture of the community.
So I reiterate that in my presentation today
that we're looking for consistency.
Yes, we do want low income units available
to help diversify the community.
But I think that this particular object
does not meet or is consistent with the standards
that we have listed in the appeal
that we submitted to the Coastal Commission
and that Margaret Malloy submitted to you this morning.
Margaret, are you there?
Thank you.
Next is Margaret Malloy.
Good.
Hello commissioners, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
We're asking you to find substantial, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
We are asking you to find a substantial issue
and just allow a de novo hearing for this proposal.
while I appreciate Mr. Hudson's clarifications,
I urge you to please look at the last paragraph
of the March 10th, 2026 second addendum submitted by staff.
The staff statement includes quote,
the city determined that no affordable units exist on site,
thus no replacement units are required.
However, as part of the density bonus allowance,
the city approved project will provide
six new affordable units where no affordable units
currently exist or are otherwise required, end quote.
That statement is factually incorrect
and this is a substantial issue.
California Government Code section 66300
implemented SB8, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.
On 12-31-2023, the Housing Department
issued a Housing Crisis Act of 2029,
replacement unit determination for this property.
It states, quote, four units exist on the property
within the last five years.
Four units are subject to the rent stabilization ordinance
and are subject to replacement pursuant to the requirements
of government code section 66300 as protected units
with three of the four units subject to the replacement
as affordable protected units, end quote.
that is reiterated in the mellow.
And it seems that the applicant's representatives
have not made that clear to the city
or the city planning commission or coastal staff
because it has been erroneously represented
that they're creating six new affordable units
that wouldn't otherwise exist.
On the contrary, per the certified LUP,
that site should have nine units
of which four would be restricted units
and three would be restricted affordable units.
Instead, this person is asking for an off menu incentive
to allow a flat roof with a height of 48 feet,
seven inches in lieu of 25 feet,
a waiver of development standards
to allow zero square feet of open space
in lieu of the required 2,525 square feet,
and a conditional use permit for a housing,
to allow a housing project totaling 25 units.
That is a 77% increase in the base density
of nine dwelling units,
in addition to the 88.75% increase in density permitted
by the LANC and the government density bonus program.
I'll take the entirely off-menu, over-the-top incentives.
Please just allow a de novo hearing.
Thank you.
Next, we have the applicant's representative
in person, Kevin Scott.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name's Kevin Scott,
from the Office of Bryan Silvera and Associates,
on behalf of the applicant.
What we're proposing is straightforward.
Replace two aging duplexes
that have no mell replacement affordable units,
with a thoughtfully designed 25 unit apartment building
that includes six new very low income units.
And I wanna take a minute to talk about
the issue that was brought up by staff
with the replacement units.
So the Mellow Review, the way it works
is an analyst goes through and determines
how much rent was actually paid in the past three years
and determines if those were affordable rents.
That came back as not affordable.
The rents that were paid in the past three years
were not affordable.
Another review done by the Housing Department
asks current residents to submit
their own income information.
They get a letter and then are asked to send that letter
back to the Housing Department
and report their own income information.
Now typically people just take these letters
and throw them away.
When that happens and the Housing Department
does not receive the tenant's income information,
they give a default determination which says
70% of the units there,
we're just gonna consider them low income.
So for that reason, the replacement determination
comes back as three out of the four units as affordable.
However, none of the units were rented at affordable rents.
Just wanted to make that clear.
But to continue, this is a meaningful amount
of affordable housing in one of Los Angeles'
most desirable and most housing-starved communities.
And so with 24% of the total units
at that very low income level,
this project has a much higher ratio
of affordable units to market rate units
than other privately funded mixed income projects,
which are often just 10 or 12% affordable.
And this project represents a small step
towards realizing the city's and the state's housing goals,
as well as the commission's own environmental justice policy.
Venice is a high opportunity area, meaning strong schools,
access to jobs, better health outcomes,
and greater economic mobility.
It's also a place that's easy to get around on foot
or on a bike.
And that's all to say that it is the perfect place
this project and projects like these help keep Venice a place that's accessible to everyone.
And we spent a lot of time and effort engaging with the community on this project starting
our outreach a full year before our hearing and we're proud to say that the Venice Neighborhood
Council's land use committee voted unanimously to support the project and then the full board
followed and then after that the city planning commission voted for the project six to zero.
So with the support of the VNC and the city of Los Angeles I urge you to concur with staff's
recommendation for no substantial issue and uphold Coastal Commission's commitment to ensuring
that Venice remains a place for everybody. Thank you.
Thank you. We just had the two members of the public, and then their speaker status
was unclear. Okay, Miss Kaplan, if we could ask, can you confirm that you participated
in this at the local level, please? She opposed it. If she opposed it, excuse me. Yeah, I
I put in speaker cards both for the hotel and for the project, and I don't know why
I was overlooked.
Ms. Kaplan, did you oppose this project at the local level?
No, I'm sorry, no I didn't.
Unfortunately, we aren't allowed to have you speak.
Our other speaker, Lydia Ponce, is not able to be found on Zoom.
We have no other speakers.
Okay. Thank you very much. All right. With that, we will close the public hearing and
return to our staff for their response. Mr. Hudson.
All right. Thank you. I'm going to keep it brief. And again, this note staff is available
for questions. But with one note, Ms. Malloy did note that she believed that on the site
under the density bonus provisions, only nine units would be allowed. That calculation would
to be using only the density bonus provisions under the LUP.
And I had explained earlier,
the city is harmonizing all the different density bonus laws,
including the state and the zoning.
She was also concerned that the four replacement units,
which as I noted before,
staff is making that correction to our findings
to note that there are likely four
existing affordable units on site.
It is not relevant to state density bonus law
that the four units are required to be replaced.
They still count towards the density bonus provision.
So the six new dense affordable units
do allow for the density bonus provisions
to be utilized for this project.
So we understand Ms. Malloy's point.
We would just note that the city did correctly calculate
density bonuses pursuant to these three different laws. And with that I'll close the staff comments
and again just note I'm available for questions. Thank you very much. Now I'll return to the
commission and I'll begin with Commissioner Lowenberg. So as hard as it is for people to,
when communities like this are going through transitions, as hard as it is
for the first few projects, it is unfortunate but the state is in dire need of housing
and we can't just keep kicking the can down the road or saying put it over there, put it over
there. No, this is a big lot and these are small units which de facto will mean they will hopefully
be affordable to people who are either working there or you know and the fact that they're
6 very low makes it even better so I'm very much in favor of this and I wish
they had gone up farther I think that in wherever we're near transit we should be
up zoning all of these lots to create more affordable housing for people
throughout California because we just got to keep we got to get going here and
we in every election cycle it's all anybody talks about is creating
affordable housing so I I would hope this Commission would never stand in the
way of a project like this and I I would like to make the motion to approve
great thank you any okay Commissioner Lopez thank you from the kiddie table
happy to second the motion at the appropriate time but just want to align
myself with all the comments of Commissioner lowenberg I think that
these are the moments where we see action reach the ground and we have to
support it if we really want to see the change and I also appreciate the six
So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Wilson. Just a quick question on the time frame. So between
When we receive the application and now what kind of time frame did we see here?
Because this item is coming to us as appeal the Commission acts on these with less than 49 days
I would just note that this item was appeal was
Filed with us on January 15th the 49th day would be March 27th, so
We are less than 49 days
On this that's pretty fast. Just want to note. It's great
And put to put it into the record how quickly that happened. I'm happy to support. Thank you
Thank you. Okay Commissioner Lohmenberg for the motion
Sorry, I
Close my computer too early. Can you blow that up a little bit so I can see it. Hold on. We're getting there. Sorry, everybody
Okay
Can you make it here? I move the Commission to term?
Okay, the two least technical people on the planet are trying to muddle through this. I'm loving it to be honest Ray just grab
The old folks are
Trying to get through this I move the commission determined that appeal number a-5-ve and-2 6
Dash 0 0 3 raises no substantial with your issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal was filed under
section three zero six. Oh two of the coastal act
Hey, that's a motion by Commissioner Lowenberg and I want to yeah, and we would like a yes vote
Please thank you a second by Commissioner Lopez. They're asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimously
Seeing none, no substantial issue has been found.
Thank you.
I just wanted to clarify quickly that the actual appeal numbers, A5 VEN 26003, I believe
that the motion may have missed one of the zeros.
Just to be clear that that's what the commission voted on.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Confirmed.
We are moving on, I believe, to item 15, Mr. Hudson.
Okay.
And while they're getting ready, I'll just note that there are no speakers for item 15
just to get ahead of that.
All right, that does take us to item 15, which is the deputy director's report for South
Coast District Orange County.
The report contains five waivers for projects in Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach
and San Clemente, two CDP time extensions, and a CDP amendment.
We're also reporting on an emergency action by California State Parks to remove park facilities
that were damaged during storms at the south day use area of Doheny State Beach in Dana
Point.
And we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to any of the waivers, the time extensions,
or the amendment in the report.
Thank you Mr. Schwing.
Any ex partes?
Okay and I know there are no public commenters you three or more
commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report. Seeing no
objections the Commission concurs. Thank you. Now we're moving on to item 16a
please. Thank you and there's a staff PowerPoint on this item and Colby
Gonzalez with our south coast office is going to do the staff presentation on
this uh yeah good evening honorable commissioners item w16a is an appeal of a local cdp approved
by the city of laguna beach for the construction of accessory improvements associated with
a single family residence at 31131 monterrey street laguna beach the applicant is tony
debba debba zorgi and the appellants are amira mosafari and daniel chew the standard
overview and determining whether the appeal raises a substantial issue is the city's certified
LCP and the Public Access Policies of the Coastal Act. Next slide please. As shown on this slide,
the proposed project is located at 1131 Monterey Street, landward of Coast Highway and the city of
Laguna Beach. Next slide please. The subject site is an 11,139 square foot lot that is designated
R1 residential low density and is developed with a single family residence and garage.
As shown on this slide, public access from Monterey Street street end to Aliso Beach is
available via a public access trail, which joins the eastern boundary of the site.
The city-approved project includes the construction of an approximately 3,534 gallon in-ground
spa, a 550 square foot elevated deck, a 319 square foot at-grade terrace expansion, and
a trash storage enclosure measuring approximately 4 feet in height.
The appellants raised several contentions with respect to the city's basis of approval
for the project. First, the appelants contend that the project violates the LCP because
no bluff edge determination was part of the record, and the project does not meet the
required bluff edge setback. Second, the appelants contend that the proposed development may
extend beyond the project line and encroach upon a public trail. Third, the appelants
contend that the project would privatize a fire lane by converting a fire lane at the
terminus of Monterey Street into a private parking space for the homeowner. Fourth, the
The Appellants contend that the proposed project would violate open space protections.
Finally, the Appellants contend that the proposed deck would impede upon scenic views and create
a noise nuisance and would adversely impact neighborhood character, views, and scenic
quality.
With respect to the Bluff Edge, the applicant provided a Bluff Edge survey which was made
available for review one week prior to the city's design review board meeting.
The city's consulting geologists reviewed the applicant's Bluff Edge survey and determined
that the Bluff Edge is located seaward of the property.
The Commission's staff geologists also reviewed the Bluff Edge survey and determined the Bluff Edge to be located at a remnant bluff approximately 198 feet seaward of the property, in the vegetated area inland of the parking lot at Aliso Beach and Seaward of Coast Highway.
The certified LCP requires a 25-foot setback for primary structures located on a coastal blufftop lot and a 10-foot setback for accessory structures.
Because the project site is located
almost 200 feet landward of the bluff edge,
there is sufficient evidence to support the city's findings
that the project is consistent
with the LCP's bluff edge setback policies.
Next slide please.
With respect to public access,
staff notes that the project would take place entirely
within the property lines of the subject site.
Although the applicant did seek approval
for a public easement to allow for a private parking
in a fire lane, the public easement was not
a discretionary action included as part of the project
and furthermore was denied by the city council.
The project applicant would therefore not be permitted to park in the fire lane or in
the setback area in front of their existing three-car garage, and the project would not
encroach upon the public access trail proximate to the site.
Next slide, please.
With respect to open space, the proposed project site is zoned R-1 residential low density,
which is designated to accommodate low-density single-family residential areas.
The site is neither zoned for open space nor designated open space in the city's certified
land use plan.
standards for sites as required by the LCP require that 29.4% or 3,274 square feet of
the site be used as landscape to open space. As proposed, 46.2% of the site, or 5,145 square
feet, consists of landscape to open space, consistent with the city's requirements.
Thus, staff does not find this contention to raise a substantial issue.
Next slide, please. With respect to community character, the city
included extensive findings to support the determination that the project is in scale
with neighboring structures. The project is compatible with the development in the area.
The project does not include a height increase and the project would not impact coastal scenic views.
With respect to public views, the improvements would be screened behind the existing residents
and this would not create a public view impact for Monterey Street. Next slide please.
From Coast Highway, the proposed elevated deck expansion would be visible. However,
the structure is located inland of Coast Highway and therefore the deck does not impact coastal
views from Coast Highway. The elevated deck would not increase the existing height of the on-site
development and is consistent with the scale of development in the area.
The deck would be visible from the top of the trail at Monterey Street,
the Monterey Street end, but the deck railing as proposed would be made from
transparent glass and would therefore not impact public views.
The proposed at-grade terrace and spa would not be visible from Coast Highway
as it would be close to the ground and would be concealed by the steep slope of
the hillside. The proposed terrace and spa would be
visible from the trail adjacent to the site
would not have coastal impacts as the development would be located on the
inland side of the trail and the views of the ocean from the trail would be on
abstracted. With respect to noise, the city's noise ordinance is not certified as part of the LCP
and therefore noise considerations are not grounds for appeal. Next slide please. In closing,
the city's decision to approve the proposed project does not present any inconsistencies
with the certified LCP with respect to bluff development, open space, public views, public
access or community character. Staff therefore recommends that the commission find no substantial
issue with regard to the contentions on which the appeal has been filed. The motion to accomplish
this can be found on page five of the staff report. This concludes the staff presentation.
Staff is available for questions. Thank you. I just wanted to note that that was Colby's
first presentation. Nice job. Thank you. Congratulations. Very well done. Thank you
so much. Okay. Are there any ex partes to report? See none. We will open the public
hearing and I'll turn it over to Chris. Thank you. We do not have the appellant. The
they never signed up to speak and they're not online.
So we just have the applicant, Tony DeBorzorgi.
Yes.
And they wanted to make a statement
and I believe that's it.
So Tony, go ahead.
Thank you.
Thank you and good afternoon commissioners.
My name is Tony DeBorzorgi and I am the applicant.
I merely want to say that I support the staff recommendation
and I especially want to thank Kobe Gonzalez,
who I think did an excellent job
in the staff report of responding to the appeals.
I ask that you find no substantial issue
and thank you very much for your time.
And thank you, no other speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
With that we will close the public hearing
and I'll return to Mr. Schwing.
Nothing further, thanks.
Thank you, okay, I'll return to the commission
for comments, questions, or a motion,
which is on page five of the.
I'm prepared to make a motion.
Please go ahead, thank you.
If there's any comment.
Okay, I move that the Commission determine
that appeal number A-5-LGB-26-0005
raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds
on which the appeal has been filed
under section 30603 of the Coastal Act
and request a yes vote.
Second, and I just want to reference it.
I think the city did a good job of applying
all their appropriate regulations and the LCP.
So thank you.
Okay, that's a motion by Commissioner Notoff,
a second by Commissioner Wilson.
They're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, no substantial issue has been found.
Okay now we are moving on to item 17a please. Thank you so that does take us to 17a
and there is a staff powerpoint on this item if we could bring that up.
And Seth Villanueva with our Long Beach office is going to do the presentation on this matter
so give him a moment to get settled here and begin when you're ready. Thanks.
Okay, good evening commissioners. Item 17a is the de novo hearing of an appealed local CDP approved
by the city of Dana Point for the construction of a new two-story single-family residence
with an attached garage on the ground floor supported by caissons on a beach fronting lot.
The applicants are John and Marcella Seidensticker. Next slide please.
Property is 35697 Beach Road located within the Capistrano Beach Community Association,
an established road residential development with access to homes obtained solely through
the private beach road located landward of the subject site. Further landward of beach road are
railroad tracks, pacific coast highway, and a coastal bluff supported supporting additional
development. Next slide please. An overview shot of the beach road community can be seen on this
slide. This photo is from 2008 and the beach here appears wide but has been in an acute
erosional state starting in the 1970s, recently accelerating to approximately 5 feet per year.
In fact, aerial imagery shows that since 2015, there are intermittent periods where there is
effectively no dry beach at all, and the beach is typically only visible during very low tides.
The commissioned staff engineer Jeremy Smith estimates that with the existing erosion rates,
the mean high tide line could imminently reach the line of development within the next couple
of decades.
Erosion is and will continue to be a serious threat along beach road, including the subject
site in the near to medium term.
Historically, the beaches in this area have been subjected to additional wave uprush damage,
flooding and erosion, during storm conditions and large summer southerly swell events.
Due to the geometry and orientation of this coastal stretch, very long period waves can
and sometimes propagate inland as large bores,
which can overtop and affect low-lying coastal structures.
Many existing residences located along Beach Road
are already struggling with those hazards,
and many homeowners have installed
unpemitted shoreline protected devices,
such as seawalls, revetments, riprap, sandbags, and berms
in response to the beach's particularly severe erosion
over the past few years.
Enforcement staff has identified over 90 such cases,
and these devices in and of themselves
exacerbate erosion through modification of shoreline processes, resulting in even narrower beach widths.
Of the 202 residential lots along Beach Road, about a dozen parcels are currently vacant
or unimproved, and they form four clearly visible gaps in the existing road development.
Although neighboring developed parcels with armoring, as well as the current backshore profile,
likely do provide some protection to the road from wave overtopping under the current range
of conditions, it is probable that flood waters can enter through these gaps during extreme
events since portions of the road are at a lower elevation than extreme total water level
elevations.
In fact, the access roads that the nearby County Beach Park has flooded as a result
of wave overtopping during high tide events.
Given the risks to the road, the Capistrano Bay Community Services District has recently
brought in its authority to include protection of the road from flood damage.
Thus, ample evidence exists that all beachfront residential development in the beach road
community is subject to an unusually high degree of risk due to storm waves and surges,
high surf conditions, erosion, and flooding.
For these reasons, the Commission has been highly involved in regional planning efforts
to ensure that South Orange County, including the beach road community, remain resilient
and adaptive to future coastal hazards and rising sea levels.
The project site is a 2,476 square-foot beachfront lot that extends approximately 60 feet seaward
from Beach Road, and the rear property line is ambulatory, with the mean high tide line.
The site is currently developed with an existing 1-story, 11.5-feet tall, 892 square feet single
family residence.
The beach seaward of the site is approximately 19 feet wide on average, and the wet sand
is available for passive recreation.
There is an existing pre-coastal seawall and riprap present on site.
The proposed project, as approved by the City, includes the construction of a new two-story,
36 feet tall, 2,710 square foot single family residence with an attached 1,258 square foot
three-car garage.
The garage would be enclosed with breakaway panels.
city-approved elevation, the city-approved elevation of the residence and garage above
Beach Road grade using nine caissons. The applicants proposed balconies on the first
and second floors of the residence, which would extend approximately eight feet beyond
the structure, but conform to the patio string line. The existing seawall and riprap that
were installed prior to the enactment of the Coastal Act are proposed to remain to protect
the structures adjacent to the subject property. Unpermitted decking and stairs over the seawall
proposed to be removed as part of the project. Next slide please. The subject beachfront lot
is within a coastal high hazard area and as such is already subject to coastal hazards such as wave
uprush, flooding and erosion. The image on this slide was taken in August 2021 along beach road
located approximately one mile up coast of the subject site demonstrating the coastal hazards
associated with development in this area. This part of the Dana Point coast has experienced an
an accelerated decades-long erosional trend
starting in the late 1990s
and is subject to coastal hazards
which will be exacerbated by sea level rise.
Next slide please.
The beach width as of 2024 January
was approximately 19 feet from the existing seawall
to the mean high tide line at the subject site.
With a long-term erosion rate of nine,
oh sorry, of three feet per year
and no accelerated sea level rise,
the mean high tide line could reach the line of development
at the site in less than 14 years.
Even under more conservative estimates,
the mean high tide line could reach the line of development
at the site in less than 24 years,
which demonstrates that erosion is and will continue
to be a serious threat along Beach Road
and the subject site in the near future.
These scenarios are based on the removal of the seawall
as the seawall will prevent the mean high tide line
from migrating landward when it's in place.
The removal of the seawall is discussed next.
Next slide, please.
There are periods where there's no dry beach
the subject site. The seawall outlined in the yellow on this slide and the riprap on the site
are proposed to be to remain on the protected to remain only to protect the adjacent structures
that currently depend on the wall for protection from coastal hazards. The city approval did
require removal of the seawall however staff recommends imposing special condition 7 which
clarifies when the seawall would be removed which would be when any of the following conditions
One, the adjacent residences are no longer present or where the adjacent residences undertake development, which would require a CDP.
Two, the adjacent structures no longer need the protection.
Or three, the functioning of the seawall has diminished to such an extent that it is no longer serving to protect the existing adjacent structures.
Currently, best available science estimates up to approximately 4.7 feet of sea level rise at the subject site by 2100.
With the recommendations for engineering design, including raising the residents on nine caissons above the future base flood elevation,
the applicant's consultant concludes that the residents will be relatively safe from hazards over the proposed 75-year project life.
The commissioned staff engineer, Jeremy Smith, concludes that the proposed elevation of the
residence is a reasonable effort to minimize the risks from flood hazards to the residence,
and its design on pile foundations similarly reduces the proposed structure's risk from erosion.
However, Mr. Smith's analysis also concludes that Beach Road is expected to be threatened by both
coastal erosion and wave-related flooding within the 75-year lifespan typically considered for
residential development, ultimately restricting access to and from the proposed residence
within the anticipated life of the development. Additionally, based on projections of shoreline
changes caused by sea level rise, the mean high tide line is expected to migrate inland and
underneath the proposed residence with as little as 1.8 feet of sea level rise, which is also within
the anticipated project lifespan. In this case, the development has been designed and conditioned
to be consistent with the LCP, including future removal of the development if it is not safe
to access or inhabit the residents because the road is consistently flooded or if the
utilities are damaged beyond repair. Conditions of approval also specify that the development
must be relocated or removed if it comes to encroach on public trust lands, when the mean
high tide line migrates landward with sea level rise.
Given that the project site is subject to significant coastal hazards that will only
exacerbate with sea level rise. The commission's staff engineer, Mr. Smith, has made certain
recommendations to ensure that the proposed development would minimize risk and avoid
adverse impacts to coastal resources to the greatest extent feasible. These recommendations
include specific changes to the design of the project. Primarily at issue is the recommendation
to design a carport in lieu of an enclosed garage with breakaway walls. The applicant submitted a
letter to the Commission staff objecting to any revisions to the project design,
specifically the replacement of the enclosed garage with a carport.
As noted in Mr. Smith's memorandum attached to the staff report, there are several concerns with
the proposed at-grade garage with regards to marine debris and water quality through storage
of materials and increasingly frequent destruction of breakaway walls expected with sea level rise.
Mr. Smith notes that the structure will still be subject to significant direct wave attack,
wave run-up and overtopping. The garage located below the future base flood elevation would
experience repeated stresses from wave impact and would likely experience accelerated degradation
with the additional effects of abrasion from repeated impacts from sand and cobble and corrosion
and spalling from the marine environment. It is likely that major repairs will be needed to these
more exposed parts of the structure prior to repairs to the habitable portions. A fast-moving
bore from a wave running up or flowing across the project site, impacting the breakaway
panels could cause failure with water depths of less than a foot. The elevation of the
garage is close to the elevation of many existing decks and patios along the beachfront, which
are frequently impacted or overtopped by waves during high tide that coincide with moderate
swell. Given the breakaway walls could be at the structural string line of the proposed
residence, it is plausible that waveboards from extreme events could reach the garage
due to episodic erosion that causes waves to break closer to the residence or water
from overtopped waves accumulating at the landward side of the lot.
Frequency of failure of these breakaway panels will increase with sea level rise, increasing
the risk that debris from the breakaway panels and any unsecured material stored in the garage
areas would be mobilized by waves and released into the nearshore marine environment.
The proposed garage is already at risk and will increasingly be at risk of sand breaking
through the breakaway panels should it pile up at the wall of the garage, again exposing
the materials in the garage to the marine environment.
Mr. Smith estimates that the breakaway walls could fail more than once a year with the
projected sea level rise, from either wave impact or a buildup of sand on the seaward
side of the walls, and he recommends that the design be modified to allow waves to flow
unstructed through the garage without breakaway panels.
Applicants with new structures proposed along Beach Road have argued in the past that the
LCP requires breakaway walls. The LCP allows for breakaway walls, but does not require them,
and provides an alternative by allowing the lowest floor to be free of obstructions.
The LCP prohibits subterranean garages on Beach Road. It does not prohibit carports. Staff
recommends the use of carports as unenclosed structures free of obstruction along Beach Road
in new developments so that waves can flow unobstructed beneath the residents, and that
there be no structures at beach grade on the seaward side in order to minimize the contribution
to marine debris and worsening of hazards in the surrounding area. Since the frequency of
failure of the proposed breakaway panels would increase with sea level rise, there is an increased
risk that the debris from the breakaway panels would be mobilized by waves and released into
the nearshore marine environment. Depending on how the breakaway panels fail, large chunks or
sections could drift and pose hazards to nearby residences or beachgoers. Because there are no
public easements on this property across the dry sand, when the walls break away they could
have public access impacts because the failed walls will be in the surf zone,
which is near the mean high tide line in the area of the beach that provides public access to the
coast. Furthermore, the enclosed garage may also be for storage of electrical and mechanical
equipment, cleaning chemicals, or other hazardous pollutants. Inundation of the garage could thus
result in a release of harmful toxins into the marine environment and or impacts to water quality
and surrounding coastal habitats via creation of marine debris. Therefore, in order to avoid the
creation of marine debris and minimize the potential for water quality degradation,
staff continues to recommend special conditions requiring design changes to the plans to replace
that were proposed in closed garage with an open carport and conditions which prohibit
the storage of unsecured and hazardous materials within the open carport to avoid their release
into the marine environment.
In addition to the benefits outlined here, a carport will have other benefits, such as
preservation of a portion of blue water views, which will be discussed later in the presentation.
And to note, other recent commissioned actions along Beach Road have adopted similar carport
redesign requirements, including at the December hearing for two appeal projects that were
approved with conditions.
One of these projects, at 35747 Beach Road, involved a redesign of the garage area to
a carport prior to the Commission's action, with the cooperation of the applicant in adopting
this change after the appeal.
Further, staff have worked closely in cooperation with the City to address these coastal resource
issues in future projects, and as such, there have been several recent projects approved
by the city that the Commission has not appealed, having already incorporated the recommended
design elements and with special conditions on the city's permit in line with those included
by the Commission.
Next slide please.
The subject site is located within an almost fully developed residential area with no vertical
public beach access currently available due to Beach Road.
The closest vertical access points available are located approximately one mile up coast
at Capistrano Beach Park and half a mile down coast from the project site.
Because there is no existing public access easement at the subject site across the dry
sand, members of the public seaward of the property would only have lateral access across
the wet sand along the Meadhide Highline.
While there is an existing shoreline protected device on the site that does impede the inland
migration of public trust lands and could in the future impact public access to the
shoreline. The shoreline protection was built prior to the enactment of the
Coastal Act. The applicants have stated that the two adjacent residences rely on
it and the applicants are not proposing any development to the seawall and are
not proposing to alter it. As previously discussed, staff recommends conditions of
approval to monitor the mean high tide line and to remove development that may
restrict public access in the future. The project as conditioned does not
negatively impact public access. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the LCP and the
public access policies of the Coastal Act. Next slide please. Commission staff had requested a
rendering of the proposed project with an open carport and lube the proposed enclosed garage.
However, the applicants submitted a view impact study that shows the residents as proposed with
an enclosed garage on the ground level, shown on this slide. The applicants assert that no
No additional view impacts or loss of blue water views will occur, given a single-story
residence currently exists on site.
As can be seen on this slide, blue water views are present if viewing the subject site from
Coast Highway or the adjacent pedestrian trail.
Therefore, the project would result in additional loss of blue water views from Coast Highway
if approved as proposed by the applicants.
The LCP requires that new development be visually compatible with the character of surrounding
areas and where feasible will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
Providing ocean views across the site in the new development would restore and enhance the
visual quality. Commissioned staff recommends that ocean views be provided across the site
via two conditions of approval which require design changes to convert the enclosed garage
to an open carport and to provide view corridors within the side yards and the carport of the
property. Next slide please. A violation of Coastal Act has occurred on the subject property,
including but not necessarily limited to unpermitted development constructed after
adoption of the Coastal Act, consisting of an elevated seaward deck and staircase on the site.
According to aerial photography of the site, the patio deck was installed by 2006 and further
expanded with the stairs by 2013. Further modifications were made by 2021. The applicant
has proposed as a component of this project to remove the unpermitted deck and stairs
to fully remove the unpermitted structure from the site. Commissioned staff have reviewed
the violation and considered the removal of the unpermitted structures as sufficient to
resolve the violation. While the deck has been present for more than 10 years, the presence
of the seawall underneath the deck results in minimal impacts to public access caused
by the deck that does not necessitate further action at this time.
As outlined in the staff report, the project also has the potential to impact marine resources
and tribal cultural resources. Tribal monitoring during construction is included as condition
of approval. In the event that portions of the development fall to the beach before they
are removed, conditions require the applicant or successors in interest to remove all recoverable
debris associated with the development from the beach and ocean, and conditions are imposed
on the construction phase of the project to protect marine life and water quality.
Staff recommends 15 special conditions as outlined in the staff report and summarized
on this slide.
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the de novo coastal development permit per
for the staff recommendation.
The motion to accomplish this can be found
on page seven of the staff report.
We would note that for the record
that two addenda were published for this item
to provide responses to two letters of opposition
received from the applicant and Pacific Legal Foundation.
This concludes the staff presentation.
Staff including the commission staff engineer,
Jeremy Smith are available for questions.
Thank you.
Great, thank you very much for that presentation.
We'll begin by asking my colleagues
if there are any ex partes to report.
Okay.
Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing
and go first to the applicant.
And yes, we have on Zoom,
the applicant, John SineSticker,
as well as Pacific legal representative, Jeremy Talcott.
John SineSticker, go ahead.
Could you let Jeremy go first?
Would that be okay?
Yes.
Sir, could I ask how much time you'll need total?
I would like, if you would appease me,
I would like 10 minutes.
I've waited three years since I was
de novo to get to this point.
I would like 10 minutes if it's possible.
If not, I can cut my comments down to two,
but this has been a long, arduous process.
Seth, I want to say has been,
I've been through three planners and he's stuck through,
but I would request 10 for myself
that has waited three years at this point for this,
but I don't know how much time Jeremy needs.
Sir, 10 minutes for you is fine, thank you,
but I think you need to go first.
My understanding is that Jeremy and I apologize,
I don't know his last name, Mr. Talcott,
is not representing you in this matter,
so he will have to speak as a member of the public.
So please go ahead, sir.
Okay, well thank you, staff.
As I said, it's been three years
since this project got turned down.
It's really a little bit of a crazy chase
as due process isn't followed here.
I followed the LCP to the letter of the law
and then was told it wasn't good enough
and I've waited three years for today.
I've submitted multiple letters
and based on the staff's rebuttal,
the staff has mischaracterized my constitutional argument.
The addendum states that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine does not apply because
prohibitions on future shoreline protection do not require a conveyance of property, interest,
or payment of money.
That framing misunderstands the doctrine.
The unconstitutional conditions doctrine applies whenever the government conditions approval
of land use permit on the surrender of constitutional rights, including property rights.
This proposal requires me and my wife to permanently waive future shoreline protection, removal
of existing shoreline protection devices under specific triggers, and mandatory future demolition
of the residents.
These are significant property interests.
have consistently held the conditioning developments approval on the surrender
of property must satisfy the nexus and proportionate principles. Even if the
Commission believes the Lindstrom allows certain limitations Lindstrom does not
authorize the breadth of the conditions proposed here. 15 conditions beyond the
the LCP. In fact, the Lindstrom explicitly held the Coastal Commission remove conditions
that were overboard and unreasonable in order to revise or delete. Staff's reliance on Lindstrom
therefore cuts against their position. Staff misapplies the Lindstrom decision in the addendum
and validates the proposed conditions. That is correct. The Lindstrom upheld only a narrow
tailored conditions tied to specific hazards while simultaneously striking
down conditions that were broad broader than necessary. The Court held that
removal of conditions must be limited to circumstances where a government agency
determines the structure unsafe. No feasible mitigation exists without
shoreline protection. The conditions imposed here go far beyond that standard.
They include triggers based on loss of utilities, access impairment, mitigation
of mean high tide level, removal of neighbor structures, future adaptation
planning. These triggers are not limited to structural safety, therefore exceed
the Lindstrom permit. Staff also misrepresents Coastal Act 3235. The
The Addendum Asserts shoreline protection may only protect structures existing in 1977.
The interpretation is legally unsupported.
Section 3235 states, revetments, breakaways, groins, harbor channels, seawalls shall be
permitted when to serve coastal dependent uses or protecting existing structures.
have repeatedly interpreted existing structures to instruct and include structures that lawfully
exist when protection is required. The amendment relies on Costa Mesa, Costa Mira HOA to argue
otherwise, but Costa Mira addresses specific fractional situations involving redevelopment
and armoring expansion, not a category rule eliminating of shoreline protection for all
future. The Coastal Act has never interpreted required protective waivers,
shoreline protection rights for all replacement residents. The Addendum
confirms that the conditions are based here on speculation of engineers. The
staff claims that the mean high tide line may reach the development less than
14. However, that conclusion is based on projections derived from generalized
erosion models. Even the Commission's own engineer memo acknowledges
substantial uncertainty in predicting the future shoreline change. Permit
conditions must be based on substantial evidence of the site-specific impacts,
not speculative future scenarios. The Coastal Act requires that development
minimizes risk, not eliminates every conceivable future hazard. The
The addendum concedes that the conditions are policy driven.
The addendum repeatedly references regional erosion conditions
and sea level rise.
But those conditions affect the entire beach road.
And honestly, all of California coast,
not this project uniquely.
The addendum attempts to justify the conditions
stating other similar situated properties have the similar requirements. They were made
to take those requirements, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten a permit. This is not
legal justification. If the Commission believes regional policies are necessary to address
sea level rise and shoreline armoring, those policies must be adopted through an LCP addendum,
planning and legislative rulemaking. They cannot be imposed piecemeal through
individual permits. Staff mischaracterizes the deed restrictions. The
addendum states the deed restrictions are not overboard because it only applies
as long as the development exists. That statement ignores the practical effort
effect of the condition. Deed restrictions require perpetual monitoring
obligations, disclosure requirements binding future owners, restrictions tied
to evolving hazard speculation and encumber a deed to make the property
worth so much less in value. Such restrictions significantly
burden the title and exceed typical notice conditions. The carport. I can live
with making sure and signing up that I won't have chemicals in there and yes
it will require maintenance. Living on the ocean does, but removing the car,
making a carport mandatory is one that's a safety concern. Anybody can walk
through my property, anybody can get in the elevator. I understand the impacts of
living on the water, but the addendum asserts that the garage is not a
requirement by the LCP, that a carport is preferred. However, the LCP establishes
development standards for garages and enclosed parking. My design complies with those standards.
The commission cannot replace compliant development with an alternative design simply because
it prefers a different architectural configuration. Such submissions exceeds the commission's
authority. I realize I'm running out of time so I will go faster. The addendum
confirms conditions exceed the LCP. Perhaps the most revealing statement in
the addendum is the LCP development standards do not preclude additional
requirements being imposed additively or sub substitution. This interpretation is
is incorrect. The Coastal Act requires development in the appeal jurisdiction to be evaluated
for consistency with the certified LCP. The Commission does not have the authority to
impose new substantive development standards that do not exist in the LCP today. If the
the city of Toronto. The city of
long-term hazard projections and expansive interpretation of LCP policies,
misapplication of relevant case law, policy preferences adopted in the certified LCP.
The Coastal Act requires that permit conditions be necessary to achieve compliance with the
LCP, supported by substantial evidence reasonably related to the project.
conditions imposed here exceed those limits. For those reasons, I maintain that special
conditions 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 15 remain legally unsupported and request them to be removed
or substantially revised. I made it. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. Excuse me. Okay. Now we will turn to Chris.
Jeremy Talcott? Jeremy Talcott? Yes I'm here. Okay go ahead. Perfect thank you for allowing me
the opportunity to speak. Just to rather than reiterating the points that I raised in the letter
submitted on behalf of PLF, I'll just briefly respond to some of the notes within the addendum
including the fact that the you know the commission notes that they're entitled to
require conditions so long as they are reasonable. I think that's still far different than a condition
that requires resubmittal of new plans. I think that fundamentally transforms what is supposed
to be a final decision by the Commission because this cannot be a final decision when the
final decision instead opens up the possibility of continued future negotiations between staff
and the applicant to try and satisfy the nature of the conditions that have been placed. As noted
within our letter, I believe this constitutes both the problem under the Due Process Clause and also
simply under the regulations of the Coastal Act itself, as well as the structure established
by Section 1094.5 and the short statute of limitations within the Coastal Act, which gives
just 60 days for an applicant to seek judicial review. So when the final terms of the development
cannot be fully known on the basis of the final approval, that makes it difficult for the judiciary
to do its job and again transforms this final or this so-called approval into something else
entirely. Finally, I would also point out that special conditions 7 and 5, in addition to serving
as regulatory takings which the staff responds to elsewhere also hand over this kind of unconstrained
authority to demand removal to unspecified state agencies using subjective criteria and I believe
that also constitutes a due process violation so we would urge the commission to instead approve
the project is originally approved by the local government or to simply deny.
Thank you. Our last speaker is Mitch Silverstein and we will make sure that
your video on this presentation works properly. Long day. Chair Harmon,
commissioners, Mitch Silverstein, surf rider. Oh, I'll wait to start. In all
fairness to the time limit. Yeah. Okay. Next slide. And next slide again. That's the home that
that's in question today. That's a more recent image. Staff did a great presentation, but I
wanted to kind of give them a more recent image, I think 2021, to really show you what that beach
looks like today. So there's no speculative future erosion happening. It's already pretty
bad. Next slide and then this is the video hopefully it works and if you could mute it that
would be great. This is also 2021 it's not all Beach Road this video but that is and most of the
most of the video is Beach Road homes. So I'll keep playing this video as a reminder of just
how hazardous this location is when Beach Road de novo's come up. The staff report stated they've
identified over 90 cases of unpermitted shoreline armoring on this road many in response to
particularly severe erosion over the past few years. Sadly that armoring just further exacerbates
erosion and ultimately no amount of armoring is going to protect these homes. What's this going
to look like in 2050 with a foot of sea level rise? What about two, three feet of sea level rise?
That's likely going to occur within the expected lifespan of the home whose permit is before you
today. Surf Rider's view on this is that the special conditions staff have landed on are
are compliant with the Coastal Act, the city's LUP,
and are necessary.
We would push harder on requiring immediate removal
of the seawall, but appreciate the sunset mechanism
that will require its removal if and when
the neighboring properties redevelop
and are no longer reliant on it.
It's important to note that this suite
of special conditions have been consistent
across several similar to Novo CDPs
for new developments on Beach Road
that most of you and maybe previous commissioners
have approved.
The caissons, the open carport instead
and enclosed garage, mean high tide line surveys and removal of parts which encroach
on public tie lands and prohibition of future shoreline armoring are precedents that have
already been set.
It would be very inconsistent to modify any of them today, and previous applicants may
feel compelled to request CDP amendments, and if those are denied, I wouldn't be surprised
if legal action is sued if you were to do that today.
So I sympathize with the applicants who need to suffer this process, but I urge you to
hold strong and approve the staff recommendation on this.
The reality is we need to stop building homes on beaches,
but this is the best we can do.
They're building at their own risk
and beaches belong to everyone, thank you.
Thank you.
And no more speakers.
Okay, thank you very much.
With that, I will close the public hearing
and return to our staff
to see if they have any closing comments.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a couple things.
Staff affirm that the issues raised in these comments
largely been addressed in the staff report and associated addenda, and I'll just add a couple
points of note. The special conditions of the permit are included each with a stated nexus to
coastal resource impacts and have supporting findings in the staff report. And then further,
just to reiterate, the staff recommendation for a redesign to include a carport instead of an
enclosed garage is not a preference of architectural style as stated in the comments. It is an
alternative that is beneficial for the risk to coastal resources as thoroughly analyzed and
outlined in the staff report. I'll turn it over to other commission staff and staff council if
they have any additional comments. Great, thank you Seth. And one thing I just wanted to point
out and it is something that was mentioned in the initial comments, but with regard to the carport
design, this is something again the commission has itself approved several times before,
but at the same time the city of Dana Point has as well. They've taken action on a number of permits
since this item came in and they've revised the conditions that they impose
to appoint and do require the carport as part of that in a fashion such that we haven't decided to
appeal those actions. And the city itself found consistency with the LCP with regard
to that requirement. So I just wanted to point that out and I'll turn it over to our staff
council for some additional comments. Thank you Mr. Schwing. I would just note that the
applicant referenced multiple times the Lindstrom decision. It just so happens that the Deputy
Attorney General who represented the commission and that is Hayley Peterson sitting here to
my left.
And then we actually revised the special conditions in response to the court order in that case
to ensure that the removal conditions and issues like that are triggered by a final
decision of an agency with authority that has withstood legal challenge if it has been
challenged.
So it is a final order.
process because it can be challenged at the time that the removal order or the red-tagging
order is made by the local government or other agency.
So we believe we're fully in consistency with the Lindstrom case.
In response to Mr. Talcott's argument about special condition one and the revised final
plans, I would note that this is a very typical condition that the Commission applies when
We need to make modifications to the submitted plans and it's unclear to me what part of
this is unclear.
There is a bird strike prevention plan with so much detail that it includes things like
that the treatment pattern should be an eighth of an inch wide with a maximum spacing of
two inches.
There's not going to be negotiation between the executive director and the applicant over
something like a plan with this much detail.
This condition is designed so that it is simply a ministerial action by the executive director
to sign off on the final plans.
They also mention in their letter the case on plan that's part of the revised plans.
It is a case on treatment and exposure plan.
So if the caissons are exposed, then they will be properly camouflaged at that time.
We're not redesigning the caissons here.
If you go through each of these final plan conditions, they have specificity, they are
ministerial or don't involve discretion by the executive director or are not fundamentally
changing the scope of the development.
we respectfully disagree with with Mr. Talcott on that issue and and I believe
that concludes my comments. Okay thank you very much with that I will return to
the Commission and begin with Vice Chair Hart. Thanks so much and I want to
appreciate the tremendous amount of work that went into this by our staff and
and also appreciate the comments from Council.
And particularly having Council on Lindstrom
here to provide additional information.
You know, when I look at what Mitch just presented
and I think about the mean height timeline requirements,
I'm having a little bit of a hard time understanding
how portions of this residents are not already
in the public trust domain can you explain that to me because it seems to me
I mean high tide line is pretty darn close to where this seawall is or beyond.
And so Jeremy Smith is our engineer and he's available online. Jeremy can you address this
question. Yes the chair sorry I'm getting feedback. Sounds good. Okay I'll just power through.
The mean high tide line the closest in date survey that we have shows that it is relatively
close to the sea wall. I think it was something like 12 feet or so. So it is relatively quite
close to the sea wall as of the last date and survey. Of course the mean high tide line is
is something that's ambulatory and changes with different sand levels.
But we don't have any affirmative evidence that the mean high tide line has been surveyed
at the base of the seawall.
And of course, the seawall would prevent the natural migration of the mean high tide lines
for the land work.
So returning to my comments, so the first thing that, or one of the first thing that
has to happen is that the applicant has to perform a mean high tide line survey to determine.
And I don't know, Jeremy didn't say when that survey was conducted, but this would have
to be done prior to any, the commencement of any redevelopment of this house.
The requirement under the condition is prior to issuance of the permit.
That's the first mean high tide line survey that is due.
And then they're progressively required I think every five years after that.
And they push back on the requirement of the every five years and I thought it might be
helpful just to make a statement about why that is justified by the Coastal Act, if you
would.
Because I know that was one of their points, that the LCP does not require an every five
year NHDL.
I couldn't take a crack, but I think where your first question sort of leads to the second,
which is, you know, it's obviously mean high tide line is very close to the existing house.
And so I think there's – we don't know the exact timeline in which sea level rise
will reach the house.
There – as I think you heard Seth say earlier in the report, there is some uncertainty about
that, which is why we're tying all these conditions to that mean high tide line survey.
But this is a really dynamic environment too, and that's why we felt five years was appropriate.
it could be every one year,
we could get different values every year.
That seemed a little bit too much.
And so I do think five years makes a lot of sense
given how quickly this beach is eroding.
We do feel like five years is appropriate.
Yeah, and also just to add,
the wording of the condition allows
for the Capistrano Bay District
to be the ones to perform the survey,
which they already perform surveys in this area.
So the applicant really only needs to receive the data
from the district and submit it on their own behalf.
Of course, if the district ever no longer conducted
those surveys, the applicant would be responsible for that.
But the district has done that for a number of years.
Okay, well, I would think that,
I mean, I have a lot of concern about this.
I'll just say straight up.
And I mean, I feel that the pushback from the applicant
of what I consider to be very reasonable conditions
given the situation as demonstrated by the video
in which we all know at this location.
I think it's whether the,
is it what is called the Capistrano?
The Capistrano Bay District.
Okay, well they would have had to do it very recently,
right, for it to qualify for this permit.
Yeah, the most recent survey that was used
in the analysis of this project was from 2024.
but there are more recent surveys that have been conducted.
Yeah, I mean, I'm concerned about all of the documents
submitted by the landowner, their comments here today.
I just want to make sure that they're truly in agreement
and understand what is being required here
and that they are going to comply with it
because it's a very dangerous situation.
For example, the issue with the carport,
we discussed that at a prior hearing,
but the idea that these carport walls
could be dislodged by a storm event
and go slamming down the street or the beach
into other houses, into people, into the road.
I mean, that seems like such a clear point.
I'm just concerned that the applicant does not understand.
He's made a couple of statements
about living by the ocean is tough.
Well, as we've seen from the videos here,
I mean, this is a very, very perilous location
to be building a house.
So, I have a lot of concerns about this permit and I am very grateful to the extensive work
that staff has done and I think that it's absolutely mandatory to have all
of the requirements in effect at the time the permit issue is including an assessment
of what it would take to remove the seawall and the house.
So, you know, I don't think, I think that it's a new day
with the public, what's happening with public trust lands
that people that live on the beach and have houses
on the beach have got to understand this is public land.
When the mean high tide line continues
to move landward it becomes public land.
And, you know, we are required to enforce that.
So, I mean, I, you know, will go along
with this permit but only because of the extensive work that staff has done and all
of the requirements that are contained here.
So thank you so much for that.
Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you.
I'll be brief.
Great job to staff again.
You know, each one of the times this, one of these houses come up.
It kind of seems like it's rinse, repeat, but I really appreciate all that you've done,
and I just want to align myself with the, with Vice Chair Hart's concerns and thoughts.
I think I made a somewhat snarky comment on one of these,
and I'm gonna bring back that snark a little bit today.
I said, I wonder how many years before I'm allowed
to just pull up a chair, sit in their front deck porch
and watch TV because it's public land.
And so I just, I don't think we're that far away
from this, right?
So it just kind of observed to me, but yeah,
I have nothing else to say.
Snark done.
Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado.
I just wanted to make a point about the continued erosion
of that beach and I don't know to what extent
the property owners who have housing,
who have created protections for their property
and they have impacted the beach erosion.
And to what extent does the public have access right now
to those beaches and it's basically being eliminated
in attempting to protect that kind of structure
at that beach.
So I'm just wondering is enforcement the alternative?
If let's say this project doesn't move forward,
how does enforcement occur with all of those property owners
that are basically eliminating the beach?
Thank you through the chair.
And yes, there are currently enforcement actions
underway with regard to these properties. There there have been notices sent and we are attempting
to work with the property owners in order to address that. The reason I bring that up is that
in the one of the conditions you do talk about the neighbors making changes and so it presupposes
that everyone's probably in need of making changes. So in any case I I'm confused by this
this whole development, but I will support Vice Chair Hart's motion if she makes one.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson, then Commissioner Escalante.
I share many of those concerns and I do really want to say I appreciate the conditions for
all the reasons that are stated in the sections that are referenced in this report and I won't
go through them all, but I do believe that there is an effort here to not just protect
the public safety and the public resources, but also the state interests
in relation to these situations where properties get abandoned, properties have
significant damage, and then the state under emergency conditions have to deal
with this and that falls on all of the state's residences to pay for this. So not only do
we have some pretty significant privilege related to being able to live or have property
and access and entitlement to that space. But then when the stuff hits the fan and people
lean on the state to help deal with the emergency and the problem that's being created, that's
unfair to everybody else who can't afford that space and who is everywhere else.
And it's intentional in certain degree because we're moving forward with permits on this.
And so I really concur with what is with these conditions strongly and so that we're protecting
not only those resources, but also the interests of the citizens of the state of California.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I totally align myself with Commissioner Wilson's up through the chair.
I just want to make an update that we will be removed from the building at 630. We cannot be after 630. So we need to
Get through the agenda
Just just yeah speed things up if possible, okay real quick and I'll start this problem
another one but
What what will be the trigger for the state of California to force some of this very extreme cases of?
beach loss, erosion, conflict with the main road behind.
I know that there's a takings issue,
but what can trigger maybe forcing homes
to go on stilts, for example,
which may alleviate some of the access issues,
some of the safety and erosion issues?
I think we're already at the point of requiring
those types of elevation and other mechanisms
to make sure that these houses are out of harm's way,
so to speak.
So they are all sort of elevated upon caissons
in these particular circumstances, still the same idea.
But to your question sort of about when we can anticipate
that in this particular instance, the seawall comes down.
But again, like imagine, take this house
multiply it by many across that entire road,
when the Mina High Tideline does come under the houses,
those houses are then on public trust lands.
And how are we going to manage that as a state?
And that is a good question
that I'm not sure we have a great answer to yet.
It's one of the things we're working actively
with State Lands Commission to try to figure out
some potential solutions for managing through that problem.
Because we have that already in certain circumstances
and it's just gonna occur more and more
where we will have private structures encroaching
on public trust lands, taking a beach base, all of that.
I mean, that's gonna be happening.
Just to close up, I think it would,
it's a worthwhile time right now
to be spitting those conversations
just because of kind of how things
are gonna move along the beachfront in Malibu.
We don't have really much to say in that,
but I mean, common sense, hopefully,
will peek its head into those decisions.
And whatever we do in the future is not,
it's gonna prevent some of those
valuable natural resources loss.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, I'll entertain a motion.
All right, it sounds like we better be moving quickly.
So I move the commission approved coastal development
permit number A-5-DPT-23-0004
pursuant to the staff recommendation.
Ask for a yes vote.
Second.
Motion by Vice Chair Hart, second by Commissioner Presiado.
They're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing no objection, the motion carries.
Okay, now we'll move on quickly to item 17C.
That's correct.
Item 17C, this is the
Boat Show
CDP.
And Emery Dispenser, our district manager
in our Long Beach office is gonna be doing
that presentation remotely.
We do have a staff PowerPoint if we could bring that up.
And Amrita, when you are ready to proceed, please do.
And Amrita, please go quickly.
I will do my best.
I will talk quickly as well.
Good evening, commissioners.
Item 17C is an application
for the Newport Beach International Boat Show,
which I'll refer to as the boat show
within the commission's permitting jurisdiction.
The applicant is Bernard Keita.
The project is located within Lido Marina
in the city of Newport Beach.
Landward of the Marina is Lido Village,
which is developed with its commercial uses.
The boat show will, excuse me,
the boat show will showcase boats,
yachts and marine related exhibits.
The applicant is requesting a five year approval
for this event with this year's show set to take place
April 16th through 19th of this year.
The boat show event will take place over four days
and the combined setup and take-down
will take approximately three weeks.
The project site has a bisected coastal permit
jurisdiction boundary,
which results in a portion of the site being located
within the commission's retained permit jurisdiction,
and the other portion
within the city's permitting jurisdiction.
I'll refer to these as the water side portion
and the land side portion, respectively.
This permit application is limited
to the water side portion of the boat show,
which is located in the harbor and in submerged tide lens,
as shown on this slide.
The component will feature in-water boat shows,
including displays, marina activations,
and entertainment on the docks.
This event would have an entrance fee
with general admission pricing ranging from $25 to $49
and a limited quantity of VIP tickets
priced at approximately $200.
The event would also include the installation
of a, excuse me, of 177 temporary floating dock units
supported with 12 inch diameter piles
and 75 helical anchors that will be used by the boats
for the boat show.
The standard of review for the development
within the commission's original permit jurisdiction
is chapter three of the Coastal Act
with the certified LCP used as guidance.
Next slide, please.
The primary issues raised by the project
relate to marine resources and public access.
The proposed piles and helical anchors
result in a total of 200 cubic yards of temporary fill.
Placement of piles and hu- excuse me.
Because this project results in fill,
the project must be reviewed for conformance
with 30233A of the Coastal Act.
In order for the project to be consistent with this section,
the project needs to demonstrate that the fill must
for an allowable use that the fill of coastal waters is the least environmentally damaging
feasible alternative and that adequate mitigation is included to offset impacts created by the
project. Since the piles and helical anchors will support the dock floats, the fill would be
consistent with 30233 as a vote bill for boating facilities is an allowable use. The applicant has
indicated that placement of the piles and anchors is the minimum amount of piles and
anchors necessary to safely anchor the temporary dock floats and has explained that over time
between previous shows in this show, the number of piles used to support the boat dock system
has been significantly reduced from 36 to 12. Additionally, the applicant is in the
process of transitioning completely to helical anchors as they result in less fill and cause
less turbidity during installation removal. The applicant has expressed interest in removing
the piles but retaining the helical after each event to simplify setup for future shows. However,
there are concerns that leaving in the helical anchors would effectively result in permanent fill
that would adversely impact soft bottom habitat and would not be the least environmentally
damaging alternative. Thus, Special Condition 1 requires the applicant to submit a pile
and helical anchor removal plan, and Special Condition 2 requires that the piles and helical
anchors are removed no later than five days after each completion of the boat show event.
As conditioned, the project would not result in permanent impacts to soft bottom habitat
and thus would not necessitate mitigation.
Thus, the project, as conditioned, would meet the requirements of Coastal Act Section 30233.
With respect to public access, although the waterside portion of the event show is a paid
event, the landside portion of the event, which is in the city's jurisdiction and has
been approved by the city is completely free to the public and includes marine safety and educational
exhibitions, outdoor and recreational lifestyle exhibitions, and Coast Guard Auxiliary and Coast
Guard Foundation information pertaining to public boating safety and awareness outreach. Thus there
is a free public component access to the boat show that will be provided alongside the paid portion of
the event. It should also be noted that parking and transportation for the event will be provided
through a combination of off-site parking at Hogue Hospital nearby, complimentary shuttle service,
water taxi partnerships that are free to the public, and continued use of on-site available
public parking in the Lido Marina Village directly adjacent to the project site.
The project would not interfere with any existing navigational easements that would
exist over navigational waters or with the public's rights to access coastal waters.
Bayward of the event area. Nevertheless, special condition 7 clarifies that approval of the CDP
does not waive any public rights that may exist on adjacent public waters or these public waters.
Next slide please. I'll let us speed through this in the interest of time. But after publication of
the staff report, permissioned staff received three emails from Jim Mosher, the Sierra Club,
and Fair Harbor's access with a variety of questions and concerns regarding the proposed project.
An addendum has been published that details the correspondence concerns raised by these
correspondence letters and staff's response to concerns. Next slide please. To address
additional concerns related to public access, the commission staff has recommended the addition
of special condition 9 to require the submittal of a yearly report to explain how the boat show
has maintained consistency with the public access policies. I founded chapter 3 of the
postal act. The condition also requires annual submittal of field grass and
flora surveys before each event as a clarification.
And yes, for all the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the
Commission approve CDP number 5-25-0608 with nine special
conditions. The motions and resolutions are on page
six of the staff report. This concludes the presentation. The staff is available
of the questions thank you great thank you very much any ex partes okay
seeing none we'll open the public hearing and I'll turn to Chris and we
have two speakers Bernard Kita the applicants and Nancy Okada Bernard Kita
please be please accept be moved to panelists all right go ahead Bernard
all right thank you I want to start by thanking the Commission staff for their
presentation and ongoing assistance throughout this process the event
originally has taken place since 1973, over a half a century ago. And since taking over
the event, in 2023, we have strived to bring this production into compliance. We're in
support of the environmental initiatives and special conditions outlined for this year
for the five year coastal development permit. And we will continue to adhere to regulations
and improve our practices to the best of our ability, ensuring both that the harbor remains
protected and the public continues to have access to the coast and Newport Harbor. As a small
business producing an event of this caliber, we must also be mindful of rising cost. As increased
regulatory expenses inevitably trickle down to our attendees, we want to be mindful of that.
So since taking over the project, our biological surveys conducted prior to each show do not
discover any eelgrass for calerpa in the area and now adding, you know, other things just adds to
to that weight, but finding a practical balance
allows us to protect the marine environment
while keeping this historic event alive and accessible.
I wanna thank you for your time, your partnership
and approving of this five year
coastal development permit today, thank you.
Thank you, next Nancy Okada.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, wonderful, thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
First, I wanna thank the staff
for their thoughtful response to the issues
that we've raised in the Sierra Club letter
and for adding special condition number nine,
which requires annual reporting on public access
and biological resource impact.
That is a constructive addition
and we appreciate the staff's effort
to address these concerns.
That said, a few issues still appear unresolved
in the record.
First, regarding water quality and marine resource impact,
The staff notes that the Army Corps
and the Region of Water Quality Control Board
may not require permits and references.
Special Condition Number Five,
requiring construction of BMPs.
While BMPs are helpful,
they primarily address construction practices.
They do it on substitute for a clear analysis
of potential impacts from installing and removing 12 piles
and 75 helical anchors in a harbor sediments each year,
which could create turbidity instead of its disturbance.
It would be helpful for the record
to clarify how those impacts were evaluated.
Second, there appears to be an open question
regarding public press tide lands
and comparable compensation.
The staff report response notes
staff contact with the city,
but had not yet received confirmation regarding any fees
due to pay for the commercial use of these tide lands.
because these lands are held in trust for the public,
clarity on that issue would be important.
And finally, while the addition of monitoring conditions
is appreciated, the commission is being asked
to approve a five-year authorization
before current baseline eelgrass information is confirmed,
which could make it difficult to evaluate
cumulative impacts over time.
For these reasons, additional clarification on these points
would help strengthen the commission's findings
and ensure the record fully addresses the coastal act policy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
No more speakers, Madam Chair.
Great.
Thank you.
I'll turn to our staff.
Any final comments?
I'll just note that the coastal development permit
that we're recommending does have conditions addressing
water quality in terms of the turbidity issue.
That is something that the applicant
has addressed with some additional monitoring
that they are proposing.
as far as the eelgrass baseline,
that's a prior to issuance requirement of the permit
that they do eelgrass a review of potential eelgrass.
There isn't typically any in this area of the Harbor
and it's not commonly a problem.
And I'll just turn quickly to Amrita
to see if there's anything else you wanted to add.
No, I think Mr. Hsuig has covered all what he wanted me to do.
Great.
Thanks.
Wonderful.
Thank you.
So now I'll return to the commission
for comments, questions, or ideally a motion.
I've got the chair pushing my mic button now.
That's high level.
I move that full service.
I move that commission approve coastal development permit 5-25-0608
pursuant to the staff recommendation.
Ask for a yes vote.
Second.
Motion by Vice Chair Hart, second by Commissioner Wilson.
They're asking for a yes vote.
Any opposition to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion passes.
OK, thank you all.
We will break for you.
Oh, nope.
Nope.
So close, yet so far.
So close.
Number 18, please.
Mr. Schwing.
Thank you.
We're on the Deputy Director's Report for San Diego Coast
District.
We're reporting four waivers for projects
in Solana Beach, San Diego, and one permit extension.
weren't aware of any opposition we're also reporting on two emergency actions
but in the Port of San Diego one of a removal of invasive calerpa in San Diego
Bay and the other for fill of a sinkhole that had formed along the popular
Bayshore bikeway. Last we're reporting on the final certification of two LCP
amendments involving parking reforms and housing in the City of San Diego and
we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to the waivers or
the amendments in the report. Thanks. Thank you Mr. Schwing. Any ex partes? No. Any public comments,
Chris? I know we only have people available for questions. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners
object to any item in the Deputy Director's report? Seeing no objections, the commission
concurs. And now we will break for the day. Thank you.