okay good morning everyone we are so happy to be here in Gonzales Carol could
I ask you to mute your okay perfect I got it wonderful with that said again we
are so thrilled to be here in Gonzales I'm gonna call this April meeting of
the California Coastal Commission to order and we'll begin with a roll call
please? Commissioner O'Malley? Present. Commissioner Eckerly? Not here yet. Commissioner Hart?
Here. Commissioner Jackson? Here somewhere. Commissioner Rodoni? Here. Commissioner
Conkle? Here. Hi on Zoom? Commissioner Lee? Here. Commissioner Lopez? Here. Commissioner
lowenberg here Commissioner not off here Commissioner Moreno present
Commissioner Williams here Commissioner Wilson good morning and chair Harmon here
we have a quorum great thank you very much before we move to the virtual
meeting procedures I just want to take a few moments to acknowledge how special
it is for us to be here in Gonzales, particularly in this 50th anniversary
year of the Coastal Act. It's so important to me personally and I know
it's important to this agency and to all of my colleagues that we really highlight
that the coast is for all of us and that the Coastal Act is for all of us,
whether you live in a coastal community or not. So I'm so grateful that you are
all here today. I'm grateful that you're hosting us and I'd like to turn to our
colleague Commissioner Supervisor Lopez to make a few opening comments as well.
I want to thank you all for being here. I know that it's not a traditional stop
and it means a lot to us as a community that you're all here visiting and seeing
this incredible corner of California. It's a place we're very proud of. It
produces so much and I'm not just talking about the food and the product
in the fields but talent, kids that leave and become incredible leaders throughout the
state, nation, and the world.
And this place is special because we see the value in each other and reinvest in one another
in the building you're sitting in today is one of those reinvestments led by our city
council.
Sitting in front of us today is our Mayor Jose Rios, Mayor Pro Tem Silva, and Lorraine Worthy,
our city council woman here from the city of Gonzales.
They were champions for this project, tied into it, it was really the dreams of our youth
who envisioned this facility as you sit in it today.
It was their hope to create a space for themselves, but advocating for it.
And learning that advocacy and its role and importance in their life will make them advocates
in spaces that we all get to occupy today, that we get to embrace and really create opportunity
for them to continue to do that work into the future.
And so you're sitting in a place that's special to me, and it means a lot to look around this
room and know that so many of you came from long distances or communities that don't traditionally
visit.
I also see Mayor LeBar sitting in the back.
Mayor LeBar from King City, neighboring city, thank you for being here, as well as staff
with the speaker's office.
I see Dominic Dursa, District Director, and Luis Mesa.
And to wrap up this morning, I just want to thank my staff as well.
In the back, there's three women if you would do me a favor and raise your hands.
You got Priscilla Barba on the right, Carina Pelayo in the middle, and then Monica Hale
on the left.
They helped put this all together, and they're really the reason that I get to do this work
without their support.
I'm not able to step away for three days to advocate for all of our communities.
But it's an honor to have you here, and I look forward to showing you what South County,
what Southern Monterey County is all about and we'll just commit myself again sitting
here in front of all of you that that vision that the coast is for all of us has always
been at the center of the work that I do on this body and will continue to do so. Thank
you so much for being here. It means the world to me.
Thank you so much, Commissioner. Before we move to the virtual meeting procedures, I
just want to note there are some seats available in the front. So if folks who are standing
in the back would like to sit, please feel free to come on up.
With that, Chris, to you.
All right.
Good morning.
This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person
and through Zoom.
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online
at 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 forms may be found
on the Commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittal
are available on the Commission staff table
just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures
on the Commission's agenda webpage,
which is a guide on providing comments
via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment
may be given up to two minutes to speak
at the discretion of the chair.
Requests to speak during the general public comment period
will not be accepted after 9 a.m.
on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity
for the broadest range of public participation,
you may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item
that is not general public comment
are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak
at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item
up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number and instructions for how to participate and provide testimony by phone.
we'll manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting
through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the commission,
the organizer will invite you to turn on your video
and microphone or provide instructions
on how to unmute your phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual meeting procedures.
Great, thank you very much.
And now we will move to agenda changes please.
Thank you Chair Harmon and good morning to the commission
and to everybody who is joining us today.
Staff did post the agenda changes sheet
to our website and that list remains accurate but I will go through it here starting with
item 10A, that's application A6, ENC 2450, this is the Sayer Family Trust matter in
Encinitas that is moved to consent.
Item 11A, the City of San Diego's map adoption MA26-1, the Tijuana River segment is moved
to consent. Item 12a, the City of Encinitas LCP amendment on the short-term rentals. This
is just adoption of findings. Time extension. That is moved to consent. Item 14a, it's application
525, 897, United XYZ LLC in the City of Santa Monica. There are three development agreements
items 14a 14b 14c those are all moved to consent then item 15a the city of
Manhattan Beach lcp amendment on outdoor dining this is just the time
extension that is moved to consent item 19.1a the city of San Buenaventura
LCP amendment on their affordable housing regulations, again an LCP time extension that's
moved to consent.
And item 20A is application 425.615, Gallita Gardens LLC, and that item is moved to consent.
And that completes our agenda changes this morning.
Great.
Thank you very much.
And with that, we will turn to public comment, please.
Thank you. For members of the public, I'll be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers
and invite you to speak when it is your turn. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes during
general public comment at the discretion of the chair. In order to allow for live video
testimony on Zoom, we will be bringing you in as panelists. As we bring you in, your
Zoom will reload and this takes a moment. To speak up this process, we will bring several
people in at a time, but please remain muted and keep your video off until we ask you to
After your time is up you'll be moved back to attendee mode. For members of the
public present in the room I'll call your names in the order that they appear
in our sign-up list. When you hear your name please line up behind the podium
and introduce yourself when you approach the speak. There is a raise your hand
function that will help us find you in the attendee list. If you're using a
phone for audio you can raise your hand by dialing star 9. If you are
participating by zoom you should see a button on your zoom screen. If you have
signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so please raise your hand
now. When it is your time to speak we will invite you to unmute and turn on
your camera. You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six. So today for
general public comment we have a total of 16 speakers signed up and we will
start in the room with Edwin Sevilla, district director for representative
Lofgren. You guys hear me? Great. Good morning everyone, my name is Edwin Sevilla,
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's district director.
First off, I wanted to thank the commission
for having this very important meeting here.
Not just in California's 18th congressional district,
but more importantly in Gonzales, California.
It should not, Gonzales, California unfortunately,
how when I talk to my colleagues about this,
the city kind of gets, it doesn't get the love it deserves
and it should be, so I'm happy that it's happening here.
Commissioner Lopez mentioned the talent in this region
and I can testify to that as well.
Not just the general talent,
but more importantly, the young talent.
Just across the street, there's a high school.
In those students right now,
we're learning about public works,
or learning about the commission,
or learning about how government works for them,
and we should be the example for them today.
So again, I just wanna thank everyone,
and I will kick it off to the next speaker, but thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Jose Rios, mayor for the city of Gonzales.
First of all, a very good morning to all of you.
And I have to tell you, I have a new admiration
for our county supervisor.
What a silver tongue devil that he can get all of you here.
I mean, wow, I admired him before.
Now I'm like, I have to build you a statue.
Thank you so much for honoring us with your presence here.
As Chris said, this is a center that's meant for our youth.
This is only half of the future community center.
We could only afford 28 million dollars.
We're a small city with a big heart, but shallow pockets.
So we're working on that.
Future will be a big community center room
and then a gymnasium, that's the next part of this phase.
But we thought it was more important to invest in our youth.
They are our future.
I am 69 years old with my foot halfway out the door,
and that's okay because when I look at the youth
that's coming up in this community,
I think you would all be amazed.
We have three young people that are youth commissioners
and they attend every single boring meeting that we have.
And you know what, they don't flinch,
they don't, they attend and give some great presentations.
And I think had I been able to be that,
maybe I would have been a much better leader.
And so I can't help but think that we're grooming
these young people to become better leaders.
and what better way to do it than have a place for them to do homework, to
meet, to have a positive place to be. We don't have to have a soda and drink place, but a really
nice place to meet where they can get things done. I have to share with you that in my 68 years of
life I had never gone down Highway 1. About 10 years ago when I could see we
went down to a place called Santa Lucia and there's a monastery there and it's a
whining little road that's probably two miles up on the hill. Wow. Wow, wow, wow.
I never realized the blessings that we have living here in California and I was
so humbled and blessed to be there that day that I told my wife I said why haven't
done this before. She's like, you never want to dream anywhere. We were there. I
got a tail. I just got back from Hawaii. I'm sorry. Hawaii is beautiful and all,
but California is where I want to be. Thank you again for being here with us.
And we do hope that maybe you'll make this an annual meeting. Thank you. Thank
you. Luis Mesa on behalf of Speaker Robert Rivas. Good morning, commissioners. My
name is Luis Mesa from the Office of Speaker Robert Rivas. And on behalf of
of the speaker I would just like to share his thanks and appreciation to the
Coastal Commission today for holding this public meeting here in the city
Gonzalez. The work the Coastal Commission does is important and your presence here
this week is significant to us. I say significant because we are all
committed to ensuring the preservation and protection of our California coast.
The actions you take have far-reaching impacts not just on our coastal
residents, but also on our inland neighbors.
Meeting here today expands access
to these important discussions
and shows your commitment to ensuring
that all voices are heard as you work
to make fair and equitable decisions.
I hope you enjoy your time here in the Salinas Valley
and despite your lengthy time you spend in session,
we'll be able to get out and see
why this region is so special to us.
And by spending a little time here,
I hope you will better understand the challenges
we face and are working so hard to address.
To the city Gonzalez, I appreciate all of your hard work,
your council, youth council, and the community leaders
like the Caprara family put into making this center
a reality.
Opportunities like this, having this facility for leaders
to come to, not just from the city Gonzalez
and the Salinas Valley, but from around the state,
are important as we work to ensure that all voices
are heard at the table when important decisions
are being made.
Thank you so much.
Thank you mayor and Michael a bar
Michael bar mayor of King City chair commissioners
I'm here to express my great appreciation for you holding this meeting today here in Gonzales here on the inland
the decisions that you make on the coastal Commission as
Eluded by the speaker have far-reaching impacts a lot of our residents in King City and in South County
travel to the coast every day to work within a hospitality industry,
within the medical industry, and within the tourist industry.
The decisions that you make regarding water,
access, and especially housing affect them greatly.
When you look at decisions when housing projects come before you,
I want you to understand that's an opportunity for our workers to be
able to live and work in the same town. Your decisions do have real meaning and
real significant impact on the quality of lives of all of those that live
inland. And as somebody who does, I also want to thank you for the great work you
do on access because if it wasn't for that when I travel to the coast, all I
All I may ever find is just fences that won't let me hit the beach.
Most of us don't live on the coast, but a lot of us visit the coast.
So thank you for that work.
And the last thought I want you to just have in the back of your mind, and it was something
I learned many years ago.
Over half our population in South County have not even visited the ocean.
And that's a shame because it is a beauty, as it was just mentioned, that all should
be experienced.
So thank you again.
I second the motion from the mayor of Gonzales that I hope this is an annual event because
the feedback from the inland I think will help guide you to even better decisions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have five more in-person speakers starting with Colleen Bailey.
And then Rosa Rodriguez, Mike Scatini, Rachel Wilson, Steve Ray, Colleen Bailey.
I'm not seeing Colleen, approach the mic, Rosa Rodriguez.
Good morning, everybody from the Coastal Commission in public.
My name is Rosa Rodriguez, I apologize, I have laryngitis.
Laryngitis for people not keeping their yards.
And unfortunately this happens.
One of the things that I would like to suggest is legislation for a permanent coat enforcer,
Monday through Friday.
In Gonzales, we have a coat enforcer only on Fridays, and they're a consultant.
I looked it up, and it's not the law to have a coat enforcer in City Hall Monday through
Friday.
The reason I say this is, this is also what's affecting our oceans.
All contaminants lead to drains, lead to the oceans, right?
Well, we have a huge issue with a lot of things going to our drains.
And I was taking a shower once, and somebody threw something over my window to where I
had to go all the way down to the bathtub because I couldn't breathe.
It was a chemical somebody threw.
And then sometimes there would be stentions that were really bad, like ammonia.
And we all know that there's also illegal drug homes where they make drugs.
So I visited LA, I visited Mexico City, and we need to pay more attention to all those
things.
Also, when I walk around Maynard Park, there are sometimes human feces, dog feces, and
I ask who's responsible to pick them up.
The maintenance department, they do a wonderful job, and that's not their duty to pick it
up.
the landscaping department and the landscaping team,
and they said we have a contract of things
that we have to do and that's not our job.
So we need to go back to our schools
like we did with a beautiful Monterey Aquarium.
I was a volunteer at Chaparone.
Teach our children from small that this is our home.
You know, we need to be blessed that we have this home.
Make sure that, you know, everything is,
that we pay more attention to contaminants
so that we don't end up drinking it in our water.
There was an issue with our water here in Gonzales
to where my poor fingers were really bad.
Thank you, thank you for your time.
Thank you, next is Mike Scatini.
Following that will be Rachel Wilson and then Steve Ray
and then we'll move to our zoom participants.
Good morning Chair Harmon and commissioners.
As I stated, my name's Mike Scatini.
I'm a resident of the Monterey Peninsula.
I'm a fourth generation farmer in the Salinas Valley
and I currently serve on the Board of Directors
of Monterey County Water Research Agency,
where I've served for 15 years.
And I previously served on the Salinas Valley Basin
Groundwater Sustainability Agency, advisor, kind of meeting.
I'm here speaking on my own behalf.
I wanna thank you for your leadership
in approving the desilination project.
That decision is a critical step
toward long-term water reliability
for the Monterey Peninsula and reflects
a thoughtful balance between community needs
and responsible resource management.
I'm here to emphasize the related principle.
The Salinas Valley must retain and manage
its own water resources to meet its sustainability goals.
The Salinas Valley is one of the most productive
agricultural regions in the world,
but we face serious groundwater overdraft
and seawater intrusion.
Achieving sustainability under SIGMA
depends on our ability to manage
and recharge our basin locally.
Diverting water away from the valley
undermines those effects and strain
to an already stressed system.
This is especially critical for disadvantaged communities
in the Salinas Valley who already face limited access
to safe, affordable drinking water.
Local control of local water is essential
to protecting farmland, sustaining our economy,
and achieving groundwater sustainability.
The desalination projects helps ensure the peninsula has a reliable, drought-proof supply
allowing the Salinas Valley to focus on its own solutions, recharge, conservation and
responsible basin management without further depletion of our own resources.
I respectfully urge you to support policies that keep the Salinas Valley water within
the valley while continuing to advance desalination as part of our region's long-term water strategy.
you. Thank you. Rachel Wilson and Steve Rea. My name is Rachel Wilson. Good morning
commissioners and staff. Although I live in Cayucas, I grew up on a farm. I taught
at a school filled with farm worker students and on a field trip my seventh
grade students were shocked that ocean water is wet. Thank you for protecting our
coast for all. Thank you for saying no when it is always much easier to say yes.
thank you for always following the rules and for supporting our county planners
by encouraging them to follow the rules even when they are continuously
pressured to give variances. I sit on a land use committee. The three most
powerful words I have are will coastal approve and you are you would be amazed
at how many plans are immediately pulled and they always come back better.
Thank you for always doing what is right even if it is not popular that is what
the mantra I used to teach my students and it's not always easy. Thank you for
preserving the coast for all. I love when I see my students from the valley come
to the coast and actually learn that ocean water is truly wet. Thank you for
doing everything that you do because it is critical for the young citizens of
our future to protect this planet. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Steve Ray and
then our first Zoom speakers will be Eileen Bochen, Jane Reldon and Charles
Varnie. Steve Ray. Well good morning commissioners, staff, the rest of the
staff, and to the public. It's great to be here. It's great to be back. I've missed
a couple meetings and but my voice has come back before warned. Okay. I can talk
again now. So glad to talk to you this morning. First I want to congratulate
Commissioner Lopez for bringing the meeting here. I've been attending 44
years the Coast Commission hearings and made over 95% of them over all those
years and this is the first time we've ever come to a town like, not just
Gonzales, but a town like Gonzales. This is great and I've always liked Gonzales,
one of my family's surnames is Gonzales, so I feel I have some heritage here.
Unfortunately I just mostly drive through on the freeway but I do stop off
occasionally and eat here they have great food here. So anyway and for the
mayor it's nice to have the representatives of the city here to show
how much they are glad to be a part of the coast and as as the chair said we're
all part of the coast if you live in California. In the meetings I missed I
I didn't get a chance to say goodbye to Vanessa publicly.
I did privately, but not publicly.
So I want to say goodbye, and what a great person she is.
And Chris is doing a fine replacement job,
but he's not quite as cute, no offense, Chris.
And also to Dr. Jana Engel, who just recently retired,
she was such a huge force in the saving of Banning Ranch
from the staff perspective, because she
She's the one who handled all the science so much.
And she's now retired, so I miss her too.
And in my usual spot of welcoming new commissioners,
which I've been doing for all of these decades here,
I have not been here and been able
to welcome Commissioner Lee to the Commission,
so welcome on behalf of all the public out here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And actually, one last call for Colleen Bailey,
who was signed up to speak in person, Colleen?
Okay, we're moving on to Zoom speakers.
So starting with Eileen Bouken.
Eileen, I see that you're on a phone.
You should be able to unmute now.
Eileen Bouken, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.
In the commissioner's packet
are three items from the coalition.
First is the coalition's resolution from November 18th
of last year with the title,
CSFN resolution advocating for transfer
of the auxiliary water supply system, AWASP.
AWASP is an independent high pressure,
high volume water system to fight catastrophic fires,
especially post-ursquake fires.
The resolution advocates for the transfer of AWASP
from the SF PUC back to the SF Fire Department.
The second resolution is dated January 20th of this year
with the title resolution to extend a loss
to all SF neighborhoods,
especially for post-earthquake fires.
The third attachment is an image of Pacific Palisades
after last year's catastrophic fires.
The image is of beachfront homes in Pacific Palisades
burned to the ground because LA Fire
didn't have the infrastructure
to fight catastrophic fires using ocean water.
Besides lives lost and homes destroyed,
the Palisades fire caused massive environmental damage
and massive economic impacts.
One year later, only 10 homes have been rebuilt.
Does San Francisco want to be the next Pacific Palisades?
Similar comments have been made
at the California State Lands Commission
and Cal OES Seismic Safety Commission.
Similar comments will be also be made at the Ocean Protection Council.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Jane Reldon, Charles Varney, and Penny Alia.
Jane Reldon?
I'm here, and I'd like to be on video as well.
You should be able to turn on your video, and we are also getting some echo.
If you do have another device playing our audio, could you mute that device?
You should be able to turn your video on.
Go ahead.
My name is Duck, and I am speaking to you
as the president of the Seal Conservancy of San Diego.
The Seal Conservancy of San Diego
has the mission to preserve and protect the La Jolla Harbor
Seal Rookery for the enjoyment and educational benefit
of children.
The Seal Conservancy is committed
to maintaining current protections in place
at Children's Full Beach for the La Jolla Harbor seals.
The City of San Diego will be asking the Coastal Commission
to renew the coastal development permits
that have been in place since 2014
to protect the seals with closure of the beach
to access the public five months of the year
from December 15th to May 15th annually,
and for a viewing guideline,
both the other seven months of the year,
guidelines to a proximity to the seals
and allows access to the public
to approach the water water water.
The protections have worked phenomenally well
with a decrease of 150 police calls per month
1 to 0 since the closure during puppy season.
When the seals give birth, nurse their young
and teach them how to swim and fish.
You will be hearing the possible development
permit applications from the city of San Diego in 2029,
and I urge you to renew them for over 15 years
that they will have been in place for longer.
This benefits the public to view the seals
from the seawall, the sidewall, and the mid-landing.
Thank you for supporting the coastal development permits
that protect the seals year-round,
and for your attention.
Again, Jane Relman from the seal
Conservancy of San Diego support.
Thank you.
Next, Charles Varney, Penny Aaliyah, and Elena Tillman.
Charles Varney.
Hello.
Good morning, commissioners and staff,
and citizens of Gonzales.
I'm Charles Varney.
I'm chair of Surfrider Foundation,
San Luis Obispo County Chapter.
We recently wrote to the commissioners and staff
a letter in which we expressed our appreciation
for how you have been supporting us
for a long time around issues of environmental justice,
especially as that applies to our Oceano vehicle free beach
campaign.
And we also call the attention to the action
that we would like to see more of in terms
of the Coastal Commission encouraging our local board
of supervisors to move forward on realigning
our local coastal plan, and especially getting into that
after the June elections.
We also included for today,
a review of core values of the original CDP
and really what it was way back four decades ago
with an adaptive management plan.
And our goal is to get the whole Oceano vehicle free beach
on the table in the discussion with all the changes
that are coming up around the public works plan,
the sale of the Phillips 66 Refinery.
We want it on the table.
We want it to be there.
We want to end the reality of
we being a sacrifice zone for the SVRA
and claim our right to become a beach town
like all the other beach towns in California.
We appreciate your support.
We appreciate working with you
and be checking in.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next, Penny Elia, Elena Tillman and Robin Davidoff.
Penny Elia.
Good morning, commissioners and staff, Penny Elia.
How fortunate you all are today to be in Gonzales.
You can feel the love in the room, even on Zoom.
Last month, I joined about a dozen concerned
environmental advocates to support staff's recommendations
on enforcement action at Dana Point Headlands.
This month, I want to personally thank you
for your strong support of staff's recommendations,
as well as your thoughtful comments
and good suggestions on moving forward.
I have been involved in this issue for a couple of decades
and never dreamed of some of the creative solutions
that were discussed during your deliberation.
We were all very much looking forward
to moving ahead with the CDP that would allow us
to possibly implement some of your suggestions
and find some good solutions to resolving the impacts
to the finite natural resources at the head length,
specifically this Pacific pocket mouse.
But as is usual with the city of data point,
they chose to sue instead of working with you
in the environmental community.
I'm sure this will be discussed during your closed session,
but I must say that after all these years
of litigation against CNLM,
I am completely unclear as to what the city's goal is
in suing the Coastal Commission.
What is there to gain with all of these lawsuits?
This one being number three.
We all know you made the right decision.
You all know you made the right decision.
Again, thank you for your support
and your great ideas last month.
Hope springs eternal that the city just might do
the right thing one of these days.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Elena Tillman, Robin Davidoff and Nathan Brenner.
They're sharing a presentation for the SEAL Society.
Elena Tillman.
Hey, good morning.
Just waiting for that to come up there.
Yes, give us a moment to bring it up.
Sure.
There we go.
All right, so good morning commissioners.
Thank you for your time.
My name is Elena Tillman
and I'm here with the Sierra Club Seal Society
to provide a brief update on conditions at La Jolla Cove
as we approach sea lion puffing season,
just now about 30 days away.
Next slide, please.
Our goal is simple and urgent.
Zero pup mortality due to human interference
while maintaining public safety.
Next slide, please.
Over the past two months,
we do want to acknowledge that the city,
particularly Park and Rec,
has made visible and meaningful progress.
Daily ranger presence has improved conditions at the cove.
Announcements are being made consistently,
clearly instructing visitors to maintain distance
and importantly, those announcements are multilingual
which has increased compliance.
What we're seeing is that visitors do respond
typically by the third announcement
and while the 20 foot buffer is not always achieved,
distancing is happening more consistently
often around 10 feet,
which in some contexts has reduced immediate risk.
However, with pumping season approaching,
this is where the stakes change.
Pumping season is a uniquely vulnerable time.
We've already seen in past seasons
that human encroachment can lead to pup injury,
separation, and death.
What may be generally manageable conditions
now will not be sufficient when newborn pups are present.
So while progress is real,
it is not yet at the level needed for pumping season.
We need consistent enforcement of the full 20 foot buffer,
stronger coordination between Rangers and lifeguards,
and a proactive, not reactive approach
to crowd management before peak summer visitation.
I'll close by emphasizing this.
The systems being put in place are working,
but they need to be scaled and tightened now
to prevent predictable harm in the coming weeks.
And with that, I'll hand it over to my colleague,
Robin Davidoff, to discuss coordination
and enforcement in more detail.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Robin Davidoff?
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, thank you.
I'm Robin Davidoff, Sierra Club Seal Society Chair.
And last week, the mayor's office held a meeting
with park and recreation leadership,
District One staff representing La Jolla
and the Seal Society
to discuss the additional management tactics
we've been advocating for for the past year.
The highly productive meeting
resulted in important commitments.
The city agreed to write a management plan
that includes detailed ranger-led management tactics.
The plan will be in place before May 15th,
which is the start of the sea lion popping season.
The plan will serve as a foundation for an application
to modify the long-term management plan.
And the goal is to complete it as soon as possible
and before 2027 popping season.
This phased approach allows time to implement these tactics,
evaluate how well they work
and refine them based on real world results.
We understand that modifying the plan takes time.
However, we strongly believe
that this is the most effective path
protect both visitors and pups because it gives the city the authority and the direction to implement
the plan. Next slide please. The plan also allows and requires rangers to manage interactions on the
beach. Rangers will place cones and tape around newborn pups and injured animals and this creates
a clear buffer zone to protect vulnerable wildlife. A-frame signs will be placed on the beach. This
serves as a visual cue for visitors indicating where to stand when viewing sea lions and helping
people recognize that resting sea lions can sometimes look like rocks. And when sea lions
are on the western stairs or at the base of the stairs, rangers will redirect visitors
to the eastern staircase. This reduces close encounters and improves beach access. Finally,
rangers will go onto the beach for crowd management as needed and together these measures provide
practical on-the-ground tools to reduce conflict and improve safety for both visitors and sea lions.
Next I'd like to introduce Nathan Brenner who will continue this presentation.
Thank you. Nathan Brenner.
Good morning commissioners. I'm Nathan Brenner with the Sierra Club Seal Society.
As you've heard there's a lot going on in the city of San Diego with only 30 days left until
we expect the pregnant sea lion moms to start giving birth to their pups. It is imperative
that the city of San Diego has written protocols in place to manage the summer crowds which will
flocked to the La Jolla Cove beach to see these majestic marine mammals and their pups.
We've been presenting to you for the past year in hopes that an updated written management plan
could be in place for pumping season 2026. The Sierra Club is grateful for your continued support
in working with the City of San Diego to ensure the letter and the spirit of the Coastal Act
is being applied to protect these precious marine mammals through tourism management.
We look forward to continued collaboration with this commission and the City of San Diego to achieve the goal of zero pup deaths in 2026.
Next slide, please.
We thank this commission and will return in May to update you on our progress with the City of San Diego and the status of written tourism management protocols.
Thereafter, in June, while this commission is in San Diego, we invite the commissioners
and staff to join the Sierra Club Seal Society for a guided tour of the Point La Jolla Sea
Lion Rookery, so you can observe firsthand the splendor and beauty of these precious
marine mammals we are all working together to protect.
Thank you, commissioners.
Thank you.
And then we did have one more in-person speaker that we were able to find, Anna Christiansen.
made it just in time and then another call for Colleen Bailey if you're now
here and can you turn turn the mic on at the base of the yeah there you go good
morning Gonzalez and everybody else this is public comment I'm not speaking to a
particular agenda item but I am on a topic that you're going to be listening
to and hearing a lot about today and that's fireworks versus more
environmentally friendly alternatives. I just wanted to say that the Los Angeles
chapter of Sierra Club has now passed a phase out fireworks resolution that will
apply to all our our area which is all of LA and Orange County and the
fireworks resolution reads as this Sierra Club's Angeles chapter calls for
the phasing out of the use sale and display of fireworks within our
boundaries and encourages environmentally friendly alternative visual displays.
This was very challenging.
I helped work on the research for this.
It's a one sentence resolution with 17 pages of research.
And what I learned, because my primarily involvement was with wildlife, especially birds, was that
how many people are affected by fireworks, how many communities, how many fires are started,
and it's becoming more and more common knowledge.
And yet, one of the things that our members are not really every member, because we didn't
do it to every member, but our active community leaders and Sierra Club leaders were concerned
about was the idea of how popular fireworks are.
And the thing is that popularity might win you a beauty contest or more likes, but it
doesn't necessarily make sense for our survival. So today as you're looking at
at these different things and in the future to try to guide us in that in
that way because we're in communities that love fireworks and and yet those
communities most at risk from fires have no problem canceling firework shows and
no problem not selling them but even my own town of Long Beach they three of our
City Council people want the resolution to start selling fireworks again it's
not going anywhere which is good anyway thank you very much thank you we have no
more speakers madam chair great thank you very much and thank you to our
public commenters it's always one of the most important parts of our meetings to
hear from all of you so with that I will briefly return to the Commission for
questions okay Commissioner Lopez yeah just again want to welcome everybody and
did fail to give a thank you to Kate Hucklebridge who when she read an article
in Zocalo or as part of the Chronicle about this center said let's do it now
let's not wait so thank you for that push and lastly just wanted to ask
everybody as you drive up and down this valley today whether you're going north
or south look left and right you'll see a tapestry of beautiful earth different
colors and more importantly people making a living from that land and they
they are proud of the work that they do, it is hard work.
But it puts food on the table for the nation and the world,
and I want you to know that in this valley,
we prioritize them.
We take care of them.
We build the housing they want and deserve and need
against all pressures.
As Mayor Labar called out earlier,
that challenge around housing is real.
And the beauty of this valley is that that Monterey Bay,
that cold air gets drawn down.
You can have a 35 degree swing between King City
and Monterey at the exact same time in the summer.
But that's that marine layer being pulled south
that by the evening, we get a deep cool.
It allows us to grow so many different crops
at other places in the world camp,
from kiwis and avocados to lettuce and garlic.
We can do anything in this valley because of that.
And just know that as you go north and south,
those people are working hard for all of us.
And even if you can't stop and say thank you, whisper it.
They'll feel it, they'll know it.
So thank you again for being here today.
Here, here, thank you.
Okay, yes, round of applause.
Thank you, Commissioner Nada.
I was just gonna say how nice it was
to hear that there's progress in the La Jolla Cove
and thank you to Mayor Gloria in San Diego
for meeting with Concerned Citizens.
It sounds like we're making progress
and I'm hoping that the sea lions stay on schedule
and don't start poppin' before May 15th
And they're going to get the enforcement in place there.
So I just wanted to encourage that ongoing dialogue
and progress.
Vice Chair Hart.
I just wanted to make a brief comment in response
to the mayor from King City.
Thank you so much for your comments.
With regard to your statement regarding the need
for housing on the coast, I just want
to tell you that on my own behalf,
and I believe this is shared by all
of the members of this commission.
I think that I would put affordable housing on the coast
as one of our top priorities.
The problem that continuously comes up in my mind
is there's only so much room left on the coast.
And if we don't all work together to make sure
that the housing that gets built on the coast is affordable,
then the coast will continue, you know,
we're gonna continue having a problem
of construction of second homes, places, condos,
places that people don't even live.
We have to continue this fight together.
The commission does not have independent authority
to require affordable housing,
and a lot of people don't realize that.
We have various means of addressing it,
but that power was taken from us early on.
So I just wanna let the mayor and everyone here know
that that is a huge priority for us,
and we all have to be united in this
to fight for affordable housing on the coast,
workforce housing on the coast.
So thank you so much for those comments, appreciate it.
Okay, great, thank you very much.
And now we don't usually do a chair's report,
but Vice Chair Hart and I just have a couple of comments.
I want to announce that Commissioner Jackson
will be taking my place on the local government working group
which I'm very excited about.
For those who don't know, that's a group
that brings together representatives
from the League of Cities, from the County Association CSAC,
local government representatives, and our staff
to really think about policy solutions
to some of the challenging planning issues that we face.
That's maybe the polite way to put it.
But Commissioner Jackson is so immersed in these challenges
in his local community and is such a great champion
of the Coastal Act.
he's gonna be a really fantastic addition to that group.
He'll be joining Commissioner Wilson, so grateful to him
and excited to see with their powers combined
what they can create.
With that, I'll turn to Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
I just wanted to mention that I was on a panel,
I believe last week or the week before,
time is sort of running together.
But in any event, this was a panel celebrating 60 years
of the UC Reserve System, now known as UC Nature.
And a lot of people don't realize,
but the UC system has the largest system
or group of reserves that are set aside in the state
and cover really almost all of the principal ecosystems
in the state of California.
Many of the UC reserves are on the coast,
but there are also very important reserves
in the desert, in the Sierras, now up at Lassen.
And the thing that struck me and came out of that event
was the importance of our staff really working
with the UC reserve system because they are,
those reserves exist to provide a location for students
to work and study and set up experiments
as well as obviously faculty and to produce
very important research that is directly usable
by the commission.
So I'd really like to encourage us
to engage with the UC system.
I'm planning a visit to the Big Creek Reserve,
which is south down in Big Sur,
but I just think that this is a very important resource
that I would love to see us pursue, Dr. Hucklebridge.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart.
Dr. Hucklebridge.
Just to respond, thank you so much.
I'm so glad you had an opportunity to sit on that panel.
I think we definitely are currently
and have worked in the past with the UC reserve system,
but I think a renewed effort to find other ways to connect
and more directly is a great use of our time.
So thank you for that recommendation
and we'll be following up on it.
Okay, thank you very much.
And with that, we will go back to you, Dr. Hucklebridge.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, commissioners.
Good morning to members of the public.
I just want to add my quick echo of thank you
to the community of Gonzales for welcoming us so warmly
for our hearing.
It really has been an absolute pleasure so far to be here.
And again, just want to echo many of the comments made
by members of the public and our commissioners
about the importance of showing up
in our inland communities because we are here for you
as much as we are for the people who live on the coast.
And in fact, and sometimes more so,
Because what we do is make sure that you all have places
to go when you want to go visit the coast, when
you need to relax, escape the heat, whatever
it is that brings you to the coast for whatever reason,
that there are places for you to go and enjoy.
And that you're welcomed in those places,
just like we're being welcomed here.
So that is our charge.
And we want to hear from you all week about different ways
that we could do that better.
But just, again, appreciate the warm welcome.
So as normal, my published executive director report can be found online,
but I'll walk through some of the items in it.
Um, first up, I wanted to call attention to a new report that was recently
issued by the ocean protection council.
And unfortunately, Jen Eckerley commissioner is in here, but
she'll be here later this morning.
I believe, um, she can speak to it more directly than I can, but just briefly,
uh, the 2026 California coast and ocean report is the first comprehensive
science-based assessment of coastal and ocean health in California's history.
The report covers 14 indicators of coastal and ocean health across three themes,
people, wildlife, and habitats, and stressors.
As described in the report overview, the findings tell a story that is well known
to this commission, a story of both pressure and progress.
That while California's coast and ocean are generally healthy,
climate change is increasingly threatening species, habitats, and ecosystem services.
And the state is taking action to protect both people and nature in that changing world.
So if you I recommend you take a look at the report, and of course, Commissioner Eckerley
is the expert and invite you to ask her any questions or follow ups that you have.
Next, Commission staff has just completed a comprehensive mapping update to our popular
YourCoast.org website.
This interactive map was first published by the Commission in 2015, using funds collected
from a public access violation in Monterey County.
The map contains all the information that is in the
Commission's best-selling guidebooks,
the California Coastal Access Guide,
and the four regional Experience the Coast Guides.
The updated map has several new features.
Users can now filter by amenities,
such as locating ADA facilities,
search by location, and get directions
to a coastal access point.
Another new feature allows users to contribute photos
their favorite coastal locations directly through the map. So please take a look. It's a really
great resource and I just I want the public to know it's there and to use it as much as possible.
A huge thanks to our mapping unit, specifically Cam Denny and Alana Casey, as well as staff from
public education, public access, and our public information units for getting this done. It's a
really important achievement. Next up, I have the pleasure of announcing what is a bit of a rebrand
to our transportation unit the commission's transportation program will now be known as the
transportation access and mobility program this name better reflects the program's work around
multimodal development and efforts to support coastal public access trails transportation and
public access generally the name update reflects the coastal commission's overall commitment to
improve multimodal opportunities for all types of users in the coastal zone as well as the
the centrality of that access for all of our coastal public access mission.
So I recommend we have a new website.
Please check it out and let us know your thoughts.
It was another busy month for commission staff this past month, including participation in
several events and workshops.
I'll go through them very briefly.
First in mid-March, several staff from the commission Santa Cruz, San Francisco, and
and Arcata offices attended the 2026 California Land and Water
Conservation Conference in Sacramento.
The conference was sponsored by the California Council of Land
Trusts and served as a forum for nonprofits, tribes,
and government agencies involved in land and water
conservation to get together to understand best practices,
emerging topics, and showcase success stories.
California Natural Resource Agency Secretary Wade Crowfoot
gave an opening day keynote address highlighting
agency's commitment to facilitating restoration projects, highlighting the agency's commitment,
sorry, restoration projects via its 30 by 30 initiative and cutting green tape initiative
offering streamlined regulatory pathways to achieve this.
On March 26th, access program manager Linda Lachlan spoke in an international coastal
access symposium hosted virtually by the Ecology Action Center located in Nova Scotia, Canada.
came from all over the world to discuss themes common to all countries and states, including
concerns about sea level rise impacts to coastal access, as well as achieving and ensuring
equity for everyone who wants to access the coast.
Linda spoke about the California Coastal Act and how that law gives the commission the
legal authority to require public access and many new development projects, and apparently
was a big hit.
To illustrate, she showed the recent spotlight on access video that we did for the Ritz-Carlton
in Half Moon Bay. On March 19th, staff from the San Diego Coast District Office joined the Port
of San Diego and community members to celebrate the opening of the Phase 1 improvements in Pepper
Park and National City. You may remember this item came before the Commission a couple of years ago.
The event highlighted a new waterfront playground splash pad and improved public access. The enhanced
This park space was designed to be fully integrated with a future 2.5 acre park expansion that
we recently approved, which will result in a larger park with additional amenities that
were chosen by the community following multiple rounds of public outreach conducted by the
port.
So a huge thanks to everybody who's been engaged in that.
It's a real pleasure.
We don't always get to see the outcomes of the work that we discussed and approved here.
And so if you go to my written report,
you can see a great photo of some of our San Diego staff
who got to attend that event.
So again, thanks to all who were involved, including
the Port and the City of National City.
Next up, a few announcements from our public education
program.
This month, we announced the results
of the 2026 Coastal Art and Poetry Contest.
From nearly 2,200 entries from students across California,
10 winners and 41 honorable mentions were selected.
The recognized artwork and poetry will go on
to be part of a traveling exhibit
for the remainder of the year.
Contest results, information about the traveling exhibit
and where to purchase art prints
can be found on our website.
And I really highly recommend you try to check this out.
This is one of the coolest things
I think the commission does just to see the different ways
that students across California think of the coast
and what it means to them.
I have several, I love going through these prints.
I purchase them and put them up in my office
because I love looking at them, I find it inspiring.
So really recommend that you all take a look and do the same.
At the end of March, public education staff
tabled at the Sunset Elementary Environmental Fair
in San Francisco to engage with young students
about marine debris and beaches.
On April 11th and 12th, staff tabled at
Whale Fest Monterey at Custom House Plaza,
sharing ways the public can enjoy
and protect the California coast.
and on April 22, staff will partner with the Sequoia Yacht
Club and the Peninsula Youth Sailing Foundation
in the Port of Redwood City to host special coastal cleanup
day for Earth Day.
The Boating Clean and Green program
and the California State Park Boating Safety and Education
Unit released a new Dockside podcast
where we sit down with Cal Trout's Reggie Collins
and Damon Goodman to explore how revitalizing waterways
leads to resilient wild fish, healthier ecosystems,
and a better California for all.
hear how boaters, anglers, and everyday stewards
are shaping the future of our rivers.
And you can find a link to that on our website.
Finally, as I normally do for this year,
I will conclude my executive director's report
with some highlights in honor of our 50th anniversary
of the Coastal Act that we're celebrating this year.
So first, 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 to 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.
Memories can be submitted anonymously.
So please visit our website.
You can find the link to submit.
But today I thought I'd share one of the recent highlights
that we received and we have put out
on some of our social media channels.
But it was a really, I think, poignant memory.
So I thought I would share it with you today.
This is from Dr. Cindy Hock.
She says, I've always been drawn to the ocean,
but rarely got to see it as a child in Indiana.
I was enchanted after my son moved to Los Angeles
and took me to the tide pools at Crystal Cove State Park.
Walking down the path across the cliffs to the ocean below
had been one of my recurring dreams.
Years later, I was recruited to join the University of California
Irvine to become the chair of the Department of Family
Medicine.
When I discovered how close I might live to the coast,
I was eager to accept the job.
During the COVID pandemic, health professionals
worked long hours in overcrowded hospitals and clinics
to care for patients and manage the crisis.
In the evenings after work,
I often walked along the ocean shore
to calm my nerves and renew my spirits.
Now in retirement, I'm a volunteer docent
with the Laguna Ocean Foundation.
My children, grandchildren, and I have enjoyed
many wonderful days relaxing on the beach
and exploring the pools.
I'm grateful to the generations of caretakers
who have preserved and protected these beautiful spaces.
May we continue to care for our coast for generations to follow.
And she enclosed, and you can see in my report,
a picture of her with her daughter, Dr. Heather Hawk.
So just a moment of inspiration for all of us
and just wanted to share that with you
and encourage anyone else who has memories to submit them.
If you don't want them shared, that's OK too.
You can say that, and we won't share it publicly.
But that's your choice, of course.
And if you go on our website there,
And we have a 50th anniversary at the very top.
You click on the 50th anniversary thing,
and then there will be a link there of how to submit.
Yeah, and thank you.
We definitely appreciate those entries.
And a huge thank you to Dr. Cindy Hock
for sharing those thoughts with us.
So finally, for this month's Act to Action,
the first 50 years of Coastal Protection,
we have a few highlights to share with you today.
The first is the program spotlight
on the Commission's enforcement program, SoCal Edition.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Lisa Heggy,
head of our enforcement division, and for that report.
Lisa.
Thanks, Kate.
Good morning, commissioners and audience.
We're pleased to present part one of our retrospective
on the enforcement program
as part of the 50th anniversary festivities.
Considering the breadth of the program,
both geographically and functionally,
we've decided to present separately
on Southern and Northern California,
as well as headquarters.
Functionally, the work that we do collectively
as an enforcement program ranges from field investigations
through administrative hearings and litigation support.
What the commission and public mostly see is the culmination
of some of our most significant cases which come to you
as formal enforcement orders presented by headquarters staff.
But all those cases start with the investigative
and analytical work at the district level.
Many, many more cases.
The vast majority of our cases actually are resolved
by our district staff through various means.
most commonly through negotiations that result in compliance with existing coastal permits
or via an application for coastal permits to restore access or habitats and which also
provide mitigation for damages as well.
To provide some sense of that work, especially in the context of Coastal Act Section 30821,
which was added to the Coastal Act in 2014 and authorized the Commission to administratively
assess monetary penalties for public access violations, today enforcement staff counsel
and Southern California Supervisor, Andrew Willis,
will walk through some of the access case work
from Southern California to give you a picture
of some of the types of cases we have resolved
as well as the breadth of the type of cases reached.
As mentioned today in public comment,
access for all to our coast is a major goal
of the commission and of the enforcement program.
In addition, I'll note that tomorrow
during the enforcement report,
headquarters staff is going to present
an access opportunity along the coastline in Big Sur
since this meeting is the closest one
that we have to that spot, and we'll give you information
about that tomorrow.
And with that, Andrew, take it away.
Thank you.
And we have a presentation.
Good morning, commissioners.
For today's presentation, our focus
will be on public access to the coast,
but that is only one component of our work,
since we also work on protecting wildlife habitats
and coastal views and other coastal resources.
There we go.
And next slide, please.
With respect to public access,
the California coast can be thought of
as our most extensive public open space
that everyone has a right to use
under the state constitution.
With so many communities with a dearth of public spaces,
as a matter of environmental justice,
the coast needs to be available to help fill the gap
for recreation and mental wellbeing.
Yet, although enjoying the coast is fairly uncomplicated,
and you can do so by plopping yourself down
the sand, engaging at the waves. There are many impediments to access that make the simple act
of enjoying the coast prohibitively difficult, especially for everyone that isn't one of the
fortunate and very limited few beachfront residents. Can we get the next slide, please?
And actually the next one, too. Thank you. Thankfully, during the 50 years of the Coastal Act,
The commission has taken on many different threats to access, and in 2014, the state legislature,
with much input from staff and the public, provided the commission with a game-changing tool.
That is the administrative authority to assess monetary penalties for public access violations.
And for brief background, section 3821 allows the commission to impose, by a majority vote at a
hearing, an administrative civil penalty for violations of the public access provisions of
of the coleslaw. The maximum penalty is $11,250 per day per violation.
Next slide, please. That said, in practice, much of the value
of Section 3821 is in its deterrent effect and leverage resolved cases amicably. 3821
has led to restored access, public access in a far faster timeframe than we might typically
see without ever requiring the issuance of penalties. In addition, with the authority
of 3821 underpinning our district level negotiations, we have been markedly more successful and
creative in achieving resolutions that don't just reverse violations, but which also provides
significant benefits to the public to mitigate for the violation's harms to coastal resources
and to address the commission's claims for monetary penalties.
We'll cover a couple types of these resolutions in this presentation.
Next slide.
The threats to public access that we deal with are varied and numerous, so to provide
some structure to this presentation, we are going to look at the violations in the sequence
that a typical beachgoer might encounter them during a hypothetical trip to the beach, including
parking restrictions, beach curfews, security guards, physical barriers, access encroachments,
localism, beach restrictions, and lack of affordable accommodations.
But this is not intended to be a depressing exploration of limitations on beach access,
we'll also cover how commissioned staff have resolved these issues.
And these cases are currently the work of our Southern California enforcement officers.
So Marcia Venegas in San Diego, Spencer Sayer, Diana Garcia in Daewie Henry in Long Beach,
and Cameron Lee and Carla Rivas in Ventura, a third of which are working on a special
project for case backlog reduction.
And next slide, please.
We're going to cover a very small sample of our cases today.
The point is to illustrate how our program has evolved with React 21 to achieve more
and more coastal access for the public.
We'll start with the first threat to public access that our beach-goer encounters.
That is the especially pernicious no-parking signs decorating public access parking spaces.
Signs like these are easy to fabricate and install, but it's difficult for the public
to determine if they are legitimate.
This sign is not, as it was installed in a parking area that the commission required
to be public to provide access to the adjacent Agua-Hedionda Lagoon and Carlsbad.
Next slide please.
And after researching and confirming the permit history for the site, staff directed the HOA
to remove the unpermitted signs and to install the commission required access signs.
Next slide.
And in addition, to help mitigate for the impacts of the unpermitted signs and result
loss of parking, our San Diego enforcement staff negotiated for the opening of a new
public park at the site through conversion of a previous HOA common area to public open
space.
And on this slide is the new public park overlooking the lagoon.
Next slide, please.
The public park and parking provide access to the trails and sandy beach at the lagoon,
and you can just make out people enjoying the beach in the background.
This resolution is typical of our approach to resolve violations through condition compliance
and in addition, with the help of leveraging Section 3821, securing additional benefits
for the public, such as the public park, in order to mitigate for impacts of the violations
and resolve monetary penalties.
Next slide.
And here you can see our typical approach is to include attribution to the Coles Commission
on the signs to help the public understand our role in providing access but also to highlight
whom they should call if there's an issue.
And of course we have many resources online and through social media to spotlight public
access opportunities.
Next slide and next case.
So once our beachgoer has found parking, they might encounter beach hours or curfews posted
at an access way.
As the Commission will remember, last month the Commission supported limited hours of
access to a trail through pocket mouse habitat in Dana Point, a truly unique situation.
More commonly, the Commission requires hours of access to be maximized to ensure the availability
of beaches at different times to different users, including mornings and evenings before
and after work.
In this case, though, also in data point, the city and a developer of a luxury residential
project had coordinated without a coastal development permit to reduce access hours
to walkways to multiple walkways through the project and installed gates and unwelcoming
spike fences at beach accessway entrances, which you can see on the screen and which
discourage access.
guards service the gates, thus introducing uncertainty with the gate operation and creating
the chilling effect private security can have on access.
Next slide.
After district staff had prepared the case, it was ultimately resolved through formal
enforcement action that required the city to, among other things, remove the spikes
on the fences and the gates on the access ways and to make the access ways less foreboding
to visitors. And to expand hours of access. Next slide. 24-hour access to the beach was
also required by the Commission to resolve the case. And next slide. And this is the
beach and walkway at the base of the, base of the access ways. It's also important to
note that the city had challenged staff's position in this case in court. But with the
the AG's office representing the Commission and Surf Rider also playing a key role, that
litigation ultimately confirmed the Commission's jurisdiction to take enforcement action and
resulted in case law that effectively says local governments cannot treat public access
as a public nuisance without cause.
Occasionally, barriers to access have been in place for so long that they predate the
coal slacked and stand as frustrating reminders of the days before the
Commission's authority went into effect. This fence into the water at the north
end of Malibu Lagoon State Beach is such an example. Next slide. When portions of
the fence were placed in 2016 though, Commission staff jumped on it and
argued under relevant statutory language and case law, whatever vested right the
applicant might have had to the fence had been lost with its replacement and
and directed the homeowner to take the fence down on the beach, which they did, as you can see here.
Next slide, please.
Some relic debris remains in tight lens, but the path up the coast is now clear with the fence removed.
Next slide.
And here's the beach continuing up the coast from the site in front of Malibu Colony.
Next slide.
Our theoretical beachgoer has now reached the beach and is looking for a spot in the sand.
But they're about to encounter a new set of impediments to access
There's a near constant creep of private development onto public land as homeowners illegally co-op public land next to their houses for their own use
This is an obvious example
Where a homeowner had privatized an area of El Matador State Beach in Malibu for their own use at the exclusion of the public
The sand within the fence is entirely publicly owned State Beach
Next slide
But the homeowner quickly took the fence down when directed to do so by enforcement staff
next slide
Some privatization of public land is more entrenched though
Such as private yards that have proliferated at many beaches statewide as homeowners illegally expand their yard space onto public beach
For instance at the Balboa Peninsula at Newport Beach
Dozens of encroachments such as this one created a community wide violation
This is a typical occurrence when one party places encroachments
neighbors take note and such encroachments tend to spread down the beach like dominoes each taking up private public land with private development for private uses
Adding up to significant loss of Sandy Beach this isn't entirely on public beach this lawn and and play area
This situation necessitated years of work at the district level to research property rights,
permanent and LCP history, and then engage with dozens of homeowners at town halls to seek a resolution.
And then work on settlement offers and discussions with the dozens of parties.
Next slide, please.
The resolution ultimately came in the form of a consent enforcement order directing the city and
homeowners to remove all of the encroachments, and for the homeowners to pay
a over $1.7 million in monetary penalties.
This money, like all monetary fines for coastal act violations,
is not paid to the Commission.
Instead, this fine has been paid into the violation of a mediation account
where it is dispersed to benefit public access and habitats for wildlife species.
Here's a representative encroachment with ornamental landscaping planted far out onto the public beach.
Keep an eye on the poll for the volleyball court on the right for reference.
And next slide.
And here is the encroachment removed and the sand freed up again for public use.
The simple fencing is temporary by the way as dune vegetation is planted.
Next slide.
The next couple of cases are especially distressing
They demonstrate continued attempts by some beachfront residents to exclude visitors from the coast
This can constitute development under the under the definition in the coastal act that the commission regulates because the activity changes access to the coast
This case came to us by way of a post on tick-tock
When a beachgoer posted their interaction with a resident in Laguna Beach
Who was verbally harassing beachgoers and installing a makeshift rope barrier to exclude the public from an area of the beach?
That was in fact public.
And you can see, I guess it's kind of hard to see in the lower left, that when we launched
our investigation and screen shot the video, it already received 3.2 million views, which
is testament to the immense public interest in the issues that the commission deals with.
Next slide, please.
And here is an excerpt of the video, a warning, it's disturbing behavior.
if you can play that, Chris.
I'm not harassing on the beach,
it's harassment in my home property.
Whoa! Get outta here!
Enforcement staff contacted the individual
that posted the video to establish the facts
of the situation to build a case,
research property lines and easements on the beach,
and then send a notice of violation letter to the resident.
At staff's direction, they immediately removed
the rope barrier and committed in writing
not to interfere with public access.
And thus, within days of staff seeing the video posted,
the violation had been corrected.
And next slide.
And once the beach had been freed of obstructions,
staff shot our own video and posted it online.
Can you play that too, please?
And here is the beach, free of that barrier.
Okay.
And next slide, please.
In the next case, involving the so-called
Lenata Bay boys in Palispari's estates,
then the notorious harassment of visitors
local surfers was largely conducted out of a stone fort which itself was also an
unpermitted structure. Next slide. This shot shows that the fort was practically
loomed over the waves and this was in a primal location next to the surf break
as a base for the Bay boys to intimidate visitors. Next slide. The localism and
exclusion of visitors at Lanada Bay has been the topic of public interest and
media coverage for years. And we considered how we could weigh in on this
and staff crafted an approach to make the site more welcoming for the public.
For instance, given it was unpermitted, commission staff requested that a city
either take down the fort or improve and permit it as a public amenity. The city
chose to tear it down. Here are city contractors that work dismantling the
fort. And next slide. The structure was a substantial edifice and its full
removal, required air support. You might be aware that contemporaneously with
staff's efforts to remove the fort, private parties sued the city and the bay
boys individually to address the harassment of visitors. This litigation
was based on the theory posited in staff's letters to the city that the
behavior of individuals to exclude the public from the coast is development
under the coastal act and the city was responsible to curb that behavior where
occurred on its property. In the litigation, Commission and enforcement and legal staff
collaborated with AG's office on litigation support, including filing an amicus brief
and obtained favorable case law that confirmed staff's theory that the behavior of individuals
to exclude the public from the coast is development under the coleslaw. This situation illustrates
how staff continued to explore the possibilities of the coleslaw and interpret it broadly to
to bring the most benefit to the public.
Next slide.
And second to last case here.
Our visitor to the coast wants to go fishing,
which often can be in the form of subsistence fishing
for individuals and families.
Thus, the commission approaches providing fishing
opportunities as a matter of environmental justice
and staff works to ensure fishing amenities
and locations are available and free of obstructions.
As an example, a marina in Huntington Harbor
had not installed a public fishing pier as required by a coastal permit.
The marina instead was signed as a private marina, as you can see here.
Next slide.
After an extensive process to identify the optimal location of the fishing pier as far
as angling productivity and enjoyment, the marina operator installed and opened a new
fishing pier, shown here.
Next slide.
The pier is now clearly signed for public use and includes informational signage about
local fish species and fish habitat.
To help mitigate for the time that the pier had not been installed as required by the
commission in violation of the permit, the marina, among other things, restored intertidal
habitat at the site to improve the fishery as well as the biological productivity of
the area more generally.
This photo shows the new intertidal mudflat area, that's the flattish vegetated area,
that the marina constructed by excavating fill that was previously in this location
and planting the site to enlarge the intertidal area that can function as a nursery for young
fish and a catalyst for expanding the area's fish population.
Next slide.
Now we've reached the end of the presentation and also the end of the day for our beachgoer.
They are looking for affordable overnight accommodation, which is critical for visitors,
but they are priced out of most options.
To increase the stock of affordable accommodation, the Commission consistently requires provision
for affordable lodging when reviewing hotel projects.
The Commission did so when it approved the demolition of two lower cost hotels in San
Monica, shown here, which it authorized contingent upon the applicant building a moderately priced
hotel at the site. Next slide. Instead of doing so, the applicant constructed this,
the Shore Hotel, a boutique luxury hotel that roommates to match sometimes well exceeding
$800 per night. Enforcement staff addressed this violation by reaching an agreement with
the applicant in the form of a consent order to pay a $15 million penalty, which has been
made an earmark for funding affordable accommodation at a nearby state park.
Next slide, please.
In addition, the order required the respondent to work with the permit staff to obtain COSALAC
authorization for the hotel.
This permit required payment of an additional $2.5 million mitigation fee for affordable
accommodation, construction of an on-site affordable micro hotel, which is also on the
agenda later in this meeting, and to make rooms available in the hotel at
affordable rate, and a note to the public those rooms those room rates can be
found by looking for coastal escape rates on the hotel website. Next slide.
In summary, section 3821 has enabled staff to resolve more access cases and
resolve them more quickly, and thus to realize the vision of the enforcement
unit, that is open and available beaches and coastal parks, beach parking and access ways
and the coast without barriers to access.
And that was just a quick sampling of the access cases we worked on in Southern California.
We're happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thanks Andrew.
We also have, I know, exciting, really amazing work as always and stay tuned for the NorCal
version later this year.
So we also have two access highlights for you today.
And so first I'll turn it over to Sarah Christy to go over the first one.
Good morning Chair and Commissioners.
The April Access Spotlight actually has two examples for you today.
I'm going to be starting with the first one, which is right here in Monterey, which was
a truly historic public access victory in the very early days of the Coastal Commission.
Every year, millions of people walk, jog, ride their bikes or roller skate on the Monterey
Bay Scenic Trail, which hugs the Monterey Bay shoreline from Asilomare through Pacific
Grove and Cannery Row, past Fisherman's Wharf and on down to Seaside.
Built on the old southern Pacific right-of-way, it's one of the state's most spectacular
examples of a rails-to-trails project.
With its unobstructed views of the water, it's one of the most recognizable and well-used
features of the Monterey Bay.
But very few people realized how close this six and a half mile stretch of coast came
to becoming a wall of high-rise hotels and luxury condominiums instead of the beloved
multi-use trail you see today.
Back in 1979, Southern Pacific decided to abandon the railway and sell the underlying
land off for private development.
One day a local called in a tip to the Santa Cruz office that workers were pulling up the
tracks in front of Fisherman's Wharf and asked what would become a familiar FAQ over
the next 50 years.
Did they get a CDP for that?
No they did not.
Nor did they submit a federal consistency determination.
Because as luck would have it, NOAA had certified the Commission's Federal Coastal Management
Plan just a few months before.
So one of our intrepid Santa Cruz staffers drove down to Monterey, confirmed the violation,
and red-tagged the railroad on the spot, Southern Pacific Railroad, the industry that was used
to running the universe.
What ensued was an epic battle that would end up being the first test in the nation
of state's authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
If you've ever walked on the trail, you know the commission prevailed.
But we have a short video for you today from Riggler Creative's coastal trail series to
fill in some of the details.
Chris, can you cue up the Monterey Bay video for this item?
While we're waiting just a moment about the Riggler coastal trail series, this was a whale
tail funded project from about 10 years ago that chronicled California coastal trail segments
from Oregon to San Diego, talking about the specific
segments of trails in those communities
and the folks that help make them happen.
So that's what this video is an excerpt from.
Chris, we could, okay.
While Chris is cueing up the video,
we'll pass it off to Linda Lachlan
to talk about our other access win.
Thanks, Sarah.
So I'm here to present our monthly spotlight
on public access where we look at access ways
that were required by the Commission
through permit conditions.
Today is Santa Cruz Coastal Campus
and De Anza Beach Trails, also in the Central Coast.
This Santa Cruz Coastal Campus and De Anza Beach Trails
are a mile long loop through a restored prairie
that connects to a hidden cove and a nearby state beach.
This continuous bluff top trail was
created by the Coastal Commission
on public access requirements on two adjacent parcels.
Way back in 1981, the commission approved
additional coastal armoring for a pre-coastal residential
community gated community called De Anza Mobile Home Park.
At that time, the residents had private access
to a small cove called De Anza Beach.
As mitigation for the armoring, the commission
required that the mobile home park keep their gates unlocked
and install wayfinding signage to the secluded cove
as well as to the adjacent natural bridges state beach.
Then in 2008, sorry, the commission approved
a marine lab master plan for UC Santa Cruz
on the 100 acres directly adjacent to the mobile home park.
The planning provided for research facilities,
classrooms, and a public trail, public aquarium,
as well as extensive habitat restoration
and a public trail system.
These two adjacent projects created decades apart
exemplify the value of long range planning
under the Coastal Act.
Now I'd like to turn the microphone over
to our new climate equity and sea level rise intern,
Rosemary Bailey.
Rosie, as we call her,
has produced the latest video for our social media series
celebrating coastal public access.
Rosie.
Greetings, commissioners, and members of the public.
I'm honored to present this work to you all today.
I come to you from the Workforce Development Program
of the California Conservation Corps, which
offers young adults ages 18 through 25 hands-on training
and environmental conservation.
As the climate equity and sea level rise intern,
I hope to increase the public's understanding and awareness
of these important issues.
I believe that every small step towards a more accessible
and equitable California makes a big difference.
And because of that, I feel privileged
to help advance the agency's mission.
Thank you for this opportunity,
and please enjoy these videos on the Santa Cruz
Coastal Campus Indiana Beach Trails,
offered in both English and Spanish.
So maybe we could, if we're ready,
cue up the Monterey Trail video first,
and then we can move on to the others.
Okay, we'll do the Santa Cruz ones first then.
Looking for an adventure along California's Central Coast?
How about one that includes a leisurely hike,
scenic bluff top views, and a hidden beach cove?
Welcome to the Santa Cruz Coastal Campus
in De Anza Beach Trails,
a mile long loop through a restored prairie
that connects to a marine science museum and aquarium.
You can park for free at a small lot
at Macalester Way and Shaper Road,
located across the street
from the De Anza Santa Cruz mobile home park.
There's also a bus stop near the trailhead
and street parking along nearby Delaware Avenue.
From the road, head toward the water
along an ADA accessible path.
The trail leads to the Seymour Marine Discovery Center,
whose grounds feature public restrooms, bike parking,
and impressive whale skeletons.
Just beyond the center is Terrace Point,
offering visitors gorgeous sweeping views of the ocean.
The path continues along the bluff top,
visitors can relax on benches and keep an eye out for whales, dolphins, sea otters, and other wildlife.
Feeling a bit more adventurous? Walk along the coastal trail toward the Mobile Home Park to find
an unlocked gate. Look for the public access signs. Once inside, turn right on Horizon Drive,
which leads to a pedestrian bridge. Cross and head toward the ocean to discover a sandy beach cove
backed by driftwood. Also accessible from the Mobile Home Park is Natural Bridges State Beach.
To get there from the pedestrian bridge, walk landward and turn right on Cascade Drive
until you get to Kristin Place, where you'll find another unlocked gate.
Thanks to the California Coastal Act and the California Coastal Commission,
these trails have been provided for the public to enjoy free of charge all year round.
Check out these hidden gems next time you're in Santa Cruz.
Chris, are we still working on the Monterey?
Yes, we have it. We're going to play the Spanish version for the Santa Cruz,
and then we'll come back to the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail.
As an event in the Costa Central de California, I had a conclusion that I would like to make a new channel, a panel of the Amicas de Lualto de la Catilado, and a new channel.
I am here in Santa Cruz, on the campus, and the center of the place is the Anza, a circuit of a city that travels to a restaurant that connects with a few and a quarter of a million marinas.
I am also an artist in a new location, a friend from the Central Park of Casa Mobiles, Santa Cruz.
Cruz. Tambien, a una para dada da tobús cerca del invisible cendero y está cienamento en la cajé de la ver.
De la y, puedes caminar a cielmar por un cenero accessiule para personas con nús cá paz de dós.
El camino te giva a cimar marine discovery center, a y cenquentran impresiéntos esqueletos de
valena está cienamento para bicicletas y vanios púlcos. Mas aja de centros en quentras de rascuéc.
Equalo freso a los visitantes unas vistas panoramica de los ciel. Tambien, a y van cazón de cépuede de
and the city of Vallejenos, Delphines, and other marinas.
What do you think about this adventure?
Let us know in the comments below the video
what you think about the car's movement
and how you can find a way to connect with the public access.
In the next video, I will be talking about Horizon Drive,
which is a very interesting and crucial way to help you
to find a way to respond to the river.
This is the main park that will be considered as a natural bridge's street beach.
Thank you, and sorry about that with the other video.
We did have it and tested it out this morning but for some reason it disappeared so now
we have it again and we're ready to play it.
Parts of the California coastal trail are special and unique.
The Monterey Bay section of the coastal trail is particularly special and unique because
the Monterey Bay itself is such an amazing ecological feature and it creates such a splendid
backdrop for this trail that hugs the entire edge of the bay.
So when people come to Monterey and they go for a walk or a jog or they ride their bike
on the trail, they just take it for granted.
It's so obviously wonderful that I think most people just assume that it was in the plans
all along, like Central Park in New York, but that absolutely is not the case.
And if it weren't for a very specific twist of fate, what you would be looking at here
today is a wall of high rise luxury condominiums and hotels.
And it goes back to 1879 when Southern Pacific Railroad had the right of way for train tracks
that ran along the edge of the bay.
That was back in the days when railroads really were a dominant economic engine and a dominant
political force in this area.
At one time, trains came down from San Francisco passenger trains, but also trains came through
here where they mined sand, so all this pristine, beautiful white sand got hauled onto the train.
Kind of the urban folklore is that many beaches in Hawaii, which is volcanic, have beautiful
white sand complements of the Monterey Peninsula.
But over the years, the rail line became less and less useful, and then they sent their
workers down to just start pulling up the tracks.
So there was a big meeting in San Francisco and Southern Pacific told the Coastal Commission
very clearly, you don't understand, we're not in the railroad business anymore, we're
in the real estate business and that's our land and we plan to develop it.
We went to court and the court agreed with us.
The Coastal Commission won the very first test case nationally for the Coastal's old
management act.
Back in the 70s, once the ride away was acquired, we were interested in trails and at that time
there was a discussion nationwide about converting old railroad rideaways to trails.
I think the reason it has been so successful is because it's such a spectacular idea.
You'd have to be crazy or a railroad executive to think that a better plan for this landscape
would be hotels and high rises.
love it, they relate to it, they use it. It's just a winner all the way around.
As somebody who's had a chance to walk part of the Appalachia Trail and also to walk
in the Sierras, I think the ability to be able to walk a trail 1200 miles of the most beautiful
coastline in the world is a remarkable goal. Giving people that opportunity along the California
Trail is in many ways a fulfillment of what life is all about, to be able to understand
that as human beings we have a responsibility to ensure that that beauty is protected.
As a footnote the commission won in district court and while the case was on appeal the
conservancy the Colson Conservancy put together a deal with the railroad to purchase the right of
way. The commission agreed to the settlement and now that initial six and a half mile segment is
part of a 16 mile continuous trail from Asilama State Park through Fort Ordoon State Park all
the way to Castorville. None of the interpretive or commemorative signs along the trail mention
this history or the Commission's role in preventing the Miami Beach style development
that would be standing in its place if not for the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission's
determination to take on one of the country's most powerful industries. Thank you.
Thank you, and Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to go through those access spotlights
and program spotlights and that does conclude my executive director's report.
That was fantastic.
Thank you all so much.
Just for my colleagues at timekeeping note, we're not going to take a break.
We're going to move through the agenda.
We're going to break for lunch at noon.
So if you need to use the restroom, please, one at a time, go do so.
Thank you.
And with that, we will turn to see if there's public comment.
We have no speakers for this item.
Thank you.
I'll return to my colleagues.
Comments?
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
things. On the Lunata Bay violation, so I was just curious when you were talking about
that the repairs were done by the local municipality. And I don't know the answer. Can the access
funds be used by the local municipality or do they always go to the Conservancy or how
does that work? So I will speak, but Andrew can correct me
if I mess it up. Basically if we take in penalties associated with a violation, it goes to something
called the violation remediation account.
That is administered by the Coastal Conservancy.
And generally we have some involvement in where that money goes to try to, you know,
affect projects that are geographically relevant and topically relevant to whatever violation
resulted in that fee.
Is that, did I get it?
Yes, we have an MOU, my understanding with the Conservancy and we work on cases jointly
decide where funding should go and we try to do it in the same kind of area and the same kind of
Violation so the public has made roughly whole is the goal
Yeah, and I am familiar with that, but I was just curious if the local municipality incurs, you know
cost them a lot of money to repair or
Is that available can the Conservancy then make a grant to the local municipality?
Does it do you know or that's not a thing in the case of the not a bay? Yeah
Just as an example
Oftentimes funding is made available under the VRA to local
governments, that's absolutely common in that case since the
Municipality was a violator. We didn't give them money that they were they removed the fort at their own expense
Yes, and then just one other brief comment not to harp on this but the younger lagoon reserve is part of the UC reserve system
Okay.
Maybe I'm making too many comments.
That's it for you, you're getting cut off.
Anyway, I just wanted to make the point that the D'Anza Trail skirts around and provides
folks an opportunity to see the younger Lagoon Reserve, which this commission considered and
agreed to limit access to because of the scientific research that's going on there, although it's
available by DoCEN.
You know docent so I was just thinking what a great opportunity for us to be working with the UC reserve
Not only to talk about why the access is limited as people are walking along the trail
But to highlight the work that's going on in the younger lagoon reserve
Thanks. Thanks for leaving lights on no
Commissioner Wilson
I'm just kind of wondering I
there was the
The
presumed entitlement of adjacent property owners
onto public lands.
And there was some activity around that.
We saw some video.
And when do we ever see the entitlement of the public
to reclaim those areas?
Does that happen?
Do people say, like, hey, I'm just walking past this sign
and I already know what my rights are?
And what's the nexus with local law enforcement
when that happens?
there's a couple of things there we part of our our our job is to inform the
public to make them more intrepid explorers to the coast and provide them
with the tools to know where public access is to to know what the the laws
with respect to being high tide line that they can always access the the
tight lens so it a lot of what we're doing and part of the reason we do these
presentations is to make you know the public more comfortable asserting their
rights at the coast. So that that's often what we're what we're doing is why we
want education to be a part of our and sign it to be part of our resolutions.
And so that the other side of that question then is is working with local
government, local law enforcement, who are often called in to try to deal with these
situations where there's presumed trespassing but when really people are just using public
land.
And so we've started to give presentations to local sheriff's offices as well to explain
what the rights are, what the law is.
And so when the local police officers go down to the beach, they know the public has the
right to be where they are and can help protect that right.
That's ideally what we're trying to do.
I would just add that that's one reason why we're so big on signs.
Because it's hard to always communicate or have the public feel comfortable asserting
their rights.
But if there's a sign there saying that it's a public access area, they're more comfortable
pointing to the sign and knowing that they can go to the beach.
We're trying to not only get people access, but to get people access in an amicable way.
We don't want people to have to have a battle when they go to the beach, that we want to
make it as pleasant and as rewarding an experience as possible.
We do have many instances of local governments and local police forces not knowing what the
rights of the public are, and they will enforce illegal signs, for example.
A lot of those illegal parking signs, people get tickets in front of them, even though
they're not real.
So we spend a lot of our time trying to inform people.
And when the public calls us and asks us if something is public or not, we try to respond
quickly.
In that one case with the video, we quickly did research to make sure that it was a public
beach, that there were easements or that it was below the Meadeye tagline.
Sometimes it takes a bit of research, and we do it as quickly as we can.
Thanks.
Just a note, those videos always concern me just because sometimes even if an individual
is acting in a way that we disagree with,
sometimes it's really,
who knows what's happening in their lives?
And I just want to be respectful of that, thanks.
I would just add through the chair,
in that case we had the very same concern
and we talked to the woman
and we found out about her family situation
and the history of the property.
We did not end up assessing her penalty or anything.
All we did was ask her to remove the encroachments
and to not throw people off the public areas.
So we're sensitive to because we realize
that people living near the beach
are sometimes concerned about their privacy as well
and we try to mediate between the interests.
I'm just talking about media in general
and how we portray people at their worst times.
That's all.
Yeah.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you for the presentation.
Just a quick question about the parking.
So if you get a property,
if you get an individual who puts an illegal no parking sign up
and then you become aware of that as a coordination with that municipality to
say hey and such such a location there's a
so that
you can avoid the case of the
local
law enforcement showing up and going oh jackson's parking his
SUV here legally because
he or she would know that
that is not
public space or it is public space in that the sign is
Illegal it definitely so with our with our notice of violation letters that will send to a
Property owner we will copy the the local planning department the local government
So they're aware that we've we've made the staff has made this determination that the signs are
Impermitted that this isn't a legitimate
parking restriction and
and I and then ultimately that signs will be removed and we don't don't have to deal with it, but the
But keeping the local government aware of what the public parking is available is definitely
part of our approach.
Thank you.
I would add, I'm sorry, through the chair, one of the issues is along PCH, which is the
significant part of California, we have had some difficulty working with Caltrans because
they themselves don't always know which signs are legitimate and which ones are not.
public puts up once it looks so real that it's hard for anybody to tell the
difference and it's an ongoing challenge and we've reached out to Caltrans to
try to work with them to do an inventory and to try to figure out a way to be
more accurate and more aggressive about removing the illegal signs that's it you
hear that Scott yeah I'll just note that you know through the years we have
worked with the Commission to figure out you know what are legitimate signs and
what are not and we have you know continuously gone through the process of removing illegally
posted or fake no parking signs and it's an ongoing issue and it's probably never gonna
end but thank you commissioner nada through the chair I've been an announcement to make
before we continue thank you we do have a couple food vendors that are setting up outside
And they need space in the parking lot.
If people are parked in the unmarked area,
can you move your cars?
It's a white Porsche, red Toyota FJ Cruiser,
gray Lexus E5300, and dark gray Honda HRV.
Could you please move your cars to other spots?
We need space for the vendors to set up.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
I was just going to flag that you're
talking about unauthorized parking signs.
I just wanted to point out that I understand it's temporary.
But along Malibu, there's all these orange cones and PCH
that are preventing people from parking along PCH
and along the beach.
And this is where the fire was.
So I think there's some construction or planning
activities that are going on.
But I've certainly heard from the public,
and I observed it myself last month.
So I just want to make sure that commission staff is monitoring
the situation there, and that these cones don't
become a permanent fixture.
Because there's quite a bit of reduction of public access
that area right now. And briefly through the chair but that presentation was
supposed to be only like 10 minutes long and so it's hard to get every all of our
work into that but we we did talk about also including all of these types of
restrictions on parking that we see the cones red curbs signs and those are
where those are things we're continually working on and we and in Malibu I think
You're talking about instruction in Malibu.
We are working on a survey, and Mike spanned us
to other areas of the coast where
we survey all of the different impediments to access
to parking.
So we have a survey of what needs
to be done and a game plan to address those.
There's a history of cone usage, so we're not at all surprised.
The Malibu construction area, we've
been trying to let people do their reconstruction activities,
but we're aware of the need to monitor it in the future.
And Malibu has been one of the areas of the coast
where there's the most active use of orange cones.
People put them out for a variety of reasons.
They're not legal, they're not enforceable,
but yet they get enforced all the time.
As Andrew said, we didn't get to go through
all of the impediments.
We get people putting in fake curb cuts
as if there's a driveway, when there's no driveway.
We get people painting things red
when it's not legitimate.
We have a whole host of challenges and we have to research each one to figure out if
it's legal or not before we send an enforcement action, but we try to get on them as quickly
as we can.
But the cones are a pernicious problem because they go in and out.
It's hard to catch them the way you can a red curb.
Yeah, it seems like there's a special at Home Depot on Orange Counts or something.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you for that excellent conversation.
Now we will move on to Item 6C, the Legislative Report.
We'll give Mr. Drake a moment to set up.
You get another 2 for this morning.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Chair Harmon and commissioners, I'm joined today by Legislative Director Sarah Christie.
Together we'll be presenting the Legislative Report for April.
This month's report includes a number of updates, including several new bills, which are all
marked with an asterisk in staff's written report.
is also bringing analyses of two bills to you today to consider taking a position.
At this point in the session, most bills are working their way through the policy committees
of their first house.
There are a handful of priority bills that are either new to the legislative report this
month or have been amended since last month, and I'll walk through those as quickly as
I can.
I'll start with AB 2254 by Assemblymember Dawn Addis, which is a new add to the report
this month.
This bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Coastal Commission to
to identify monarch butterfly overwintering habitat
in the coastal zone and develop guidance
for local governments on model policies,
including LCP policies to protect and enhance this habitat.
The bill would then require any local government
with overwintering habitat in its coastal zone
whenever it next goes to amend its LCP
to include monarch overwintering habitat protection policies
based on this agency guidance.
Staff has no policy concerns with the goal of the bill
and we're providing some technical assistance
at the author's request to help refine the language
as the bill moves forward.
The author and sponsors are currently working
to fine tune the bill in response to concerns
from local governments.
Next is SB 963 by Senator Laird.
This is the bill that would add language
to the Coastal Act establishing requirements
for how the commission processes the de novo portion
of appeals of local coastal development permits.
Yesterday, the bill was unanimously approved
by the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
It heads next to the Appropriations Committee.
There's a pair of new bills in the legislative report
this month related to short-term rentals.
AB 1953 by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal
would require the state offices of emergency services
and of tourism to create a statewide registration system
for short-term rentals.
The bill would then establish that any time
there is either a special event that's declared
by the Office of Tourism, like the Olympics,
or a declared state of emergency,
registered short-term rentals would be exempt
from all state and local regulation.
That bill has not yet been scheduled
for a committee hearing.
The other short-term rental bill, SB 1318,
by Senator Ben Allen is specific to the Coastal Act.
It would require the Commission to approve
any Coastal Development Permit or LCP amendment
that would restrict or prohibit unhosted short term rentals.
Requiring the commission to approve something,
in this case restrictions on unhosted short term rentals,
would be a de facto Coastal Act exemption,
as it would foreclose the opportunity for the commission
to potentially require changes
to achieve Coastal Act consistency.
Staff are in conversation with the author's office
to better understand their objectives for the bill
and explore alternative ways of achieving them.
That bill is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
next week.
Another new bill this month is AB 1976 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.
The bill would make a number of statutory changes regarding the permitting and construction
of pedestrian malls.
Relevant to the Commission, the bill would declare all pedestrian mall projects automatically
consistent with the public access policies of the Coastal Act.
Like the previous bill, preemptively declaring a project consistent with the Coastal Act
as a functional exemption. Staff will be reaching out to Assemblymember Wicks' office to discuss
this provision of the bill, particularly given that the Coastal Act already contains language
expediting LCP amendments and CDPs for pedestrian projects.
Next AB 1536 by Assemblymember Addis would make a number of statutory changes related
to oil pipeline safety. The bill would require any idled or an active pipeline that has previously
spilled 10,000 gallons or more of oil to be decommissioned and would require the operator
to restore the site to its natural condition.
Relevant to the commission, the bill would make any repaired pipeline near environmentally
sensitive areas of the coastal zone subject to additional technical analyses and reporting
by the operator to CalGEM.
The bill would also authorize the Coastal Commission to adopt regulations for pipeline
leak detection.
are currently evaluating the provisions of that bill. It passed out of the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee on Monday and is now in the Emergency Management Committee.
Last update, AB 2433 by Assemblymember Alvarez, which deals with density bonus projects, was
amended last week. The primary change was to modify the provision that would make density
bonus projects subject to by right ministerial approval. The amended language slightly limits
ministerial approval to projects that meet certain siting, affordability, and labor standards.
Staff are currently evaluating this new eligibility language to understand the revised scope of
the bill.
Looking ahead, April 24th is the deadline for fiscal bills to pass out of their policy
committees.
Bills that do will move into the appropriations committees of their House of Origin.
Given that this is the second year of the two-year session, any bills that don't meet
this deadline will be dead.
month, staff will provide an update on which bills met the deadline. With that,
Chair Herman, I'm gonna pause in case there are any questions about these
legislative updates before we move into the two bills that staff is bringing for
a position. Thank you, Mr. Drake. Any questions? Commissioner Wilson. Yeah, just a
question about SB 1318, which is the, I think it's the STR bill by Ben Allen. I'm just
wondering is the stated objective in that bill to address housing impacts of
STRs and if so is is there movement to actually tie those two things together
housing numbers like the impacts the STRs have on our arena accounts and those
sorts of things? Through the chair commissioner Wilson yes the author's
concern prompted him to introduce 1318 was based on the loss of housing that
gets displaced with the rise and the increase of short-term rentals in the
coastal zone. In terms of tying that specifically in some policy way to local
government's housing requirements arena numbers and that sort of thing, that has
been discussed but that would be the purview of the Housing Committee and the
bill has not been double referred and so if those conversations are going to take
place they probably won't be taking place in the first house it would
probably be a consideration when the bills over it in the assembly. Okay I
appreciate that thanks that's all I have. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you Madam
Chair thank you for the update question about the Lowenthal bill what is the what
What is the stated intent for that?
It seems to be running counter to Sacramento's never-ending housing, housing, housing, affordability,
affordability.
I mean, I can say that during the Palisades fires, a lot of municipalities quickly leapt,
made changes to their local ordinances, and there were no issues with regard to waivers
of short-term rental ordinances to ensure that people that were seeking housing, emergency
housing, had housing. And most of the short-term rental policies prohibit rentals under 30 days
when most folks were looking for longer stays. So I'm trying to figure out what is the intent
of this proposal? What it sounds like, in particular when it comes to events, you know,
we're going to kick out my long-term renters so that I can make $5,000 a day when the Olympics
come to town or a World Cup or a Super Bowl or pick your special event?
Through the chair, Commissioner Jackson, with the caveat that we haven't had an opportunity
to engage with the author's office on this bill yet.
The way we kind of approach the early part of the legislative session is we sort of tier
one, tier two, and tier three bills.
And so this is, while it's a concern, it's a lower concern than some of the bills that
were getting more active on earlier.
But I would think it's fair to say
that there is a diversity of opinion in Sacramento,
just as there is a diversity of opinion on this commission
and out in the world about the role short-term rentals
play in communities.
And my interpretation, our interpretation
of this statute language at this time
is that the author is interested in making short term rentals more easily available during
periods of time when a city is having a special event that's bringing a lot of visitors into
the area. But again, the bill hasn't yet been referred to a committee, so that's kind of
a quiet indicator that there are other issues with the bill as well. So if it does get referred
Do a committee and moves forward will definitely get more engaged in that one. I
Appreciate that. Thank you. And as an elected of a of a community
I think I could speak for many other communities. Sacramento's done us. No favors
I mean everything they've done has been geared towards a short-term rental
Community and not towards the municipalities that have to deal with their
Legislative great ideas. So thank you
Commissioner Lopez
Yeah, I'll direct my comments at both 13 and 18 in 1953 to start and just say that
I'd love for us to take a position sooner rather than later understanding you've got tier one in tier twos
But in our 50th year
I think defending the ground and the ability for this body
To opine on several of these critical matters as we have in the last six months. I think is important
I think about that special events piece and we have a special events task force
so to be able to qualify and say well this is a special event weekend, that
would probably be more than half the weekends in Monterey. While I could not
vote for our ordinance for several reasons, I would worry that now of a
sudden that gate is wide open and there's no longer guardrails, right? And so
for both 53 and 18 and just for full transparency if you look at my Ex parte
communications, there was one from Airbnb where they asked about 1318. I had not
looked at it yet. I spent some time since then looking at it but again for
same reasons control the ability of this body to hear from communities and make decisions
that meet the needs of each community is important to me. The last one would be 2254 on the monarch
policy by Addis. I'd be supportive of that if it came with some sort of funding, right?
I think that's important for us and where we sit today looking at our finances. So just
want to make sure that unfunded mandates back to Commissioner Jackson's point or something
I've never been a fan of at any level of government. So we'd love to see it, but would love to
to see some funding behind it to help us address this.
It is a key reason people come to visit the Monterey Peninsula.
Thank you.
Thank you for those comments, Commissioner Lopez.
They're very helpful.
And they'll guide us going forward.
Commissioner Nada.
And just to flag the, I mean, we've seen, I've heard from local jurisdictions up and
down the state that are, have gone through very extensive deliberative processes to tailor
short-term rental policies to the individual situations
that they find themselves confronted with.
And by and large, this commission
has been respectful of those local deliberations,
keeping in mind that housing in the coastal zone
is a precious commodity.
We want to preserve and protect as much as we can
while fostering more affordable workforce housing.
And when you take housing out of the long-term rental market
and put it into the short-term rental market,
that has a very demonstrative impact
on housing availability.
We have seen this over and over.
We have a lot of extensive experience on this now
with research.
So to try and ignore the housing impacts
for people working and living in the coastal zone
of the impact of short-term rentals
To not really look at the facts
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Drake back to you
Thank You chair Harmon. As I mentioned staff is bringing analyses of two bills to the Commission today to consider taking a position
Just a point of process before I begin I'm aware that we have a number of signed up
Commenters who wish to comment on potentially both bills and so we'll go through both presentations before turning it to comment and then to the Commission
So the first bill that staff is bringing to you today is AB 1740 by assembly member Rick zebra who represents Santa Monica
Staff briefed the Commission on this bill during last month's legislative report
The bill currently in print which is the version that staff prepared an analysis of today
Would create a process for coastal cities and counties to self-certify as urban multimodal communities
Which is a designation created by the bill
To qualify as an urban multimodal community a local government would need three things
One existing or planned transit stop anywhere in or within a quarter-mile of
its coastal zone, one bicycle lane within a quarter-mile of its coastal zone, and
a local plan that includes targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
vehicle crashes. A county wanting to be an urban multimodal community would also
need to include a census-designated urban area in order to be eligible. In any
self-certified urban multimodal community, a broad universe of project types would become
exempt from the coastal act and local coastal programs.
This includes exemptions for all of the following.
Mixed use projects, multi-unit housing projects, expansions of existing structures, long-term
events lasting up to a year, bike lanes, bus lanes, sidewalk projects, parking rate increases,
removal of public parking, changing public parking into resident-only parking, motion
picture productions and outdoor dining facilities.
Separately, the bill would also exempt
from the Coastal Act any project
to reconfigure a state highway,
including the relocation of roadside parking,
so long as the project includes installation of a bike lane.
That part of the bill would be statewide.
The bill is based on the premise
that the Coastal Act should not apply to urban areas.
Staff disagrees with that assertion
because coastal management has always been
just as important in urban areas as it is in rural ones.
Exempting the bill's specified projects
from coastal-like considerations will have,
in the aggregate, a gentrifying exclusionary impact
on coastal communities.
Protecting public coastal access,
one of the highest priorities of the act, as we know,
and something only the Coastal Act does,
is most important, arguably, in urban areas,
because that's where populations are highest
and development pressures are greatest.
As you heard from our enforcement colleagues, this includes protecting coastal access ways
by prohibiting development from blocking the public's ability to reach the coast.
But more broadly, coastal access also means ensuring Californians from inland areas can
reach the coast and experience it affordably.
This morning, you heard directly from inland residents about the importance of protecting
coastal access for all families, regardless of zip code.
This is why the Commission works with local governments through the LCP process to make
make sure coastal communities provide diverse and convenient transportation options for
visitors, not just residents, to get to the coast.
It's also why the Coastal Act requires communities to protect and provide lower-cost visitor
serving and recreational amenities so that visitors from inland communities, visitors
of all income levels, can find places to eat, shop, and recreate on the coast.
These Coastal Act policies guarantee equitable access for inland Californians.
And this equity is achieved through both the CDP and the LCP process.
It's also critical to recognize that all coastal communities, even urban ones, contain
a variety of sensitive resources, including rare natural habitats, iconic public views,
and cultural resources.
All of these resources are part of what make coastal cities destinations to live in, work
in, and visit.
Furthermore, the Coastal Act and specifically LCPs are the instrument through which communities
are planning for sea level rise. The legislature has doubled down on this approach when it
passed SB272, which requires all coastal local governments to put sea level rise adaptation
plans into their LCPs by 2034. While this planning for sea level rise is valuable all
over the coast, it's particularly critical in urban stretches of the coast, which house
the most residents, serve the most visitors, and contain the greatest density of public
and private investment.
AB 1740 in its current form and print would render all
of these policies, requirements and plans largely meaningless
because many projects including significant housing,
mixed use and infrastructure projects wouldn't need to comply.
I want to note that the author amended the bill last week
to shrink some of the proposed exemptions
to avoid areas immediately adjacent to the shoreline,
wetlands and Esha.
However, these amendments do not resolve the concerns
just described.
Coastal hazards such as flooding and groundwater emergence
aren't confined to the narrow strip of land
nearest the shoreline.
So exemptions outside that strip of land
are still problematic from a resiliency perspective.
Also, for certain exemptions to apply,
the bill would leave it to local governments
to determine that the project wouldn't impact coastal access
or wouldn't be without 100 feet of esha or wetlands.
In the case of a city that doesn't have a certified LCP,
this would mean leaving these inherently
coastal act-based determinations to jurisdictions
that have no experience implementing the Coastal Act.
Leaving these determinations to the discretion
of individual cities and counties
will lead to inconsistent application
of the proposed exemptions,
undermining the principle that the coast
is a resource of statewide importance
that should be managed cohesively as such.
Ultimately successful management of California California's urban coastal zones occurs through cohesive local planning and permitting that is supported and overseen by the state
This bill would sever that connection between local governments and the Commission that is really the heart of the Coastal Act
Now I want to take a moment to describe where this bill is in the legislative process
AB 1740 was heard on Monday afternoon in the assembly natural resources committee
During that hearing, the committee proposed and the author accepted amendments that will significantly change the scope of the bill.
In essence, the committee amendments will eliminate the statewide scheme of certifying urban multimodal communities.
And instead, the bill will take the list of Coastal Act exemptions that would have applied in urban multimodal communities,
mixed-use projects, housing, long-term events, transit, film productions,
instead would give that list of exemptions to just the city of Santa
Monica. The city would then have those exemptions until 2034. This new language
isn't in print yet, but it will come into print later this week. Shrinking the bill
to apply to just the city of Santa Monica in this way does lessen the scope
of staff's concerns. That said, the proposed exemptions raised the same
policy concerns for Santa Monica as they would for coastal cities at large.
Not to mention, if this Santa Monica-only version of the bill were enacted, other legislators
will undoubtedly seek to replicate it for their districts in future years.
During Monday's hearing, the author expressed an intention to do just that.
The city of Santa Monica, who is the primary sponsor of the bill, has stated a desire to
move faster on housing and transportation projects.
the commission has long shared those goals.
Fortunately, the Coastal Act already contains tools
such as permit waivers, categorical exclusions,
special expedited approval processes
for accelerating these types of projects.
The commission has also supported legislation
in recent years that created more specialized tools
for expediting many of the types of projects
targeted by AB 1740, such as housing, highway projects,
multimodal transportation facilities, temporary events,
and even film productions.
Importantly, all of these processes
expedite project delivery in a manner that also maintains
coastal resource and access protections.
So all of these tools and more are
available to the 64 coastal cities and counties that
have complied with the 50-year statutory mandate
to develop a local coastal program.
Unfortunately, the city of Santa Monica has not done that yet.
The commission remains steadfast in its commitment
to help the city finish its LCP,
and the Commission will recall that in past years
it has awarded the city three grants totaling $375,000
to complete that planning work.
In the meantime, we believe it would be inappropriate
to upend California's coastal management framework
in favor of outright permit exemptions for one city.
Staff do believe there's still an opportunity
to continue coordinating with the author and the sponsors
to advance a bill that furthers the legislatures
on the Commission's shared goals,
particularly around infill housing
and multi-middle transportation.
However, the proposed Coastal Act exemptions
for Santa Monica go in the wrong direction
and would disincentivize the city
from completing its LCP.
For these reasons, staff is recommending
that the Commission oppose AB 1740 unless amended
to remove the proposed Coastal Act exemptions.
And with that, I'm going to turn it next
to Legislative Director Sarah Christie
present the other bill analysis before we turn to public comment.
So the second bill we have for you to consider today is AB 2734 by Assemblymember Hart.
This bill would revise the current revenue allocation structure for monies received from
the purchase, renewal, and personalization of the whale tail specialty license plate.
As you well know, the whale tail plate supports the commission's whale tail grants as well
as other public education programs, such as Coastal Clean Up Day, King Tides, Kids Ocean
Day.
It was one of the first special design plates ever authorized in California back in 1994,
through a bill sponsored by the Coastal Commission specifically to fund public education programs.
For about 20 years, the whale tail has been the top selling plate in the state, generating
an average of between $4 to $5 million per year.
Under the terms of its enabling legislation, the revenue from plate sales and renewals
are split half and half between the Coastal Commission and the Environmental License Plate
Fund, or the ELPF.
The ELPF is used to support a wide variety of environmental programs and expenditures
throughout the Natural Resources Agency's departments.
However, 100 percent of the personalization fees for those plates, for people who want
a custom message on their wail tail plate are also deposited into the ELPF.
So they're getting half of the purchase and renewal funds and all of the personalization
funds.
And because most of the people who purchase a specialty plate also want to customize it,
these personalization fees make up about half of the total wail tail license plates revenues.
So as a result of that current funding structure, the ELPF receives approximately three quarters
or three million dollars from the whale tail annually, while the Commission is only getting
a quarter or a million dollars a year.
AB 2734 would split the total revenues from the plate, the entire four million dollars
evenly between the Coastal Commission and the state coastal conservancies explore the
Grant Program, explore the Coast Grant Program. The author, Assemblymember Greg Hart, who
is carrying a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of both agencies, has said
this is the perfect year to support both agencies grant programs with a 50-50 split of the whale
tail, 50-50 for the 50th. It's great branding, but it's also not totally out of line with
the other specialty plates. Most sponsoring organizations split their total revenues,
their total revenues, 50-50 with ELPF. There's a few, like the kids' plate, the veterans'
plate and the California memorial plate, that allocate 100% of total revenues to the sponsoring
organization, minus a small DMV processing fee. But there's one plate in the system,
black-and-gold legacy plate that has no sponsoring organization and thus it
contributes 100% of its total revenues into the ELPF. That plate went on sale in
2016, the first year it was available it outsold the whale tail plate which was
previously the top selling plate by almost double and it has held the top
spot ever since while increasing revenues every year. Today the legacy
plate generates almost five times the revenue as all the other specialty
plates combined as you can see on page four of your analysis. It's a pretty
dramatic graph. All this is great news for the Environmental License Plate
Fund. It has more resources than it has ever had at any point in its history and
that's great because there's no sign of it leveling off. That means more critical
funding is available to support important work throughout the state
like beaver relocations and environmental justice work and
restoration projects and countless other commendable resource related projects and activities.
And what's more the 49ers plate just came online in October and will be providing additional
new revenues to the fund.
So because of this trend, the redirection of $3 million to the coastal grants will very
likely have little to no effect on other programs and services currently supported by the ELPF.
The model suggests that it will be more than backfilled by the increasing and new revenues.
In contrast, whale tail revenues have been gradually declining since 2017 despite robust
marketing efforts.
As has been mentioned in our annual public education reports, this is due in part to
economic pressures, supply chain issues doing COVID, competition from the legacy plate,
And more recently, DMV's switched to paperless vehicle registrations.
Up until 2023, every California vehicle owner received a registration notice in the mail,
along with an insert promoting the whale tail and other specialty plates.
While we've been working with the DMV to create a digital equivalent, the online experience
has not been as effective as hoped.
So 2734 would essentially double the amount of whale tail revenues the commission receives
annually from 1 to 2 million.
At the same time, it would also provide a long-term stable
income source for the Conservancy's Explore the Coast
grants.
It will also loop the Conservancy as a partner
in the marketing and promotion of the plate
to a broader audience.
And hopefully, this will boost sales,
benefiting both agencies.
Finally, the Whale Tail License Plate
funds STEM education, equitable coastal access,
and other outdoor activities that are in
and of themselves state policy priorities.
So we appreciate assembly member Hart's support
for the commission and its public education program
and staff is recommending a support position on AB 2734.
And with that, Madam Chair,
we're both available for questions.
Thank you very much, Ms. Christie, Mr. Drake.
Okay, with that, we will go to public comment.
All right, we have a total of eight speakers
signed up for this item.
We'll start in the room.
We have Mitch Silverstein.
Two, three.
Good morning commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein, California Senior Policy Coordinator
for Surfinder Foundation.
We oppose AB 1740.
While we share the bill's stated goals,
expanding coastal access, supporting affordable housing
and keeping our beaches reachable for all Californians,
despite their income or where they live,
regardless of, that's not what this bill delivers.
What it does is carve broad, unnecessary holes
in the Coastal Act, removing the accountability mechanisms
designed to ensure our coast remains accessible
to all Californians,
not just those who can afford to live beside it.
Today's location of Gonzales is a fitting location
for us to speak up about this bill
because chief among our concerns
is how the bill could harm public access protections
for non-coastal residents with no recourse
for those affected to appeal those decisions.
The Coastal Act already provides the correct path,
the local coastal program.
When a city certifies an LCP,
it gains local permitting authority
while maintaining Coastal Act protections.
Santa Monica has never certified an LCP despite 50 years
and over 300,000 in Coastal Commission grant funding,
AB 1740 would reward that failure.
This is partly why recent amendments
limiting the bill to Santa Monica through 2034
are not a fix.
That's eight years of exempting a major California city
from Coastal Act jurisdiction
and eliminating the public's right
to appeal projects that violate it.
Furthermore, as Mr. Drake mentioned,
the bill would greenlight other cities
or powerful special interests within those cities
to have their state legislators
mimic this Coastal Act exemption bill
for their towns.
Santa Monica's own record illustrates
exactly why this is dangerous.
They've repeatedly ignored coleslaw requirements,
approving luxury hotels
without lower cost affordable accommodations,
allowing illegal demolition of affordable accommodations,
and raising beach parking rates
without commission oversight.
Each of those times the commission stepped in
to protect the public interest.
AB 1740 would eliminate that protection.
Santa Monica should complete its own LCP
as the vast majority of coastal jurisdictions
have already done.
To conclude the best way to ensure public access for all along with coastal along with protection of coastal resources is via Coastal Act Review and
LCP pro and the LCP program we urge you to oppose AB 1740 today. Thank you
Thank you. Now moving on to our zoom speakers. We'll start with Adriana Guerrero followed by Robin Rudicile and Priscilla Miller Adriana Guerrero
Adriana Guerrero, can you be moved into s panelists?
There no
Try again
While we're doing that we can take Robin rutacil while I try on this moving in Robin rutacil
Okay, then good morning. I
strongly support staff's recommendation to oppose AV 1740 unless amended to remove the proposed coastal act exemptions I
Was shocked when the author staff showed me that Venice easily qualified as an urban multimodal
model community as there's a qualifying transit stop and a bike lane in the bill's newly defined
coastal access zone, which is the Venice coastal zone plus a quarter mile past it,
and the city has a plan to reduce greenhouse gas and car crashes. So the bill would very easily
allow jurisdictions to exempt broad categories of development from Coastal Act and LCP protections,
including multi-unit housing, mixed use projects, parking removal, roadway changes,
and outdoor dining expansions which are a very significant issue in Venice. That's not
streamlining but rather a structural carve-out of the Coastal Act. I want to thank Jennifer Savage
of Surf Rider and Sean Drake for their excellent testimony before the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee Monday. They clearly articulated what this bill threatens. Although the bill
was approved in Assembly Natural Resources with an amendment to apply only to Santa Monica,
Amendments limiting geography today don't eliminate the possibility of future expansion.
As the mechanism exists in the statute, it can easily be expanded during the legislative
session even at the last second, or with a future amendment if the bill passes.
There's strong pressure from interest seeking to avoid filing CDPs, particularly for outdoor
dining expansions in places like Venice, including bars that were never intended to qualify for
outdoor dining and want outdoor drinking.
I was very surprised to learn via the committee staff report of money that Venice was cited
as supportive of this bill that is absolutely not correct.
Venice residents were never informed prior to our council member expressing support and
I've since expressed by serious concern and will continue to work with them to make sure
they understand that the Coastal Act already contains tools to waive or streamline permits
where impacts are minimal and that this bill is unacceptable as it removes oversight altogether
in large portions of the Coastal Zone. I urge you to support staff's recommendation. Thank you.
Thank you. Adriana Guerrero, Priscilla Miller, and Tiffany Curry. Adriana Guerrero.
Good morning, Chair, Commissioner, staff, and community members. My name is Adriana Guerrero.
I'm the Executive Director of Salted Roots. I'm speaking today on behalf of our community and the
Surf Trust's Collective, a coalition of seven California-based nonprofit organizations
dedicated to promoting equitable access and ocean connection through surfing and nature-based
experiences. We formally asked the commission to oppose and less amended
position on AB 1740. While we support California's climate housing and
transportation objective, AB 1740 in its current form represents the most
significant rollback of coastal protections in a generation. We cannot
support this bill unless all proposed Coastal Act exemptions are removed. AB
1740 would weaken the California Coastal Authority over temporary commercial
events and would allow cities to prioritize large revenue generating events over small
nonprofit and equity focused programs like ours. This deepens access disparities and
limits the coast to those who can't afford to pay for it. Furthermore, 1740 will allow
for the removal of coastal access parking, including along PCA without requiring replacement
or mitigation, and then family, seniors, people with disabilities and working class communities
who rely on driving due to a lack of adequate transit, removing parking without alternatives
is the policy design that prioritizes public beaches.
And lastly, the bill circumvents to establish
local coastal programs process,
rewarding jurisdictions that have failed to complete
their LCPs while penalizing those that followed the law.
The existing LCP framework is designed to allow cities
to streamline substantial programs while a sustainable,
programs preserving public rights.
This framework was critical in our successful collaboration
with the city of Pacifica, which resulted in an equitable beach permitting system in
2023 that created access pathways for nonprofits and community projects like ours.
The coastal access protected California's coastline for 50 years.
This anniversary year is not a time to undermine its authority.
California can and must advance its climate and housing goals without sacrificing
public access or environmental justice. Thank you.
Thank you. Priscilla Miller, Tiffany Curry, Susan Jordan.
Priscilla Miller.
Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. My name is Priscilla Miller, and I am here representing a soul as its chief of staff.
First, I would like to thank the commission staff for their thorough and thoughtful legislative report.
We appreciate both the depth of analysis and the clarity of the recommendations before you today.
We are in strong agreement with the staff's recommendation, particularly the opposed on this amendment position for AB 1740 by Assembly Members of Earth.
From an environmental justice perspective, this build raises serious and urgent concerns.
While we recognize and share the goals of increasing housing and expanding sustainable
transportation, AB 1740 takes an approach that risks undermining decades of progress
under the Coastal Act.
For many families, especially inland, low-income, and communities of color, affordable parking
is not a luxury.
It is the primary means of accessing California's coast.
The proposed exemption that allowed the removal of public parking, increased parking rates,
or the creation of resident-only parking zones threatened to further exclude those communities
from spaces that belong to all Californians.
Equally concerning is the erosion of public oversight.
The bill weakens Coastal Commission's review, overrides certified local coastal programs,
and eliminates meaningful opportunities for public appeal.
These changes remove essential accountability mechanisms that have long safeguarded both
environmental resources and public trust. Azul remains committed to working collaboratively
on solutions that advance housing, climate resilience and transportation in ways that
are equitable and protective of our coast. AB 1740, as it stands, moves us in the wrong direction.
For these reasons, we support the staff's recommendation to oppose unless amended,
and we urge that all coastal exemptions be removed to ensure that environmental protections and
equitable coastal access are not compromised. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Next is Tiffany Curry, Susan Jordan, and Casey Olson. Tiffany Curry.
Good morning. My name is Tiffany Curry speaking on behalf of Outdoor Outreach and the Surf
Justice Collective. Last year, I went on a program with a group of high schoolers who were about to
surf for the very first time. They arrived quiet and unsure, but soon the water filled with laughter
and cheers as they all caught their very first waves. And by the end, nobody wanted to leave.
Their joy, confidence, and connection transformed before my eyes. And experiences like these are
why we're asking you to oppose AB 1740, unless amended to remove all Coastal Act exemptions.
Your ability to enforce environmental justice provisions of the Coastal Act make programs like
ours possible. And if this bill were to pass, cities could prioritize commercial activities
over free public access and create more inequity on the coast. We also urge you to support AB 2734.
As former whale tail and explore the coast grant recipients we've seen their transformative impact
firsthand and yet we know that demand far exceeds funding availability. This bill would help both
programs reach more young people and communities so that more people can catch their first wave
And so we support the staff recommendations today and thank you for your consideration. Thank you.
Thank you. Next, Susan Jordan and Casey Olson. Susan Jordan.
Susan Jordan, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, thank you very much. Susan Jordan, California Coastal Protection Network.
I apologize that I cannot be there in person, but I just returned from Sacramento where I attended
the Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing to testify in opposition to AB1740 by assembly
members burr. I can emphasize enough to the commission how dangerous the original iteration
of this bill was, and I want to acknowledge the work of the roughly 40 environmental groups
who quickly joined CCP and SurfRider as well as EAC Marin in strong opposition to it. To
be clear, despite the false assertions by the author that this bill is narrow and has
no impact on coastal resources or public access, the opposite is the case, as your staff is
so ably laid out. And while I and my colleagues are extremely grateful that the committee managed
to restrict the exemptions to the city of Santa Monica, this is not a fix, nor is it the end of
the fight. The assembly member made it very, very clear in his testimony that he intends to start
here and then keep going so that he can once again extend these broad coastal act exemptions to any
city or county that manages to meet the extremely low bar he set to qualify for them. And speaking
Speaking of Assemblymember Zabir's testimony, I unfortunately feel it would be irresponsible
if I did not convey his broadside attack on the Commission itself.
He blamed you for many things, the failure of Santa Monica to certify their LCP, a development
that you approved in Santa Monica rapidly, it was a luxury hotel, you required low cost
accommodations as you're legally required to do, he said you made it infeasible.
lanes and parking you don't support them and you work actively against them and your staff
unfortunately was not able to respond to any of these remarks. I almost left that in my chair,
but that's not allowed either. So despite the amendments that have been made to AB 1740,
I still consider it the most direct and dangerous attack on the Coastal Act I have ever witnessed.
It sets the precedent for unwinding key protections in the Coastal Act statewide,
and we will continue to oppose it unless it is amended to remove the broad coastal act
exemptions it contains and I urge you to oppose it as well. But I do support the whale tail bill
2734 and that's terrific. Thank you. Thank you. Casey Olson and then we are missing one speaker
Sophia Uribe. We're not seeing you in the attendees list. If you are in the meeting please raise your
your hand, Sophia Uribe and go ahead, Casey Olson.
Good morning, members of the commission.
Thank you to Mr. Drake for the legislative report.
My name is Casey Olson and I'm a Legal and Policy Fellow
with the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin or EAC.
I'm here to speak about Assembly Bill 1740.
To echo others here, we support the intention
behind this bill to encourage more green transportation
through expanding bike lanes of bus access.
But the current version of this bill includes
dangerous exemptions from the Coastal Act
and endangers affordable housing efforts.
We oppose AB 1740 unless it is amended,
which threatens to get the existing coastal development
permitting process in favor of developers,
the wealthy and special interests.
We urge the coastal commission to take an oppose
and less amended position on this bill
to protect the sanctity of the Coastal Act.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
And we are not still not seeing Sophia Uribe.
Madam Chair, there are no more speakers.
Thank you, Chris.
And I will return to staff to see if they have any comments
Before we begin, Ms. Kristie?
No, Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, well, I'll be taking names.
If anyone wants to comment,
we'll begin with Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, staff.
Thanks for the speakers.
I'd like to first start out with the quick questions
about their LCP or lack thereof.
I am in a neighboring city
that shares some of the same concerns that they do.
We're one of the densest cities, coastal cities in the state,
similar to Santa Monica.
They are one of the largest coastal cities in the state.
They also do not have an LCP, similar to Hermosa Beach.
We just heard a comment that representative,
or excuse me, Assemblymember Zabur was bashing
the Coastal Commission for Santa Monica's failure
to have an LCP.
Can you give us a quick history of their LCP attempts?
Because I've had discussions with their elected as well
that said, hey, you know,
if you focused your energies on an LCP,
as opposed to trying to take a machete to the Coastal Act,
I think your efforts would be better focused.
Thank you, and through the chair, I'd like to address that.
Staff agrees that the issues proposed in this law
could easily be addressed through the city's LCP
and would be best addressed through that tool.
The city does have a certified land use plan,
which is one half of their LCP.
It still requires an implementation plan.
To further that effort, as Sean mentioned,
the commission granted the city multiple financial grants
in order to complete their LCP.
The first half of that process was the draft land use plan
to update the existing land use plan.
and commission staff worked with the city to accomplish that.
In fact, we had it done.
We had a draft OUP and it was agendized
for approval by the commission about five years ago.
That was at the beginning of COVID.
And although we had worked very hard with the city staff
and their city manager to reach agreement on all issues.
Unfortunately, it was a turbulent time
And at the beginning of COVID, the city manager was ousted.
The city attorney became the interim city manager.
And days before our hearing, we were notified
in a shocking manner that the city,
due to their change in management,
wished to reevaluate the agreements
that they had previously made for that draft LUP.
And days before our hearing,
they withdrew that LUP amendment before we could approve it.
Now I have no doubt that in five years,
we could have adopted that LUP
and finished the implementation plan.
So that city today would have a local coastal program
and they would have the authority to make decisions
over exactly these sorts of development.
Now we are continuing to work with the city on many issues
and some of those issues are in this law today.
Some of those are that the city currently has
half a dozen unpermitted preferential parking districts
where the public is excluded from parking
in the neighborhoods near the beach.
That's one of the items addressed in the law
and one of the items that the city
would like to address the LCP.
So we do continue to want to work with the city
to address these items through the CDP and the LCP process.
We've also reached out to the city
and we are continuing to discuss with them
to reinitiate the LCP process and work with them
to bring that effort back and restart that process
so that we can certify that LCP.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate that history lesson.
I'm flummoxed and frustrated, and I
share the concerns of so many, particularly
as we celebrate 50 years of the Coastal Act.
I mean, the irony cannot be overlooked of what they're
trying to do.
The forces of Sacramento are pushing an agenda
that is contrary to coastal access.
Hence the Save Our Coast initiative in 72
and the Coastal Act that followed.
So it's the well connected that are now pushing back
against the broader public access and coastal protections
that many have fought so hard for.
And it's a huge step in the wrong direction.
I mean, as Sarah Christie would say,
three votes on a Tuesday will get Santa Monica
whatever they want, if this were to pass.
We had a speaker this morning that talked about,
you know, the ability to stand up.
And one of the things the Coastal Commission has done
over the decades is to stand up
where it's easy to choose the easy wrong.
That's not what we do here.
1740 is wrong and we have to stand up for that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Vice Chair Hart.
Well, Commissioner Jackson, you really,
that was just a great statement of what we're facing here.
And in my mind, I look at this as,
I think of it as the beginning, middle,
and end of the Coastal Act.
And I don't think that's dramatic
because even though now it's through the amendments,
been limited to Santa Monica which you know has its own issues in terms of a
preferential treatment and exemptions for one particular area. It clearly is a
huge risk to the rest of the coast. There are so many problems with it but as we
sit here in an inland community that we've been told 50% of kids or people in
this area haven't been to the coastal why why don't they go to the coast for all
all of the reasons that were described in our enforcement report, and what would this
do? Make it impossible. I would say, I don't think it's a reach to say, how are people
going to get to the beaches in Santa Monica if this were to pass? I mean, presumably,
parking would disappear. Preferential parking areas would make it impossible for anyone
that doesn't live in this incredibly expensive area
to visit the coast.
I don't even understand, frankly,
how it got out of the committee.
I know how strongly members of that committee,
a member of several of whom are huge supporters
of the Coastal Act, I'm just shocked
that it's even gotten this far.
And really, I just can't express my opposition
more strongly in my support for the opposition motion.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
Oh, there's just a couple things I wanna address
and sort of, and also some of the narrative.
I think, I believe, only one of our commissioners
actually lives in the coastal zone, you know,
in the coastal zone.
Some of us live near coastal communities,
but actually in the coastal zone,
think we have one commissioner that has currently resides in the coastal zone. I just want to like
point out and we have other commissioners that have that are even further inland that aren't
here today and I just want to recognize that it's not that we that we're that we understand
that access within our communities. I also want to point out that coastal communities
access other coastal communities. We're not just living in our own bubble where we are. We also
move through the California coast, and so access is important to us all in understanding
that.
So, if a neighboring community to us enacts really strict provisions that make it from
one city to another or from one community to another or one county to another, then
we have access issues that are associated with that, and that speaks to folks that regularly
use the coast for not just recreation but for gathering of materials and or subsistence
harvest and fishing and those other other activities that occur. So I want to be clear
that it's not just a one directional it's it's it's it's in in multiple areas so I
just want to be frame that and I also want to acknowledge that like our county and even
this county here, in Monterey County, I think our first LCP was 1979 or something like that.
I think also here, and I think the first updates were in the late 80s or something like that.
So I want to recognize that there are many communities that move forward with their local
coastal plans 45 years ago or something like that. So then when we're talking about this
conflict occurring in the last five or six years,
I mean, that doesn't acknowledge the time span
before that when nothing, you know,
when that didn't happen, it didn't move forward.
And a majority of our jurisdictions on the coast
have been able to get through this process
and are doing it.
Is there conflicts and are there adjustments?
and has there been the interplay between these agencies,
for sure, the Coastal Act was created in conflict
with local government, that's really how it was created.
It was so that the decision making processes
in these local areas that are sometimes driven by,
I will just say the landed and property interests,
which dominate our planning commissions
and our city councils and our local governments
just in general, just because that's who has access
to these levers, that those resources and access zones
needed to have some buffer in order to protect them
from the decision-making processes at the local level.
And I participate in that.
I'm just saying, acknowledge that.
I want to be like, we're in it.
And so I think we can't forget that,
and I think this kind of forgets that.
And so I just want to voice my support
for our staff's position on this, thanks.
Thank you. Commissioner Lee.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson, for teeing that up.
I also live inland, I live about 12 miles inland
along the 10 freeway from Santa Monica.
And I actually tried to visit Santa Monica
at least once a week.
And I went on Sunday
because I knew I would be here this week.
In the summertime and when the weather is good,
because we've had this unseasonably warm winter this year,
the parking lots accessing the pier
through the city lots five, six, seven, and eight,
a small break for the Annenberg Community House,
and then up to Tomesco Canyon and the Palisades,
those are the major parking areas.
The left turn lanes on PCH are very, very long.
And yet, on popular days, the entire lane is completely filled.
The traffic goes into PCH.
It goes down through the tunnel that connects it
to the 10 freeway.
And the left-hand lanes of the 10 freeway
are backed up for miles of people trying to park.
On the right-hand side of the 10 freeway,
you have the exits for 4th and 5th Street into Santa Monica.
And those lanes are backed up for miles,
almost to the transition to the 405 freeway.
There is already not enough parking in Santa Monica
for people who want to access those beaches.
That area from south of the pier,
up through Annenberg Community House,
which is open to the public,
it's like a private club open to members of the public,
are, is probably the most popular beach visiting area
in the entire country.
Millions of people go every year to visit those areas.
Up above the Palisade, along Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica,
are public parks and walkways
that are some of the most breathtaking views
I have ever seen, and I can't even
believe that we get to live within driving distance of that.
I know that there is incredible and tremendous pressure,
because it's some of the most valuable property
in the entire country to up-zone and develop those areas.
But it changes the entire nature of the experience
of visiting the beach if you build tall towers
along those bluffs.
Plus, it's like eroding Palisade that's
going into the ocean right there as well.
The drive on PCH is only special
because you can see the ocean as you drive alongside it.
And there are places where homes and smaller homes
block that area, but it's unimaginable to think about
what could be built to block that view
all up and down that entire section.
If we were to, if legislation were to pass,
that is solely focused on one small community
along the coastline.
I am a developer.
I build a ton of affordable housing.
I build a ton of market rate housing.
I'm always pro-housing.
We don't have enough of it.
It does not matter how cheap housing is.
If we don't have enough of it to serve the number of people
who need to access it, nobody gets to access the coast.
It's incredibly expensive.
Visitors serving and lower cost visitors serving
temporary places, especially hotels.
These are all incredibly important.
I am pro all of those things,
but 1740 is a blunt instrument that is the wrong tool
to address that and it needs to have modifications to it
in order for us to be able to support,
in order to preserve and then on top of that,
we have all of the environmental and ecological issues.
We have the shoreline armoring and all of the other things
that need to protect our beaches to make sure
that our amazing, like there's nowhere in the world
where the beaches you park and you have to like
run a marathon to just get to the water
because that's how much sand we have.
I haven't seen beaches like that anywhere
and so this is a very disappointing to see
And I'm in support of SAS recommendation.
Thank you, Commissioner Lee.
Commissioner Nada.
Thank you.
I, um, first I want to thank, uh, Chair Brian and the committee, uh, for listening
to concerns that have been voiced.
And I also want to thank assemblyman Zabur.
I believe he's been listening to concerns that have been voiced.
Um, and progress is being made.
I think that we saw some of that, and I think there was a lot of listening going on in the
committee hearing on Monday, which I did watch completely, and I must say I keep scratching
my head because I heard Mr. Zabur say repeatedly that this is a set of very narrow exemptions,
And when I look at the list of the exemptions, I think maybe it's only single-family houses
that are not on the list of exemptions.
We certainly should be looking at specifically multi-mixed use projects, multi-housing projects.
These are exactly the kind of things that we are able to look at and review and improve
so that they do serve a broader range of the public.
So I want to encourage the legislature to continue to listen and acknowledge that these
issues in the city of L.A. and the city of Santa Monica are very difficult with a lot
of competing interests and that's why I presume we don't have a certified LCP for either one
of those jurisdictions.
You know, I'll just recall that this commission used to see many more projects from Malibu
when Malibu was not a city.
It was in the jurisdiction of the county of LA.
And it was none other than former state senator John
Burton, who led the Senate at that time, who carried a bill
and said, the commission has a lot better things to do
than review decks in Malibu.
Let's compel the city of Malibu to prepare
its own local coastal plan.
So I would encourage Assemblymember Zabur,
who I have a lot of respect for,
I've worked with him for decades
on good environmental programs,
to maybe take a page out of Senator Burton's notebook
and work with us and with the city
to see how we can get Santa Monica to complete its LCP.
So, with that, I would support staff's recommendation
when it, if it's time for a minute.
Thank you.
Commissioner Rodone.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I wanna thank staff for bringing this forward,
and I support staff's recommendation
for both of these bills.
As someone who lives in the coastal zone,
we depend on the local coastal plan for local influence.
And I think that that's important.
I'm sorry that some cities and some jurisdictions
don't have a coastal plan yet and we've had it for decades.
So they need to get to work on that plan.
A legislative fix is not the answer.
It's them working on their LCPs is the answer.
And I really appreciate everyone that spoke today
against this bill.
I think it is a bad precedent.
And the legislative fix doesn't always fix things.
In fact, it's always the opposite.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, well, I will join my colleagues in their opposition.
But I also, switching gears a little bit,
wanna just recognize Assemblymember Hart,
who represents me in Santa Barbara on a half year note.
I'm so grateful for his leadership.
As you all know, he's a former coastal commissioner himself
and has just really been a coastal champion for us
and I love the 50-50 for 50 years.
So Assemblymember Hart, I hope you're not watching,
but if you are, thank you so much.
And with that, I'll entertain a motion.
There's gonna be two separate motions,
So if anyone's vice chair Hart.
Thank you.
I move that the commission oppose AB 1740 unless amended.
Second.
Thank you.
That's a motion by vice chair Hart, a second by Commissioner
Lee.
I'll ask for a roll call vote on this item, please.
All right.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Oh, sorry.
Stepped away.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson yes, Commissioner Rodoni.
Aye.
Rodoni, yes, Commissioner Lee.
Yes.
Lee, yes, Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes, Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes.
Lowenberg, yes, Commissioner Knuthoff.
Aye.
Knuthoff, yes, Commissioner Moreno.
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes, Commissioner Wilson.
Affirmative.
Wilson, yes, Commissioner, Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Yes the vote is unanimous thank you okay the motion passes thank you and the
second motion I'm sure what's the number of the 2730 okay I move that the
Commission support a B 2734 and ask for yes folks some motion by Vice Chair
Hart a second by Commissioner Lowenberg any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing then, the motion carries thank you. Okay and with that we'll break for
lunch if everyone could please be back at 1.15. Thank you. We do have a couple
vendors that are set up in the back of the parking lot back there. We have
Pacheco Picasso, a Mexican food truck, and Luigi's, Ben Velez has been really
helpful. They have a wood fire oven for pizzas. Okay, thank you everyone. Hope
you all had a good lunch. So we'll continue on with the agenda and I believe we're on
item 60. We have a presentation for this item. Awesome. Thank you. Okay. Awesome. Good afternoon
chair and commissioners. Hello. Hope everyone had a good lunch. We are very pleased to be
before you today to recommend 47 whale tail grants from our latest competitive grant round
totaling $2 million.
Historically, these grants are supported
by the purchase of whale tail license plates
and by donations to the Protect Our Coast and Oceans
Fund on the California tax form.
However, all of the competitive grants
for your consideration today would
be funded from a partnership with the Ocean Protection
Council, who generously provided $2 million
in funds from California Climate Investments
for this grant cycle.
So I want to express our deep gratitude to our partners
at the Ocean Protection Council for their support.
Next slide, please.
So here are some lovely photos from some recent grantees.
Well-tailed grants support experiential education
and stewardship of the California coast and its
watersheds with an emphasis on projects engaging communities
that face barriers accessing such opportunities
and organizations based in and composed of the communities
they are engaging.
With the Ocean Protection Council support,
we are excited to pilot a tribal set aside for this grant cycle, where approximately
half of the funds will be dedicated for projects led by, in partnership with, and or directly
engaging California Native American tribes and tribal communities.
Starting last October, staff did extensive outreach to publicize the grant opportunity,
and then were available throughout the fall for many conversations with prospective applicants
to hear their project ideas and help them understand the funding priorities.
In November we hosted a webinar to walk people through the application and to answer questions.
Next slide please.
We received 434 eligible proposals requesting a total of more than $16.8 million with many
worthy projects proposed.
This is by far the highest number of proposals and lunges largest funding request that we've
ever received. As you can see on this chart, there's undeniably a great and growing need
for these funds and the programs they support. So we are so thankful to the Ocean Protection
Council for their support in funding this grant cycle. And there will be significantly
less money for whale tail grants going forward unless other funding is allocated. Next slide,
please. The 47 recommended projects would engage communities in every coastal county
throughout the San Francisco Bay Area counties,
as well as inland counties of Siskiou, Modoc, Plumas,
El Dorado, Sacramento, Stanislaus, Fresno, and Riverside.
One project would engage communities based across the state,
especially the Central Valley,
and one project would engage communities
in the Northern California region.
$1,203,425 of the funds would support 21 projects
through the Tribal Set-Aside.
For recommended projects outside of the tribal set-aside, 32% are small grants of $25,000
or less.
There are 11 organizations we've worked with throughout the years, as well as 36 tribes
and organizations that we look forward to getting to know as they implement their first
whale tail grants.
Please see the staff report for brief descriptions of all the wonderful programs proposed by
the 47 organizations.
Next slide, please.
In addition, this staff report requests approval for a targeted grant from the Protect Our
Coast and Oceans Fund to the Sonoma County Parks Foundation to purchase two beach wheelchairs
for use at Doran Beach in Doran Regional Park that will be available to the public to borrow
for free.
Next slide, please.
Thank you for your support of the Whaletail Grants Program.
We're grateful as ever to all the owners of Whaletail license plates and the donors to
to protect our Coast and Oceans Fund on the California tax form who have made
this grant program possible since 1998. And thank you to the Ocean Protection
Council for your partnership which has allowed us to offer grants to so many
more amazing projects throughout California. The motion is on page 3 of
the staff report. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And I will turn it to Chris to see
hopefully there are some public comments. Yes, we have a number of public
Commenters, sign up to speak.
We did lose a few during the lunch period,
but we do have a good amount still.
We'll start with Dr. Jeanine Pfeiffer,
followed by Risa Bell and Tina Fernandez.
Jeanine, give me a moment as I promote you in as a panelist.
And when you're able to, please go ahead.
Thank you.
And Humboldt County, I'm the founder of DIY Art,
which is a dream maker project of the Inc. people
for Arts and Culture, a 47-year-old umbrella organization
for artists, artisans, and community groups
in Humboldt County who work very closely
with tribes and tribal communities.
And we are thrilled to be recipients
and to be able to implement classroom steam,
S-T-E-A-M lab kits to support implementation
the Native American Studies Model Curriculum, NASMC, which has two hubs. One is based at the
Humboldt County Office of Education. The other one is at the San Diego Office of Education.
This was just premiered in September. I was one of the curriculum writers and trainers,
and we're very fortunate to have Maggie Peters, who is the lead on that, to be a part of our
project and Humboldt County Office of Education will be hosting and housing our lab kits
because we wanted to provide something that would benefit hundreds of students throughout Humboldt
County and Dillnoor County. So again, thank you. We are so thrilled. Thank you. Next Risa Bell,
Tina Fernandez and Diana Todden. Hi everyone, my name is Risa Bell. I'm the founder and executive
director of an organization called Paddle for Peace, and I'm really honored to be here today
and to thank you for the recommendation. We first received the Welltale grant back in 2023,
and this grant allowed us to launch our program called Coastal Ninjas Academy. This is a five-week
program that we give to Title I schools for free thanks to Welltale, and we were in there doing
STEM education, marine biology, indigenous knowledge, ocean safety, and then on the fifth
week we take them on a beach field trip and I'm just really excited to be here again today
because the schools have asked us to expand our program. We actually have two active contracts
with the district, the school districts in San Diego now and since 2023 we've been able to serve
402 students through the Coastal Ninjas Academy program. And now being recommended for funding,
we'll be able to serve 600 in just a year. So that just goes to show how much we've grown.
I can't be more clear with how grateful I am to be working with the California Coastal Commission.
You guys are the reason we were able to launch the program in the first place, and we've just
grown tremendously because of it. We have an average quiz score of 82 percent, 76 percent
are returning students from year one to year two. And this new grant is going to allow us to impact
more grades. And we had a 17 percent increase of knowledge in microplastics from year one to year
two. So we're making a lot of impact and we couldn't be more grateful for your continued support.
So thank you so much, everyone.
Thank you.
Next, Tina Fernandez, Diana Todden, Karen Keene.
Tina Fernandez.
Good morning.
So I'm the Environmental Educator
for the Paula Band of Mission Indians.
And we wanted to say thank you to the commission staff
for recommending our project, and thank you
to the commission for considering to fund our project.
Also, to thank you for your commitment
to the tribal set aside for supporting the next generation
of Pala environmental leaders.
This project will create an opportunity for tribal youth
to connect to ancestral territory on the coast.
The coast kind of feels like a distant destination
rather than a home with it being like about a 45 minute drive
from the Pala reservation.
And so this grant will allow tribal youth coastal access
And by focusing also on the San Luis Ray watershed,
we're gonna teach our youth that the health
of the inland reservation is inseparable
from the health of the ocean.
And they're also gonna be conducting some marine research
and developing a formal coastal stewards report
with recommendations to the tribal council
for future environmental policies,
which we're really excited about,
as well as educational coloring book
that we're gonna share with the youngest members
of the community, ensuring that the knowledge
is getting passed down.
So again, thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Diana Totten.
I think you might be logged in under the name Chelsea.
Karen Keene and Kyla Langan.
Diana Totten.
We have Diana Totten and Ron DeHardy listed
as our project leads that we're gonna be on this call,
but I don't recognize the rest of those names.
I'm not sure if that's us or if Diane is on another one too.
Go ahead, you can all speak.
We do have a number of other speakers
that aren't with your group.
So I was calling those as well.
So go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon commissioners.
Thank you so much for recommending our project for funding
and for taking the time today.
We are so appreciative.
I'm representing the Coral Point
traditional ecological knowledge project
and I'm Director of Forest Health and Fire Resources
at Trees Foundation.
We at Trees are so delighted to support this project
and follow the lead of our native partners
and cultural educators.
And so I am happy to introduce the rest of the project team.
This is Rhonda Hardy.
Hello, Kainisti Kwongi.
Hello, my heart is glad.
I am Rhonda Hardy of a wildlife descendant.
And I would like to thank you for this opportunity
to work with local students and to demonstrate our traditional management of the land, coast,
native plants, cultural and language. In 2022, the Coral Point project came to life.
Coral Point is a five acre plot of land which is wetland and dry land in Shelter Cove, where here
we were, oops sorry, where we support a rich diversity of plant and animal species.
I love sharing my knowledge about working with woodwortia to weave baskets and dogbane
to make string. We will incorporate these and other native plants into our curriculum we develop
for classroom learning and hands-on activities at Coral Point. I also have six grandchildren who
attend Redway Elementary School in Southport Chi. So I'm personally very excited about bringing
traditional ecological knowledge education in their
schools. Thank you.
Hello, I'm Dean Nelson. I'm the Community Schools Coordinator at
Redway Elementary and the district lead for this project.
My mission is to bridge the gap between our classrooms and the
community within the E elemental watersheds, and a primary focus
of this work is honoring the history of the land by teaching
our students how indigenous people have used traditional
ecological knowledge to thrive here for generations. I am
incredibly honored to collaborate on this initiative with Diana and Rhonda, two respected
indigenous pillars of our community, as well as the Trees Foundation. We aren't just teaching
a lesson, we're building a foundation of local knowledge we plan to adopt district-wide.
My deepest appreciation to the California Coastal Commission for supporting this project.
Thank you. Thank you.
Next is Karen Keene, followed by Kyla Langan and then Michael Cusizrate.
Karen Keene. Hi, my name is Karen Keene. I'm the director of, can you guys see me okay? Yeah,
we can see you. Okay, fantastic. I'm the director of the Ready, Study, Go Academy in the Los Angeles
area. And we are a brand new recipient of the Willtown Grant. So thank you so much for the
recommendation for this grant. We're really looking forward to being able to partner with you.
We serve low-income and neurodiverse students
in our program.
And we just launched a pilot program this last year,
where we worked with a number of neurodiverse kids
who are on the autism spectrum
or working with more severe forms of ADHD.
Where we register with them and also come out
to some different stress and co-service
way that's getting stuff, these pieces are really important to stand up so they can interact
with those people's phones. And they absolutely loved it. One of our kids wants to be an engineer.
It will be an engineer to have an open chat, and we have a community that are available
because we'll turn these people down on the wall
on the computer.
So I just wanted you guys so much for this all to be.
And thank you for everything that you
want to work with those and the cable extension.
Thank you.
Next is Kyla Langan and then Michael Cusorate Kyla Langan.
Awesome.
We submitted a slide show.
Is that available?
Yes.
Give us a moment to bring it up.
Awesome.
While they're bringing it up, if I could Madam Child, just share broadband is a key
initiative for us here in Southern Monterey County where it remains elusive at times.
Thank you.
Awesome.
Hi, I'm Kyla, founder, director of Queersurf.
Thanks to the Whaletail Grants, our program increases ocean access for queer and trans
black indigenous and people of color with financial barriers.
Just want to share some snippets of direct words from participant feedback forms.
Next slide.
A super supportive and friendly group, insightful opening words about surfing being an indigenous
practice, helpful reframing of surfing to include many valid forms of surfing.
Next slide.
I always wanted to surf but thought it was an intimidating, unwelcoming environment.
Basically impossible.
It was so difficult with no accessible options for mobility issues.
Next slide.
I never felt safe or included trying to surf until now.
Basically, next slide.
are all echoed sentiment no time to read them all. Next slide. I feel empowered is a common theme.
Next slide. Every time I enter the ocean with queer surf I feel embodied and free. Next slide.
Encouragement for us to be responsible and respectful in our role as guests,
accountable for our actions. Thank you for these gifts. Next slide. Being chronically ill and
growing up and poor growing up trans I have never had access to the ocean in
this way I haven't been to Catalina done water sports or been able to be in
community with other gay nerds who could teach me so much grateful for the space
and education next slide it can be a really cruel world for people who are
queer and trans especially those who are black indigenous and people of color I'm
looking forward to staying in touch and continuing to get involved in the
outdoor equity space, nature is really powerful. Next slide. Themes of belonging, increased
wellness, and deep appreciation just run throughout our feedback forms. Next slide. This feedback we
don't take just as us, but it's also feedback for Whaletail and Explore the Coast grants and for
the whole Coastal Commission. Next slide. So yeah, just want to say these grants are working,
these grants are deeply appreciated. Thank you, whale tail and the coastal commission. Together
we're improving lives and making the coast more accessible and yay for opposing AB 1740. Yay.
Thank you. Thank you. And if you do want to take a longer look at any of the slides,
we do post them to the archives with AGP with the with the video of the the hearing at that,
usually within a few hours after the hearing ends. So you can you can take a look at the
of the presentations on your own time as well.
Next is Michael Cusarate.
Mike, I see you're in as panelists.
You should be able to unmute.
Okay, great, thank you.
Good afternoon, commissioners, staff
and the city of Gonzales.
My name is Michael Cusarate
and I represent Memorial Arts and Education Circle
located in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.
I wish to thank the staff for recommending our proposal
for the Tamal Culture Ambassadors Program.
Lamoee partners with Chumash tribes
and other indigenous tribes and organizations
to promote and advocate for arts and education projects
that maintain our native traditions
and educate the public about them.
A tamal is a traditional plank boat canoe
powered by double paddle oars with a crew of four.
The maritime culture that developed around the tamal
originated over thousands of years
on the Central California coast
and Santa Barbara Channel Islands.
This tradition and knowledge was nearly lost in the 1800s
during the colonial and early American periods,
but we have recovered it
and are working hard to sustain this heritage.
I like the Coastal Commission.
This is an anniversary year.
Congratulations to the commission.
It was in 1976 that the first seagoing tamale vessel,
the famous helix,
navigated to Santa Barbara Channel Islands,
marking the first time that a tamale
had taken a sea in 140 years.
The Tamale Culture Ambassadors Program
directly advances the California Coastal Commission's
whale tail grant priorities by expanding equitable access to the coast, integrating
cultural heritage with environmental education, and preparing participants to become long-term
stewards of California marine ecosystems. Ambassadors will learn tamal culture and how
to share it with the public. They will also transmit lessons about coastal conservation
and stewardship. I have to say that people love our tamals. They are beautifully handcrafted
vessels fashioned from the tall redwood logs of Northern California.
They are graceful in the water and a joy for the crew and for those who watch from the
shore.
What better way to gain the attention of our fellow Californians than for them to hear
our message of coastal and ocean conservation.
Thank you commissioners for your consideration for the Tomahawk Culture and Investors proposal.
Thank you.
And now I'll list out names that we haven't been able to find in our attendees list that
are signed up to speak.
If you hear your name, please raise your hands
so we can bring you in.
Susan Jordan, Lil Milagro Enriquez,
Gabby with no last name, John Garcia, Camilla Elam,
Barbara Speaker, Max Bracey, Tara Tasopoulos, and Sheen
Sidhu.
If any of you heard your name, you can raise your hand.
I'm seeing no hands raised.
Madam Chair great. Thank you very much and thank you so much to our commenters. Okay. I'll return to the Commission if anyone
commissioner Lee
thank you for all of these comments and for showing us all the examples of the breadth and depth of
The grantees that this program supports. It just goes even more towards how important our support of a B
2734 was when I got my personalized plate
I didn't realize how little of the money actually went towards our whale tail grantees so
Reallocating the revenues for that are so critically important. I also wanted to highlight that a third that go in smaller grantees actually support
Smaller and growing programs because when you have huge grant programs those usually go to huge organizations
So the fact that a third of ours go to first time
Grantees and that a third are smaller in size just further promotes the ability for access for education for arts
Especially the set aside for our tribal communities is incredibly important and supporting environmental justice across the coast. So, thank you
Dr. Huckleberry through the chair. I just had a quick comment
I I just thank you for those comments and I wanted to just highlight some of the things Commissioner Lee said about I think
It is a small grant program in many ways and it serves as a stepping stone for many organizations.
The state grant process can be challenging to navigate and we have worked very hard to
keep it easier with small grants and an easier process and I think it's working.
As you saw from Jessica's presentation, we had a huge jump in applicants and we're not
meeting the needs out there.
That will keep trying to find more funding and find other ways to meet that need because
clear that there's interest in moving, continuing to grow this grant program, but at the same
time keep the grants themselves small.
So that's our goal.
And I just had to let everybody know how fantastic Jessica was in putting this together.
You saw that increase.
We didn't get more time or more staff to review all those applications.
It was Jessica and Annie.
She went really above and beyond.
The whole public ed program always does, but in this particular case, like really rose
to the occasion.
So I just had to give Jessica a shout out because, as you saw from some of our public
commenters too, what great programs we have and the tribal set aside, I think was really
exciting.
And so I also want to give a shout out to OPC.
Jen will be joining us later.
I'll make sure to tell her in person and encourage you to do the same, but thank you for all
the time and effort that went into reviewing these applications.
And I'm so excited to get these grants out the door.
Agree.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Jessica and team, for all the amazing work
you're doing.
This warms my old heart.
And an extra plug for the heart bill
that would provide additional resources
so that we could expand this program.
I mean, as you know, this work matters.
It connects people to the coast, builds the next generation
of advocates and protects what makes California so special.
And you know, the other side of the heart bill
as we discussed is what Sacramento is potentially doing
with bills like 1740 that could potentially undermine
opportunities for the very groups
that are doing this important work.
So thank you for what you're doing
and keep up the great work.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
just a shout out to two of the grantees from Humboldt County the Inc. people and
then I just couldn't believe I heard Shelter Cove and Redway Elementary
School so if you want to South County where is another South County with so
yep and just shout out to those guys for doing the hard work for getting these
grants and getting in the community appreciate it. Commissioner not off I just
want to say that I certainly think this is one of the most impactful things, programs
that the commission does at all. And so it's just so exciting to see the enthusiasm and
the breadth of folks that are interested. Again, the same sense of shout out to the
Alma Mutsen Land Trust, the Black Surf Santa Cruz Monterey Waterkeeper, Potter Valley Tribe.
There's just some things when you go down the list and you're like, I know that place.
did something. They're doing such good work. So it's just really exciting to do that.
I don't want to Bogart all the action, but if it's time for if there's time for emotion, I'm ready.
We have Commissioner O'Malley and then I'll come back to you.
Thanks. I'll be brief. First, I'll echo everything that's said about the great staff work and through
this whole program, someone who has spent the majority of my career in the nonprofit, especially
the small non-profit space, I know exactly what folks that just presented are going through and
while we talk about small grants for them, this is not small, right? This could be sometimes half
they're operating versus us. So I'm just really happy to be part of this. I'm so happy with the
work that you all have done and I appreciate it and let's try and get the money up each year,
more and more if we can. And I'll thank Jen when she gets here, but thanks.
Commissioner Lopez. Yeah, I just want to say thank you, Jessica. This is my first time getting to vote on these
This is like I'm coming to my one-year mark
And so I've been waiting for these and when you guys are saying small grants and I'm seeing 24 and 50,000
That's a big amount for small nonprofits. So I just want to share that there's sometimes in these roles
There's a lot of hard days, but these are the ones we look forward to so excited to support this today
Thank you for all your work
Back to Commissioner Jackson. Thank you. I forgot to give a shout out to the culture Club of South Bay that was inspired to apply
Based on a briefing they attended with you. Dr. Kate when you were down and when we were in Redondo Beach for Coastal Commission meeting
The director came to that meeting was inspired by what you said with regard to the grants
Applied and they were accepted and awarded the grant
So thank you and part of the outreach is is so important and you understand that and
Thank you
Commissioner not off to you. Okay. So with that I
Say, excuse me. I
Move that the Commission approved the grant award set forth in the staff recommendation
I further move that the Commission authorized the executive director or her designee to enter into grant agreements with the grantees for
application of these funds and to make any amendments thereto and
Requesting a aye vote second
that's a rush to second that a
Motion by Commissioner not off a second by Commissioner O'Malley any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion carries and thank you to staff and congratulations to the grantees
Okay moving on that brings us to the consent calendar mr. Schwing whenever you're ready
All right. Thank you. So that does take us to item seven
That is the consent calendar for all units and districts on the agenda today. There's two items from Hermosa Beach
There's an addendum for item 7a with some minor corrections to the report
We aren't aware of any controversy on these items and the applicants are in agreement with staff recommendations
so we are
Asking for approval of these matters on the consent calendar
Thank You mr. Schwinn. Are there any ex partes to report?
Seeing none any public comments? No speakers
Okay, I'll return. I'll return to the Commission for a motion
Question. Thank you second motion by Commissioner Lowenberg second by Commissioner Lee any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the consent calendar is adopted now to those items removed from the regular calendar, please
Thank you. So we have nine items that we're recommending be moved to consent today
As a report at the beginning of the day
Starting with item 10a that's application a 6e and c 24 50 the Sayer family trust from Encinitas
item 11a the map adoption
MA 2026 one the Tijuana River segment from the city of San Diego
item 12a the city of Encinitas
LCP amendment on short-term rentals the revised findings time extension
item 14 a
That's application 5 25 897
With United XYZ LLC in the city of Santa Monica
Item 14B, application 525.898 again with United XYZ LLC in the city of Santa Monica.
Item 14C, application 526.30 Triglid and city of Santa Monica.
Also item 15A, that's the city of Manhattan Beach, LCP amendment on outdoor dining that's
an LCP time extension.
Item 19.1, City of San Buenaventura, LCP Amendment on affordable housing regulations, LCP Time
Extension.
And item 20A, it's application 4, 25, 615, Galita Gardens.
There's a staff report addendum on item 10A, the SARE application, which is for residents
along the bluffs in Encinitas.
This permit both authorizes a replacement residence but also addresses removal of an
unpermitted revetment that is present on and in front of the applicant's property.
The addendum includes special condition language clarifying that compliance with the terms
and conditions of the permit, including removal, the removal requirement and monetary contribution
to a public access project will result in resolution of the violation with regard to
that property owner's responsibility.
And the applicant remains in agreement with staff recommendation.
On item 11A, the map adoption for the City of San Diego, the Tijuana River Valley area,
we received multiple public comments expressing concern about a perceived transfer or new
delegation of jurisdiction from the City of San Diego to the Commission through the map
adoption, as well as concerns regarding noticing.
We responded to all those comments by email, but it's important here to clarify that the
proposed map is just a visual depiction of the Commission's retained permit and appeal
jurisdiction and that the recommended action does not result in any transfer of jurisdiction
or ownership or any change in the delegation of jurisdiction from the time the LCP became
effective.
One commenter also had policy related comments about maintenance of the Tijuana River area,
which again is not a matter addressed as part of the map adoption.
With respect to noticing, mailed notice was provided.
We're not aware of any noticing deficiency on that particular matter.
There's also correspondence on items 14a, b, and c, and 15a.
And I will pass the mic to Mr. Hudson for some brief comments.
All right.
Thank you, Carl.
I would just like to note that in regard to items 14A, B and C, those are the three development
agreements by the city of Santa Monica allowing for digital signs at multiple inland locations,
all within commercially developed areas of the city.
We have several letters in support, but staff also received one email and objection from
a member of the public Rebecca Gottfried and that has been included on the
Commission's correspondence tab on our agenda website for this item. Now the
email and objection raised issues based on concerns of light pollution and
potential distractions to drivers and pedestrians. However the email did not
raise any calls to resource issues and staff would note that these signs would
be attached to existing buildings located a few blocks inland of the beach
in commercial areas and shopping malls. The displays would not be visible from
any beach areas or impact views to or from the ocean. The displays will be
affixed to existing building facades with an established densely developed
commercial district areas. No coastal view corridors will be blocked or
diminished and thus your staff is continuing to recommend that these three
items be moved to and approved as part of the consent calendar today. So in
closing I'll just note the staff is not aware of any opposition to any of the
other items being moved to the consent calendar and we're recommending that the
Commission vote and approve this item staff is available for questions. Great
thank you very much. Any ex parte's to report? Okay I have one. On Monday the
13th at 1.30 p.m. I spoke very briefly for about five minutes via Zoom to Beth
Collins the representative for GLIDA Gardens LLC that's number 20a and she
just told me that they were in agreement with SAF's recommendation excuse me. So
with that we'll see if there are any public commenters. Yes we have a few of
start with item 10a we have Mitch Silverstein here in person. Hello again
commissioners Mitch Silverstein Surfider Foundation. Yeah for item 10a it's a it's
a new beachfront Blufftop home in Encinitas. On behalf of Surfider in our
San Diego County chapter. I'd like to express our support for this item and
especially staff's work to bring the new home into correspondence or compliance
with the Coastal Act and Encinitas LCP. In addition to much stronger conditions
to disallow armoring should the beachfront home become threatened in the
future, the applicant has also agreed to conditions that require removal of
unpermitted rock revetment on the beach, public beach. Moonlight Beach, where the
property is located, is one of the most heavily used and beloved beaches in North
County San Diego. We also appreciate the addendum's acknowledgement of the
differences in opinion between the Commission staff and Encinitas staff
regarding interpretation of their LCP, specifically around locally approving
new bluff top development with basements excavated into the bluff. This isn't the
first de novo for a project appealed under this scenario. We're glad to hear
that Commission staff and the city will work on an LCP amendment to clarify this
inconsistency. This will better serve coastal protection but it will also much
better serve applicants who will save a lot of time and money from having the
These appealed over and over again and coming to the Commission. So it's a great amendment forthcoming. Thank you
Thank you and I'll also note that we do have in person Marshall Booth the applicant available for questions as well as Lee
Andalene the representative online available for questions
For item 12 a we have one person available for questions
For item 14 a we have one speaker sign up to speak clay Colette
We are not seeing them on zoom clay if you can raise your hand
Otherwise, we just had two others available for questions for that one
I'm not seeing a hand raised for that and so I'll move on to item 14c
We have two people attending in person that are
Ryan Levine and Nancy Daniels if you wish to speak
Okay, they're both available for questions as well
For item 14 C. We also have Nancy Daniels available for questions
For item 20 a we have
Three three people available for questions. We have no other speakers Madam Chair
Great. Thank you very much with that. I will return to the Commission for comments questions Commissioner Wilson
Thanks, I'm just gonna speak to the
Three items that related to the digital billboards and I realized they're on consent and I don't disagree with staff's coastal act analysis
I do want to raise the broader contextual concern
This proposal is to expand full-motion digital LED billboards in Santa Monica somewhere. I think a thousand square feet or more
And I know these are in sort of downtown areas and well may it might be consistent with the Coastal Act on its terms
It reflects a broader trend where local governments increasingly rely on revenue generating
agreements tied to commercial advertising in public spaces
There's also concerns around just the cumulative effects, more animated, high intensity visual
content in shared environments in our public spaces.
At some point, the public realm becomes just another channel competing for attention, adding
to the cognitive load and contributing to a sense of constant stimulation and anxiety.
And this isn't just me saying it, there are studies that show that this has real impacts
on people, especially people who work in these environments and in their often, and if you
live near one you'll you'll know what that's about. And so while we see oftentimes we're
trying to move away from screens and ironically I'm looking at a screen right now while I
read this to you it is it is becoming a broader public health concern and and and it's just
a trend it's like I just want to acknowledge that we're we're moving in a certain direction
and communities are under a lot of pressure
to change the character and just the vibe of their space
to modernize, as if this is a modern way to go.
And it's interesting, because when we look at our sort
of the movies of the future, like the places that
are so high anxiety in those spaces
are ones with screens all over the place.
And it's not actually, it doesn't look desirable
in those contexts.
I just want to recognize that, again, the public health data on this is something we
should be considering at some point in all our communities, and also recognize that as
local governments we're under a lot of pressure to generate revenue from these agreements,
and so it's something we just need to consider, and so with that I just wanted to voice concern.
This is a big change for a city or jurisdiction that had for the last 40 years a fairly strong
ethos on no billboards.
And it was in their policy.
And although this isn't the same thing as things along the highway necessarily, it's
in a mall, nonetheless it certainly speaks to a trend that we're seeing in other places.
So thanks.
Thank you.
other comments a motion I'll move the items that were pulled off the regular
calendar second okay so motion by me a second by Commissioner Lee may we have a
roll call vote please all right start with Commissioner Hart hi Hart yes
Commissioner Jackson aye Jackson yes Commissioner Rodoni yes
We're don't eat. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes, Lee. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes
Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Loenberg. Yes
Loenberg. Yes, Commissioner not off. I
Not off. Yes, Commissioner Moreno
Moreno. Yes. Moreno. Yes, Commissioner Wilson
Yeah, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Excuse me. Wilson was no. Oh, sorry
Getting in in the flow
Commissioner O'Malley yes O'Malley yes chair Harmon yes Harmon yes the vote is
ten yes one no great thank you the motion carries okay with that we'll move
on to item 9 please thank you so item 9 is the deputy director's report for the
San Diego Coast District I'll begin with two emergency actions covering the
removal of unstable patio improvements on a bluff in La Jolla and measures to
to secure an accessory dwelling unit located at the toe of the bluff north of Scripps Pier
in San Diego that had been vandalized by trespassers.
Next, we're reporting that the Port of San Diego completed the adoption
of the Port Master Plan amendments necessary to carry
out the National City Balance Plan located within the Port District.
The executive directors determine the port's actions are legally adequate
to complete the certification process on that item.
And last, we're reporting nine waivers
for projects in Solana Beach, San Diego, and National City.
It's also one immaterial amendment
for project in Coronado and two extensions
for projects in Imperial Beach in San Diego.
There haven't been any comments
in opposition to these items.
So we're asking whether three or more commissioners
object to the waivers, the extensions,
or the amendment in the report.
Great, thank you.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
I know, we have a number of people available for questions,
no commenters.
Great, do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing none, the commission concurs.
And that brings us to item 10B.
Great, and there is a staff PowerPoint on this item.
And Lindsay Kane with our San Diego Coast District office
is going to be doing the staff presentation on this matter.
Lindsey, as soon as you're available, and please begin.
Thank you, Carl.
And good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners.
Item 10B is a CDP application from SeaWorld San Diego
to conduct drone shows during a one-year pilot period.
The applicant is in agreement
with the recommendation and special conditions.
There is an addendum to this item
that includes minor modifications to the conditions
and responses to recommendations suggested
by the San Diego Bird Alliance.
Additionally, commission staff received a letter
yesterday evening from a member of the public
objecting to SeaWorld's vendor selection process
for the drone operator.
However, this process is outside the scope
of the commission's review process.
Next slide, please.
The drone shows are proposed to be located
in the approximate area of the light blue box
in Mission Bay and adjacent to the SeaWorld leasehold
highlighted in yellow.
It is also important to note the sensitive receptor sites
at the Least Turn nesting site at Stony Point,
the Heron Rookery just west of Perez Cove,
and FA Island about one mile north from SeaWorld
that also hosts nesting least turns.
Next slide, please.
SeaWorld proposes to conduct approximately 78 drone shows
with a maximum of 110 shows over a one year pilot period
with a maximum of 1000 drones.
20% of shows per month will be monitored
according to the requirements in special condition two,
including that noise levels do not exceed 65 decibels
or exceed ambient noise levels, whichever is higher.
The monitoring also includes light, bird strike
and behavioral monitoring to understand any impacts
nearby sensitive bird species, including monitoring at least one firework show to compare to the
drone show monitoring reports. The addenda makes several edits to the monitoring plan condition
in response to letters received by the San Diego Bird Alliance and Surf Rider Foundation,
including requiring that the first two drone shows be monitored and that a 72-hour buffer
between any monitored drone show and nearest proceeding or subsequent firework shows be
implemented. The addendum also removes the requirement to monitor for noise and light
at the Heron Rookery at Perez Cove, given an updated methodology proposed by the applicant's
biological consultants and agreed to by the Commission's ecologist. Additionally, SeaWorld
is allotted a maximum of 150 fireworks shows per year through the SeaWorld Master Plan.
Special condition 3 requires that SeaWorld reduce the number of fireworks shows they
conduct during the pilot year by the amount of drone shows they conduct.
For instance, if SeaWorld conducts the maximum of 110 drone shows, they could only conduct
40 firework shows during the pilot year.
Additionally, special condition 3 prohibits fireworks from occurring on the same night
as a drone show.
This slide shows the drone show launch location as the small pink rectangle, the flight path
outlined in light blue, and the drone show location outlined in the dashed purple line.
The lease turn nesting site at Stoney Point, outlined in green, is approximately 900 feet
to the northwest of the drone show.
The Heron Rookery is outlined in orange and approximately 2000 feet from the drone show.
The red box is the existing fireworks show airspace.
The Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, sets restrictions on drone usage, including
no drones can be flown over large groups of people or vehicles.
The proposed drone show location is the most feasible option for a drone show at SeaWorld
as it results in only a small portion of space inside of SeaWorld to be closed, requires
no public space to be closed, does not fly over captive animals, and does not block emergency
access ways. If a drone happens to fly outside of the approved show area, it will deactivate
and be recovered by drone operators as soon as possible. If the drone deactivates in water,
it will flip. In recent years, stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the impacts
fireworks may have on birds in the surrounding area, specifically the state and federally
endangered California leestern. Drone shows are expected to have less impacts on migratory and
sensitive bird species when compared to fireworks since each individual drone creates less noise
than individual fireworks canisters. However, to allow the commission to better anticipate the
impacts of drone shows in this area of Mission Bay, the project has been conditioned to require
monitoring at sensitive receptor sites, including the nesting site at Stony Point and FAA Island.
SeaWorld is required to submit monitoring reports throughout the pilot period,
and if any noise or light thresholds are exceeded or a bird is struck by a drone,
shows must be suspended until a solution is determined. Next slide please.
In conclusion, as conditioned, the project will be consistent with the resource protection policies
of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, staff recommends that the commission approve
the subject permit application as conditioned. The motion is on page 4. This concludes staff's
presentation and we are available for any questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Okay,
I will return to the commission. Are there any ex partes? Yes. Commissioner Marin.
Thank you. On 4-13, my staff had a chance to take an ex parte conversation with Ms. Alison Rolfe.
We learned more about SeaWorld's application and this one-year pilot for their drone show.
Great. Thank you. And I also received two emails from Ms. Rolfe. The first offering
by I'd like to have an ex parte to do so and then the second reiterating that kind offer and also
So requesting 10 minutes for their presentation,
which I wrote back in the affirmative.
Okay, with that, we will open the public hearing.
All right, and we'll start with the applicants.
Tyler Carter is here to present the person.
All right, let's see.
All right, ooh, that was loud, that was good.
So honorable Chairperson Harmon
and distinguished members of the commission,
good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity
to be here today.
My name is Tyler Carter and I am proud to serve
as the park president at SeaWorld San Diego.
When I first started this role in 2024,
one of the first things I learned
is that SeaWorld is part of the fabric of San Diego.
And such we feel a responsibility
to be good stewards to our neighbors
and to be responsive to their voices.
Also join with me via phone and here in person
are members of the SeaWorld staff,
our drone operators Nova Sky Stories,
our biological consultant and our acoustic engineer.
Equally important to being responsible to our neighbors
is to be a good steward to the environment around us.
Since SeaWorld joined the community in 1964,
we've taken responsibility seriously
to protect and defend the nature and habitats around us.
SeaWorld is proud of the rescue and rehabilitation work
we do daily.
The animals we rescue and rehabilitate
are more likely than not in our care
because of some sort of abuse of the environment.
Whether it's net entanglement, a fishing accident,
an oil spill, or even a bullet wound,
our team at SeaWorld works 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, 365 days a year to rescue, rehabilitate,
and return Southern California's marine and aviary population
to the wild.
To date, as a company, we are proud to report
that we have rescued over 42,000 animals since our founding,
and that number increases every single day.
All of that work leads to why we're here today.
I want to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation
for the thoughtful and productive collaboration
we've had with your staff through this process,
specifically Lindsay Kane, Corey Clatterbuck,
and Kanani Leslie.
Their professionalism, diligence, and openness to innovate
have made this a truly collaborative effort.
It's a privilege to stand before you today
to respectfully urge your support
of the staff recommendation to approve
our one year permit to test drone technology
as an alternative to traditional fireworks.
I also want to take a moment to thank our stakeholders
and partners in San Diego.
This has been a multi-year long conversation
with not just your staff, but the city of San Diego
and many additional stakeholder organizations,
all of whom were gracious enough
to write support letters today.
I want to specifically thank
San Diego City Council President Joe LaCava.
His partnership through this effort
has been truly invaluable.
Additionally, Brian Elliott from his staff
has been accessible and collaborative,
a true partner in this effort.
Hundreds of support letters and comments
have been posted to your website,
and you should have an additional letter
that came through this morning
from Congressman and former Coastal Commissioner Scott Peters.
We have broad and diverse support,
ranging from elected officials,
such as Assemblymember Berner, Senator Weber Pearson,
Assemblymember Ward, environmental groups,
such as Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
and Coastkeeper, animal advocacy organizations,
such as the Humane Society of San Diego,
and industry associations as well.
And that's a small sample
of the hundreds of letters of support.
And it goes without saying
that I can't thank our team at SeaWorld enough.
I always say that SeaWorld is a little city of our own,
and we have the most dedicated, thoughtful,
and determined team in the industry.
They wake up every day to serve the animals in our care
and the people of San Diego.
Many of our ambassadors started as student workers
or came to the park as kids that have developed
a lifelong love of the environment and animals.
Our little city is special and different
because of all of them.
All right, now onto drones, which I know
is the most important part of this.
This proposal represents more than just
a new form of entertainment.
It reflects a deliberate step forward.
It builds on our longstanding commitment
to explore innovative, environmentally-responsible
alternatives, including the Cirque Light Show
that this commission approved in 2017.
That decision helped set a path forward
toward reimagining what nighttime experiences can be,
and today's proposal is a natural
and meaningful continuation of that journey.
To ensure success, we've partnered
with a world-class drone operator, Nova Sky Stories,
a true pioneer in this field.
Nova's roots trace back to Intel's Drone Light Show division,
which helped launch the modern drone show industry
with the very first performance in 2012.
Since then, they have delivered breathtaking,
large-scale aerial displays globally
for recognized organizations such as FIFA,
the Olympic Games, the United Nations,
and even the Vatican.
Our team recently had the opportunity
to view a Nova show in Chula Vista, or California.
The breathtaking artistry and storytelling
that drones make possible,
invigorated our team to think about the art
of what is possible here at SeaWorld San Diego.
NOVA's experience is not just impressive,
it's extensive and proven.
NOVA has conducted thousands of flight operations
across five continents.
They routinely collaborate with local
and national regulators,
as well as environmental stakeholders
such as Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Departments of Environmental Protection,
and Bird Conservation Organizations.
This level of coordination ensures
that every operation meets strict ecological standards,
as well as FAA airspace requirements.
Equally important is their impeccable safety record.
NOVA's operations are conducted by FAA-licensed pilots
under rigorous and highly structured protocols.
Their systems are designed with multiple layers of redundancy,
including failsafe communication, navigation,
and power systems.
This allows for consistent control performance,
even in complex environments, and has resulted in zero
recorded safety incidents to date.
But what truly sets NOVA apart is their experience
in environmentally sensitive settings.
They understand that innovation must go hand in hand with responsibility.
Their approach is intentionally conservative, grounded in detailed planning, continuous
monitoring, and the ability to adapt to site-specific conditions in real time.
This is exactly the kind of partner we sought for this pilot program of this importance.
At SeaWorld San Diego, we take seriously our role not only as an entertainment destination,
but as a steward of the environment and as a member of this community.
This pilot program allows us to evaluate a technology that has the potential to reduce
impacts while still delivering a memorable guest experience.
It gives us all the opportunity to learn, to measure, and to improve, guided by data,
science, and collaboration.
The precedent set by approving this pilot program would be both significant and forward-looking.
It signals a willingness to embrace innovation, to support responsible alternatives, and to
lead in shaping the future of outdoor entertainment in a way that aligns with our values and remaining
a good steward of the environment.
We are not asking for permanent change today.
We are asking for the opportunity to test, to evaluate, and to continue working in partnership.
This is a measured, thoughtful step, one that reflects both ambition and accountability.
In closing, I respectfully ask for your support of the Coastal Development Permit and the
staff's recommendation.
Together, we can make a meaningful step forward toward a more innovative and environmentally
conscious future.
I also have a brief video for those that haven't seen a drone show that we'd like to play.
So much fun.
And yeah, we're bringing it up.
Just takes a second.
All right, there we go.
And so that was a show performed at our Orlando park last summer.
So see you at Orlando.
So again, really cool, really dynamic, a lot of fun.
So thank you all again for your time and consideration and myself and my team are available if there
are any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Chris.
Thank you.
we have uh Joe Lacava on Zoom. Good afternoon, thank you for the opportunity to speak Chair
Harmon, commissioners. I'm Joe Lacava and I have the honor of serving as the San Diego City Council
President representing District 1, which includes the northern portion of Mission Bay. For years my
constituents, neighbors, friends, and family hear the nightly fireworks shows that SeaWorld San
Diego hosts during the summer. And while these shows have entertained SeaWorld park visitors,
many San Diegans have voiced their desire for fewer firework shows and more importantly
alternatives that are less impactful the pets and the environment and for that reason I want to
thank SeaWorld San Diego especially their park president Tyler Carter for their willingness to
evolve listen to residents and work with the city and the commission to introduce drone shows at
the park. I appreciate the commission's in-depth review and the recommendations proposed by staff.
SeaWorld continues to innovate and in doing so adapt to the desires of San Diegans and uphold our environmental values
And with that again, thank you for the time today and I encourage support for this item
Thank you now back to in-person speakers. We have we'll start with Mitch Silverstein followed by Anna Christiansen
Then we'll move back to our zoom speakers Mitch Silverstein
Hey, that was pretty good
Mike Silverstein's Surfrider Foundation. I got pretty excited watching that video
Yeah, so yeah Surfrider San Diego County chapter
We've long supported a phase out of SeaWorld's nightly firework shows over the open waters of Mission Bay to that end
We're very supportive of SeaWorld's application for one year aerial drone show pilot period. We really appreciate SeaWorld's willingness to
pilot drone shows as a viable and less environmentally damaging alternative to fireworks
That's much more in line with SeaWorld's mission, right?
We had asked for a minor modification around sea and shorebird behavioral monitoring after
drone shows and appreciate the staff in SeaWorld were amenable to those conditions, so now
I don't have to plead in front of you for them.
I think I echo the hopes of many San Diego residents and environmental orgs in saying
that I hope this drone pilot period is successful and ultimately replaces SeaWorld's nightly
summertime firework shows over Mission Bay, 89 last year.
That said, we're gonna remain opposed to nightly fireworks regardless of the pilot's outcome.
I mention that because SeaWorld does have out-of-state leadership whose decisions a
year from now may not reflect the San Diego staff's enthusiasm to do the right thing.
So I'll conclude by saying yes, please support the CDP, but also please be prepared for,
you know, the potential, however small, that they may want to resume fireworks next year.
Let's see.
So thank you and also thank SeaWorld for taking on this pilot program voluntarily.
Thank you.
And then our first threesome speakers are Erin Larson,
Juliana Tetlow, and Kristin Northrop.
Anna Christiansen.
Sorry, could you please turn the mic on?
All right, why is it getting turned off?
Oh, no.
Wait a minute.
I got a paper out here.
Didn't you notice how different the vibe was than with fireworks?
It's a totally different vibe when you watch it.
It's like you're just floating and like at a rave
instead of at a bomb site.
I just say, I mean I've never even been to a rave, I'm pre-wave, I'm pre-wave.
I'm more like, love then, well never mind about that.
Now I'm going to use up all my minutes.
All right, so what I would say even before going into this text that I wrote is that
what I can see is a really good thought, especially given the enthusiasm of the presenter from
SeaWorld is that SeaWorld doesn't have to have fireworks and we would hope that they
would take full advantage and have the most drone shows possible. And also, if
they did have the fireworks that we'd really appreciate them being not during
nesting season, although it's summer mainly, right? So you can't have
can't avoid it. Sorry about that one. Okay, so what I would say is that
monitoring the impacts, we'd really appreciate the Coastal Commission for
doing that. And also we'd like to point out that in addition, the long-term
consequences of fireworks shows create toxic fog of fine particles PM 2.5
poisonous aerosols and heavy metals fireworks pollute and are highly
concentrated poisoning the air water and soil despite the ephemeral nature of
fireworks these toxins accumulate in the environment travel far from their
origin and pollute local watersheds so it's not just about Mission Bay it's
really you know out into the ocean fireworks debris includes spent casings
wrappers and unexploded fragments which can contain dangerous chemicals as well
as plastics and cardboard. Transitioning and that's what this is. This is
progression, it's progress, it's transitioning, it's forward thinking and
we really appreciate that. Echo-friendly methods, safeguard and present and
future generations. So thank you very much for this and I hope you like it.
Thank you. Now back to our zoom participants. Erin Larson followed by
Juliana Tetlow and Kristin Northrop. Aaron Larson. Can you see me? Yes, we can see and hear you.
Perfect. Hi, Chair Harmon and Commissioners. My name is Aaron Larson. I am from Santa Cruz,
California. I'm a retired pilot and disabled combat veteran of the United States Air Force.
I'm a former Federal Aviation Administration safety inspector, accident investigator, and NTSB
trained accident investigator. I am one of the most experienced drone light show operators in
the United States with customers such as the New York Yankees, LA Dodgers, Coachella,
EEC. I speak today as an individual citizen and aviation safety professional.
I support drone shells replacing fireworks at SeaWorld and everywhere in the world. However,
I oppose this permit as conditioned. I have three objections. One, sole source on a public permit.
The CEQA finding in your staff report declares, quote, no feasible alternatives exist. That is
a legal conclusion that requires evidence, alternatives were evaluated. There is none
in this record. Zero platform comparisons, zero competitive evaluation, yet Nova Sky
Stories, a musk, a Kimball musk company, is written into the permit, conditions as the
sole provider over public trust waters in a city-owned park. As the first major drone
shows CDP in California history, what you approve today becomes the template for every
coastal venue in the state. That is indefensible. Objection two, the noise threshold, special
condition number two sets a 65 decibel threshold at the least turned nesting site if exceeded
shows must stop. Cited on page 13 of your staff report noise impact section show a thousand
drones produce 67 decibels. Objection three water quality the NOBA platform between this permit
as documented concludes no parachute recovery system and no flotation device nothing in the
administration record documents any controlled descent or water entry mitigation for this
When a NOBA drone fails, it falls uncontrolled into 303D impaired water, sinks and releases chemistry and plastics from the drone into Mission Bay.
I personally operate drones with parachute deployment, triple redone the seat, 99.9% reliability.
I asked the Commission to require parachute capable technology, reconcile the NOS threshold, and require documentation that all of these platforms were evaluated because your CEQA demands it.
My written comment is in the record. Thank you.
Thank you.
Julianna Tetlow, Kristen Northrop, and Kontrol.
Julianna Tetlow.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Julianna Tetlow,
and I am speaking on behalf of San Diego Humane Society
in strong support of this pilot program
at SeaWorld San Diego.
For years, we have advocated for reducing fireworks
along our coast because of their well-documented impacts
on animals.
Fireworks create intense noise that can disrupt wildlife,
especially coastal and migratory birds,
and cause significant distress for companion animals
across the community.
They also introduce debris and chemical residues
into sensitive coastal waters.
This proposal represents a meaningful step forward.
Drone shows have the potential to significantly
reduce those impacts, particularly noise and water pollution
while still allowing for a high quality visitor experience.
And importantly, this proposal does not add new impacts,
it replaces existing fireworks shows.
No alternative is impact free,
but this is a clear opportunity
to move in a better direction
grounded in both science and accountability.
This is what progress looks like,
reducing known harms while building better solutions
for the future.
We are grateful to SeaWorld for taking this step
and urge commissioners to approve the permit.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
Thank you.
Next, Kristin Northrop, Anacontrol,
and then, Olivia Borak Brodin, Kristin Northrup.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Kristin Northrup,
and I am Policy Advocate
for Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation.
SURF was founded by a group of SURFers
for protection of California's coastal resources.
SURF has been instrumental in challenging
firework discharges over coastal waters
for more than 10 years.
I am here to support the staff recommendation
to approve this permit with conditions.
This proposal reflects a thoughtful shift
towards reducing environmental impacts
in a highly sensitive coastal area.
As the staff report explains,
SeaWorld's current firework program up to 150 shows annually
has raised ongoing concerns related to noise, debris,
and effects on wildlife and water quality in Mission Bay.
This drone show pilot offers a lower impact alternative
and importantly, it is structured as a one-year test
with strong environmental safeguards.
The commission has required detailed monitoring
of noise, light, and bird interactions,
including seasonal data collection and a clear threshold
that would stop performances
if impact exceeded established limits.
Unlike fireworks, drone shows eliminate the discharge
of physical debris in Mission Bay.
Reducing plastics, chemicals, and unexploded materials
entering the water is a meaningful improvement
for water quality and marine life and our environment.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you.
Next, Anne Cantrell, Livia Borak-Boden,
and Courtney Brown.
Anne Cantrell.
Good afternoon.
Anne Cantrell, Sierra Club Closet Committee.
Thank you to the staff for the special conditions
addition of a 12 hour buffer between drones and fireworks.
also for adding the condition that the first two
shows will be monitored.
I'm wondering, have there been noise and light monitoring
for birds done during the fireworks show?
It would appear to be necessary to include
bird monitoring of fireworks to compare to drones impacts.
I'm also concerned about the noise.
The clip that we just saw of the drone show
appeared to be much louder than 65 decibels.
I didn't hear the drones, but I heard very loud music
and crowd noise.
So I'm hoping that that will be addressed
when you have the shows to keep the noise down.
I'm all for drone shows and I'm thankful to the SeaWorld
and the Commission for doing this pilot program,
but it has to be done right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Livia Borak-Boden, followed by Courtney Brown
and Liz Lihanda.
Livia, go ahead.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Thank you, Livia Borak-Boden, on behalf
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation. I am an attorney with Coast Law Group and I'm fully
supportive of the Commission's approval of the CDP for SeaWorld. We've been with Coastkeeper and
other partners working for this transition for two decades and it's really nice to see that when
there's the public support and the technology responsible corporations and permittees take the
technology to the next level. And we are really thankful to SeaWorld for taking this step
and look forward to SeaWorld's successful implementation of the drone study.
And just to follow up and with respect to, I think, Chair or Commissioner Wilson's comments
about, you know, new technologies and their potential for negative impacts, I think this is
one of those situations where new technology affords an opportunity to do right by the
community and by the environment. And we're really thankful that this is where San Diego is.
Sorry about that. I think we accidentally moved.
We'll bring you back in and you can finish your comment. Sorry about that. Go ahead, Olivia.
It's okay. Thank you. I think this is just a special shout out to being a San Diegan and
for everybody from San Diego because we had the First in the Nation Clean Water Act Permit
in San Diego. We also have the port in YMCA, thanks to Allison, who's also working on this
permit, working towards a drone pilot study. And now we have SeaWorld transitioning a huge
amount of firework shows to drones. And I just say to those coming later from Long Beach,
where there's a will, there's a way, and come on over to the light and we'll fully
support you. It's more fun over here. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry again. Next is Courtney Brown,
followed by Leslie Honda and Susan Kirk's. Courtney Brown. Hello. I'm not sure why my
video's not working, but never mind. There you go. Okay. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Courtney
Brown and I'm the staff attorney with San Diego Coastkeeper. I'm here to basically echo everything
that Ms. Boden just said, but express our strong support for staff's recommendation to approve
SeaWorld's CDP application. Coastkeeper and our regional partners like SURF have long advocated
for sustainable alternatives to fireworks within the coastal zone, and we're really pleased to see
SeaWorld taking a meaningful step in that direction. This application reflects a thoughtful
and forward-looking approach to balancing public enjoyment with environmental stewardship.
I think it's worth noting that over the years, this commission has seen steady progress on this
issue from largely unregulated fireworks displays to the issuance of the nation's first Clean Water
Act permit for fireworks over water, which Ms. Bowden mentioned was in San Diego. So this is a
very fitting time to bring that up. It's especially encouraging though to now see the momentum
building around innovative alternatives. SeaWorld's proposal represents an important milestone in that
evolution signaling a broader shift towards solutions that can reduce environmental impacts
while maintaining engaging visitor experiences. I also just want to say that we're extremely
grateful to commission staff and to SeaWorld San Diego for their partnership and dedication
in advancing this application. This kind of collaboration sets a strong example for others
across the state and we look forward to SeaWorld's successful implementation of the CDP,
the valuable data that it will generate and its continued progress toward a more sustainable model
that benefits visitors, the local community, and the coastal environment. Thank you.
Thank you. Next, Leslie Honda, Susan Kirks, and then Rodrigo Cerzadello. Leslie Honda.
Can you hear me? Hi, yes, we can hear you.
Hi, I also have some slides. I'll give us a moment to bring it up.
Okay, thank you. Honorable commissioners and the members of the public, my name is Leslie Handa,
the lead ornithologist for the San Diego Bird Alliance. We want to thank the Coastal Commission
staff for your timely response to our list of concerns we submitted last week. We support the
application of the drone show by SeaWorld and look forward to the studies documenting the response,
the behavioral response of the birds. San Diego is one of the birdiest counties in the United States.
As we celebrate Dark Sky Week with the critical spring migration period from April 15th to May
15th starting today, millions of birds that migrate at night may navigate the coastline and fly
through Mission Bay. According to Birdcast, during peak spring migration in San Diego County,
nearly 67 million birds migrate through the county. This entire Mission Bay complex
of the formerly historic Bahia fossil wetland includes Rose Creek, Mission Bay, San Diego
River and Phamosa Slough. This provides important natural habitat that supports a wealth of bird
biodiversity year-round. Conservation areas in the complex include the city of San Diego,
multiple habitat planning areas, a globally recognized IUCN green list of protected and
in conserved areas in the California marine protected area.
Next slide, please.
Comprehensive to the Mission Bay complex,
it is a globally recognized important bird area.
As important bird areas are critical sites for conservation
that provide essential habitat for endangered,
restricted range and large congregation of birds,
we encourage SeaWorld and the Coastal Commission
to prioritize this area when making decisions
as it is irreplaceable.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Next, Susan Kirk's followed by Rodrigo Cerzadella.
Susan Kirk's.
Susan, I see that you're in as a panelist,
you should be able to unmute.
Thank you.
Now I will be able to unmute.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon, commissioner staff.
I'm Susan Kirk's and I may be mistaken,
But I thought I had heard in one of your commission meetings
that SeaWorld was required to phase out their fireworks
over a five-year period and that nothing had been done
up to four years in that process.
Am I mistaken?
I'd really appreciate a clarification on that.
I am unclear about why this drone light show
is a pilot program.
Drone light shows are becoming more established as alternatives to the bombing, very harmful
to the environment, to pets, veterans, people with health conditions and other wildlife
and animals, fireworks shows.
And fireworks really should be discontinued at this location.
I support the San Diego Bird County Alliance's request to you and appreciate the staff reviewing
those and including modifications.
And let's face it, the real sea world is not
the commercial sea world.
The real sea world is the world that you as a commission
are mandated to protect under the California Coastal Act.
And the incredible wildlife and birds
and added to the other people and pets and veterans
who are extremely harmed by bombing fireworks
and the toxicity of fireworks.
These are the entities that are the real SeaWorld.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Rodrigo Cerzadello.
Thank you.
Good morning commissioners and SeaWorld representatives.
And thank you so much, Tyler and Joe Lacava
for leading this effort towards exploring drone shows.
My name is Rodrigo Strazadello.
I'm a CEO of Creative Skies Drone Light Shows,
one of the field drone companies from West Coast here.
I'm a local resident and a drone show operator.
I'm based right here in San Diego.
And we provide drone shows from our California
and nationwide as well.
Well, earlier this year,
Crater Skies contributed to,
with Port of San Diego's feasibility study
by submitting a proposal on integrating drone shows
into their 2027 Big Bay Boom.
And I'm here today to express my fully support
for this pilot program as well.
On the board safety, there are no documented studies
showing drone light shows causing bird fatalities.
I'm connected with operators coast to coast
who have collectively flown tens of thousands of shows
in coasts, urban and wildlife adjacent environments
and no bird fatalities have been reported.
So this includes a 3000 drone show that in New York
that I personally participated
with no observed wildlife impact.
Creative Skies holds an FAA waiver
for multi-drowned operations to 2029.
We carry $5 million in aviation liability insurance
and maintain zero incident safety records.
We would be glad to serve as a technical resource
for the commission and to see word as this pilot progress.
Our Big Bay Boom feasibility study
is available in our website, www.creativeskys.com
for everybody to download if you want.
It's on the blog part of it.
All right, thank you.
We have no other speakers for this item, Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, with that, I will close the public hearing
and return to our staff to see if they have any comments.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
With regard to the comments from Mr. Larson, the drone operator, his comments, we did receive
comments late last night.
So we didn't prepare any kind of addendum response on that matter.
But as far as the Coastal Act issues that he raised, we believe our special conditions
and the way the applicant proposed the project adequately addressed the the coastal act
issues there.
With regard to Ms. Kirk's comments about a requirement to phase out fireworks that's
not something we're aware of with regard to the SeaWorld fireworks shows.
And well with that I don't think I have anything further.
I just want to thank the applicants, C-World, and reagents for working with us so well
on this permit.
And we'll return it back to you.
Great.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Commissioner Moreno, you want to start us off?
Thank you, if I may.
First and foremost, thank you to the staff for the presentation, and also to the extensive
list of letters of support that we received. Also to my colleague, Council President Joe
LaCava, thank you for calling in. And I also want to thank Mr. Carter, the Park President
of SeaWorld for being here today. I think it speaks volumes to have the leader of SeaWorld
come here and present before the body. I am pleased to hear that SeaWorld has transitioned
to drone shows at other locations across the nation
and that this change has the potential
to set the pace here in the state of California.
As was mentioned, San Diego is home
to very important riparian habitat.
So seeing the pilot program here today
was, I don't have another word to say, but wonderful.
Although a drone technology is somewhat of an early stage,
we did hear that this pilot program
for the drone show at SeaWorld will be a pilot program.
And I'm looking forward to seeing the data and monitoring
that could be useful to the commission staff
and also to other locations
looking to make a transition to drone shows.
Now, my understanding is that a drone show
is probably not the most economically feasible alternative.
But as is the case with this body, we are looking at the environment and also at the
safety of our natural habitat.
So let me see if I had anybody else.
Nope, I think that pretty much sets everything.
Thank you for the presentation, and I'm happy to make a motion whenever that is permissible,
Chair.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am going to be supporting this request today, and I just want to be clear going into this
with wide open eyes.
We often look at technology and think it's going to be a perfect fix to all the issues
that we experience.
I want to be clear I'm not looking for perfection.
In our communities, we've had challenges around certain facilities, like the best facilities
that everybody thought, battery energy storage system and everything.
That's the answer, that's perfect and yet there were tough lessons in the end.
So I just want to acknowledge being an avid drone flyer myself, things happen.
And they could fall out of the sky, could fall into the water,
somebody could not be happy with that outcome.
But I think it's a big question, big trade-off question
of versus the other impacts we're experiencing today.
And I think this as a pilot is important for us to be able to gather data and be realistic
about what those outcomes may be.
So again, I just want to be clear I'm supporting it, not looking for perfection, but looking
for improvement in moving the needle in the right direction.
So I'm appreciative understanding the economics being a little more challenging around this
particular type of show over fireworks, but appreciate the willingness to start moving
in this direction and to help us figure out if this is a path we can take with other folks
along the coast.
But thank you so much.
No other comments?
I will just join with my colleagues, very grateful and excited to be at this point and
really appreciate the video to that really helped us to understand the experience. So
with that, I will go back to Commissioner Moreno for emotional. Thank you and have mercy
on me as this will be my first motion. So I move that the commission approve coastal
development permit six dash 26 dash 0102 pursuant to staff's recommendation and that concludes
my comments. Thank you. Second. Okay, that's a motion by Commissioner Moreno, a second by
Commissioner Lopez. They're asking for a yes vote. Any objections to unanimous
consent? Seeing none, the motion carries. Congratulations. Okay. Thank you. Now we'll
move on to item 13. Give Mr. Hudson a moment. All right, thank you. And that does
bring us to item 13. Item 13 is the Deputy Director's Report for the South
Coast District which includes three permit waivers, one permit extension, one
emergency permit, and one emergency waiver. In regard to the emergency waiver
by LA County Department of Public Works that was for repair of a concrete
channel lining and removal of concrete debris along a portion of Santa Monica
Creek where portions of the concrete lining had collapsed and the presence of
concrete debris was resulting in potential flooding to surrounding
residentially developed areas. In addition, an emergency permit was issued
to the Santa Catalina Island Company for placement of approximately 100
feet of four feet tall temporary interlocking concrete block wall and
repair of existing rip-rap toe protection in response to wave caused
erosion that had undermined a portion of an existing warehouse loading bay. We're
We're not aware of any opposition to the 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 am available for questions.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes?
Any public comments?
I know we just had one available for questions.
Great.
Thank you.
Do four or more?
Three or more?
Yes, three or more.
Okay.
Thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy director's report?
no objections the commission can curse thank you item 16a please thank you and item 16a will be
presented via zoom by colby gonzalez a coastal program analyst in our south coast district
we do have a powerpoint for this if we could pull that up please and colby please take it away
good afternoon commissioners can y'all hear it and see me okay item 16a is the hearing for
coastal development permit application for the construction of a new three-story single
family home in the city of Hermosa Beach. The applicant is Myrtle Avenue LLC. This item was
originally scheduled as a waiver as part of the deputy director report for the March hearing,
but was removed after correspondence was received by neighbors prior to the hearing,
asserting potential public access impacts and questioning whether a lot split which occurred
on site was legal. The standard of review is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act,
with the certified LEP used as guidance. Next slide please. As shown on this aerial photograph
of the subject site and its surrounding area. The proposed project is located approximately
640 feet in Linda the beach in a densely developed residential neighborhood within
the city of Hermosa Beach. The subject site is a relatively small 3,010 square foot lot,
which is currently developed with three detached garages, which have been previously used by a
neighboring multi-family residential lot for storage space. The surrounding area consists
of single-family and multi-family residential homes. Next slide please. A concern raised by
neighbors of the proposed project contends that removal of the three garage storage spaces
from the site could impact public access. The garages on site were constructed between the
1920s and the 1950s prior to the establishment of city parking standards and were not legally
acquired by the city to provide parking for the neighboring multifamily residential parcel at the
time of their construction. In addition, the garages on site do not conform to current parking
space size requirements and appear to have been used as storage spaces and the driveway to access
the garage does not conform to current development standards. Therefore, since the garages are not
being utilized for parking and the project is located approximately 640 feet in Linda the Beach,
the project is not expected to result in any new impacts to public access from the lack of
adequate parking for the existing multifamily structures on the adjacent parcels. Next slide,
please. Another concern raised by neighbors of the project site is that the lot containing the
garages slash storage spaces was not legally split from the multifamily residential lot,
which neighbors the site. Los Angeles County Assessor's records dating back as far as 1911
show the two parcels as separate legal lots. The two parcels were tied together by the County
Assessor in the 1960s because a previous owner undertook the unpermitted development of a
staircase from the multifamily residence to the rooftop of one of the garages across and over the
lot line between the two lots. The current property owner then demolished the unpermitted staircase
after taking ownership of the property, and the lot tie was subsequently removed by the county
assessor since the lots were no longer connected by development. There is an addendum for this item
which provides a minor correction to the language in the motion. No new public comments have been
received since the March hearing. In closing, the proposed project as conditioned is consistent with
the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and staff recommends that the Commission approve this
application with three special conditions. The corrected motion for this item can be found on
on the addendum for this item.
This concludes the staff presentation.
Staff is available for questions, thank you.
Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Okay, are there any, excuse me, any ex parte's to report?
Seeing none, we will turn it to Chris.
All right, we have no public commenters in this item,
we just have the applicant's representative,
Richard Maglia on Zoom available for questions.
Great, thank you very much.
In that case, I'll return to the commission.
comments questions the motion I move that the Commission approve the coastal
development permit applications included on the I'm on the wrong one oh I see it's
on the addendum do you want to make it given in front of you oh okay just a
sec so the motions move to the addendum I'm with you okay I move the Commission
approved coastal development permit number five dash two five dash zero
341 pursuant to the staff recommendation asking for a yes vote. Second. Motion by Vice Chair
Hart, a second by Commissioner Lee. Any objections to unanimous consent? Seeing none, the motion
carries. Great, thank you very much. And now we will continue on to item 16B, please.
Thank you. And 16B will be presented also via Zoom by Liliana Roman, the Commission's
Coastal Resiliency Coordinator in our South Coast District. If we could pull up the PowerPoint please
and Liliana please take it away. Good afternoon commissioners. Next we have a CDP application
from the LA County Department of Beaches and Harbors for a 10-year programmatic CDP for a
sand compatibility and opportunistic use program, otherwise known by the acronym of SCOOP at five
LA County-run beaches shown here on this map starting from the north in the city of Malibu
at Summa Beach, then Will Rogers and Doc Wilder State beaches in the city of LA, and then in the
cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. LA County, all three cities, and the commission's
executive director have agreed to process the CDP application as a single consolidated permit action
for aspects of the proposed work within these cities' LCP jurisdictions and within the
the Commission's retained jurisdiction.
The standard of review for a consolidated CDP
is chapter three of the Coastal Act
with certified LCP policies used as guidance.
Next slide, please.
The proposed SCOOP programmatic CDP would allow
for potential future beach sand replenishment projects
by establishing a set of detailed and rigorous criteria
and parameters under which future potential sand sources
could be evaluated.
It was prepared in collaboration with the cities of Malibu,
LA, Manhattan and Redondo Beach
after numerous workshops and stakeholder meetings.
The proposed program identifies minimum criteria
for sand acceptability for each
of the five receiver beaches.
If a sand source meets the minimum criteria
for sand grain size and color,
it then must undergo a programmatic sampling
and analysis plan or PSAP.
If found to be clean and chemical free,
then it is considered suitable for beach nourishment.
The county would then submit a project notification report
to the commission's ED to review
and determine whether the project conforms with the limits
as approved by the commission under this CDP.
The project notification report provides the sand analysis,
outlines public notification requirements,
pre, during and post-construction monitoring,
including biological monitoring of nearby Esha, Grunian,
near shore reefs, shorebirds, and the like,
physical monitoring such as turbidity and beach profiles,
and recreational monitoring such as beach use and surfing.
Thus the ED would review and approve
each sand placement project
before commencement of any individual project.
The maximum annual total potential replenishment
at each beach site is 150 cubic yards, 150,000 cubic yards.
However, individual replenishment projects
would likely be much smaller
and require much shorter construction periods
than that would be required if the maximum were placed.
Potential scoop sand sources include reservoirs,
dams, debris, debris basins, local rivers, creeks,
harbor maintenance stretching, new upland development,
redevelopment projects, and even landslide sediments.
Natural sand from any potential opportunistic source
could be utilized if it meets the required sediment criteria.
The proposed SCOOP programmatic CDP
only sets the parameters and criteria
for the placement of opportunistic sand.
A separate CDP is required for dredging
to source offshore sand.
The SCOOP implementation guidelines
include program monitoring and reporting,
specifically monitoring of public access and recreation,
such as surf monitoring
monitoring of biological resources, Esha, and water quality.
The guidelines also include the mitigation monitoring and reporting program required
by the SCOOP's CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The proposed SCOOP is similar to existing CDPs for similar SCOOPs that the Commission
has approved throughout Southern California in Ventura, Orange County and San Diego counties.
Next slide.
Now that you've had an overview of the program, here's some information on each of the five
proposed receiver sites.
Suma Beach in Malibu is at the northern end of Santa Monica Bay.
It is the longest continuous beach in Northern LA County comprised of approximately 1.7 miles
of beach with 95 acres of public beach space with your typical beach amenities.
Here you see the proposed beach maximum fill area for multiple scoop events, shown in pink,
denoting the area within which multiple scoop projects may be implemented over the course
of the 10-year program.
The representative fill area for a single event for print shown in orange illustrates
the scale of the maximum annual volume of 150,000 cubic yards of sand if all of it is
placed in one single event.
Suma Beach is also within the Point Doom State Marine Conservation Area, a marine protected
area regulated by California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The water quality of Suma Beach is also protected as the Laguna Point to Latigo Point area
of special biological significance regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Special Condition 2 of the CDP would require the applicant to modify the SCOOP implementation
guidelines to require a qualified biologist or resource specialist to monitor turbidity
during all beach nourishment activities. Should the daily construction phase monitoring indicate
that turbidity attributed to the replenishment exceeds state water resource control board
ocean plant thresholds, then the rate of sand placement would be modified or ceased to decrease
turbidity and thus avoiding impact of protected waters. Next slide. The second site is
Will Rogers State Beach, a popular surfing
and fishing site located within the Pacific Palisades
community of the city of LA at the northern end
of Santa Monica Bay.
The beach is three miles long and has 103 acres
of public beach with your typical beach amenities.
The 22 mile long Marvin Broad Beach,
Marvin Broad bike trail begins here
and continues to the south.
Next slide.
Dockweiler State Beach is also located
within the central portion of Santa Monica Bay.
It is approximately four miles long
and has 254 acres of public beach with fire rings,
volleyball nets, basketball court, a youth center,
hand gliding facilities and over 1200 public parking spaces.
And also includes an overnight recreational vehicle park
with 118 parking spaces.
Here you also see the representative cross sections
in all the typical fill parameters proposed for Dockweiler.
Next slide.
The city of Manhattan Beach is shown on this slide
also within the central portion of Santa Monica Bay.
The beach is approximately two miles long
and has about 77 acres of public beach.
The city is in the middle
of ongoing sand dune restoration efforts
and opportunistic sand at this location
could aid in the expansion of sand dune restoration
to larger areas.
Next slide.
The final receiver site is in the city of Redondo Beach.
It's located towards the southern end of Santa Monica Bay.
The receiver site is approximately 1.6 miles long and has 51 acres of public beach area.
It runs south from Redondo Beach Pier to Torrance Beach.
Next slide.
The program allows for three methods of sand deposition of beach sand,
including near shore, intertidal and as a berm. The applicant proposes the beach berm as the primary
method recommended for high quality sand material with very low fine content of less than or equal
to 15 percent. Typically inland sand material from development projects or flood control maintenance
would be delivered by truck and spread along the beach using heavy equipment such as loaders and
dozers. Trucks would deliver sand to the on-site stockpile area in the paved beach parking lot and
loaders would transport the sand from the stockpile area to the beach and the dozers would shape the
material to match the template as seen on the slide here. The number of truck trips will vary
based on the quantity of material available for placement. For each beach receiver site the
applicant assumes a maximum of approximately five months of construction. Beach closures
are not anticipated, and parking would continue to be available in the adjacent parking lots,
beach public parking lots. As proposed, Dune, Escha, and Will Rogers in Manhattan Beach would
be clearly demarcated and fenced to avoid disturbance when sand is brought onto the
the beach and graded onto the beach berm.
A buffer is also proposed from riparian esha at Summa Beach.
Next slide.
Mean high tide line and near shore placements
would be recommended when the sand finds content
of the source material is a bit larger, between 15% and 25%.
The sand grain size can also affect the marine environment.
And in general, the higher the amount of coarse grain
sand, then the lower the turbidity and associated risks to offshore resources, such as surfgrass
and kelp and overall biological productivity of coastal waters. The higher percentage of fines in
the sand, the higher the likelihood of sand becoming hard packed. A fine's content less than
25 percent is considered low, which is what's proposed. Special condition 2 requires the county
observe and monitor to detect if the sand becomes hard packed and if so to assess the
appropriateness of additional grading to push the sand into the surf zone and remediate
the problem.
Next slide.
The Coastal Act establishes the shoreline as a valuable asset to the environment and
economy of Southern California and the state.
It's worthy of protection and enhancement.
Beach erosion has been an increasing problem in the Southern California region and the
Commission has identified beach sand replenishment as a nature-based strategy to preserve and
enhance the environmental quality, recreational capacity and property protection for the region's
shoreline.
Additional sand on beaches increases the amount of recreational area available for public uses,
decreases the rate of beach erosion and provides a wider beach serving as a buffer between
ways in adjacent public development, thereby reducing pressure to construct
shoreline protective devices, which can adversely affect both the visual quality of scenic coastal
areas and the overall shoreline sand supply. Nevertheless, implementation of a sand
replenishment project may have some temporary adverse impacts on public access and recreation.
As proposed and as conditioned, the scoop activities would avoid peak beach use season,
Memorial Day to Labor Day to the maximum extent practicable. Work would be limited to weekdays
and prohibited during holidays. No beach closures would be required. Staging, stockpile, and work
areas would be the minimal necessary. And as conditioned, turbidity, water quality, and surfing
would be monitored. Additionally, as conditioned halfway through the 10-year programmatic CDP,
five years the midpoint the county would submit a midpoint report to the ed including a summary
of all completed sand placement activities to date and a summary of monitoring results
analyzing the effectiveness of the programmatic cdp in meeting the program objectives including
in terms of maintaining public coastal access habitat values and coastal resource protection
and include any changes that might be that they may may have discovered to be necessary to better
meet the program objectives of protecting coastal resources. Furthermore, as stated, the restoration
of beaches is a permitted use in open coastal waters under Coastal Act. However, the project
must be the least environmentally damaging alternative and possible impacts avoided and
mitigated if unavoidable. As proposed the scoop incorporates adequate measures for coastal sand dune
escha protection, riparian escha and california grunion. However additional measures are required
to avoid disturbance and minimize potential impacts to nesting and special status birds
including western snowy plover and the california lee stern. As conditioned the proposed scoop would
be carried out in a manner that avoids and minimizes adverse impacts to biological resources,
water quality, marine life, and sensitive marine habitats. Furthermore, the scoop is conditioned
to require a tribal cultural resource monitor present for project activities at Suma Beach
from the coastal band of the Shubash Nation per their stated request, and to also provide
general public notice to tribal governments when the general public is notified of an
upcoming sand replenishment project. Next slide. In closing the proposed project with the special
conditions listed on pages five through nine of the staff report would be consistent with
chapter three policies of the Coastal Act. The applicant is in agreement with the special
conditions and the staff recommendation. The motion to accomplish the staff recommendation
can be found on page five of the staff report. There's no addendum and no public comments
were received in writing prior to the hearing. The motion is on page five. And this concludes
staff presentation. We're available for questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any expertise? Can't remember if I did that already or not.
you. Okay, so now I'll turn it over to Chris, check, see if there's any public
comment. We had two speakers signed up for this. Emiko Innes, the applicant who
we are not seeing on Zoom. Okay, I'm seeing name planning division just raised
their hand. You should be able to move in as a panelist. And then we are also
missing Roger Carlson. Roger, if you are in the meeting, please raise your hand.
All right. Planning division I see you're in as a panelist you should be able to
unmute yourself and please identify yourself. Good afternoon Chair and
commissioners my name is morale passion and I'm the planning division chief for
the Los Angeles County Department of beaches and harbors I'm joined by amico
Inez the department's coastal resilience program manager who will be providing a
brief presentation before I pass it off to amico I want to first thank coastal
commission staff for their time and effort
in reviewing this project and the excellent presentation
and also express appreciation to the commission
for your continued leadership on the issue
of beach erosion and beach nourishment
and to the state's coastal sediment management workgroup
for laying the groundwork for the SANS compatibility
opportunistic use program, which we are building off of today.
So with that, I'm gonna pass it out to you and we can.
Can you give us a second to bring it up?
How much time will you need for your presentation?
Seven minutes.
Oh, what was that?
Seven?
We couldn't hear that.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Seven minutes.
Seven minutes.
Okay.
Excuse me, ma'am.
We have quite a few items remaining.
Would it be possible to do this in three minutes?
I will try.
Thank you.
Okay.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Emiko Ennis.
I'm the Coastal Resilience Program Manager for the L.E. County Department of
Youth and Hobbers.
SCOOP is an important part of the county's Coastal Resilience Initiative to proactively
protect public beaches for the current and future generations.
Next slide.
L.E. County is the number one beach destination in California.
as you can see in the graph with more than 27 million visits per year,
making significant contributions to the state's economy. Next slide.
Here are a little bit more details on the LA County.
We have 75 miles of coastline from Malibu area to Long Beach.
Our department manages 23 miles of the beaches indicated in orange on the map.
We have 11 jurisdictions on the coast, including the county, state parks,
and city. 27 million people visit our beaches annually, generating over $2 billion contributing
to the local and regional economy. Only 1% of the 10 million county residents live within
a walking distance from the beach. This is the reason why it is so important and critical
to preserve public beaches and coastal access for the 99% of the people who want to escape
from extreme heat wave and enjoy affordable recreational activities on the coast.
Next slide.
Similar to the shorelines in other coastal areas,
our beaches are narrowing and sand supply is limited.
As the Malibu coast running east-west,
shoreline erosion is more prevalent mainly because
the sand that used to come down from Ventura County is now blocked by Mungu Canyon.
The Santa Monica Bay coastline running from north to south,
also experiences erosion sporadically. This stretch of the coast was artificially nourished
in the 20th century and there are no large river systems that provide stamps supplied to the area.
Next slide. We find that reacting to storm damages on an emergency basis is becoming unsustainable.
We simply cannot keep up with the repairs as they occur in more places and more often.
Next slide. Recognizing the current erosion problem that will be exacerbated by the sea level rise
in the future, the LA County Board of Supervisors directs the Department of Beaches and Harbors
to implement the coastal resilience initiative. The goal is to protect public beaches and access
from coastal hazards for all people, and the initiative takes a three-pronged approach to
to accomplish the goal.
While the Living Showline Project
demonstrate nature-based adaptation strategies
and the regional coastal strategic adaptation plan
increases collaboration and coordination
between two sections to implement coastal resilience projects
to create an opportunity for excess beach quality sound
from reservoirs and land development sites
for beach nourishment within a short period of time.
Next slide.
Ma'am, if you could, yes,
if you could just give us your closing thoughts, please.
Thank you.
Okay, so the benefits of this program
is that receiver feed sites are free of proof
for small beach noise and activity of 150,000 cubic yards,
which saves significant amount of time
obtaining various permanence.
And proof provides a clear pathway
for beneficial use of camp
that are otherwise destined to landfill.
This is a win-win partnership between the agencies like us
who need to stand on the beach
and the parties who need to get rid of sound
from their properties.
On the right side, two photos show sediment removal
at Devil's Gate Dam.
The L.A. County Block Control District removed
approximately 1 million cubic yards of sediment
annually from their reservoirs like Devil's Gate
to increase the storage capacity.
Some portions of the settlement are suitable
be used to protect the beaches and coastal access from erosion and sea level life.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
And thank you for your understanding.
Okay.
No other comments?
We just had one other person, Roger Carlson, who we still aren't seeing on Zoom.
Roger, if you're there, please raise your hand.
I'll also note that we have Christopher Scott
from Coastal Frontiers Corporation online
and available for questions.
All right, I'm not seeing any hands raised.
Madam Chair.
Great, okay, thank you.
And again, with apologies to the county,
I appreciate their understanding.
I will return to the commission.
Comments, a motion?
I'll make a motion.
Great.
Yes, and and
thanks to the staff
From the county and our staff as well and just recognize that
in reading this staff report a
Lot of work was done and we really appreciate
The work of the county because as we said, it's the access is to millions of people. So
There's a huge deal on very very good job
So I move that the Commission approve coastal development permanent or five dash two five dash zero six dash five four pursuant to the staff recommendation
I recommend a yes vote
Second the motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner O'Malley any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion carries
Okay
Echoing Commissioner Wilson. Thanks. Let's continue on with item 16c. We'll take a brief break after we get through that item if that's okay
Yes, thank you item 16 C will be presented via zoom by Jennifer Doyle the coaster program analyst in our South Coast District
This will be a brief presentation just about two few plus minutes
If we do have a PowerPoint if we could pull that up, please and Jennifer, please take it away
Thank you
item 16 C is a is the CPP application by the city of Santa Monica and momentum and a
For a free temporary event on the Santa Monica Pier from June 11th to June 25th
to kick off the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
The event would include daily live viewing
of the FIFA World Cup, an aerial drone show on opening night,
and many themed experiences and interactions
for approximately 3,000 daily event attendees.
Next slide, please.
As seen on this slide, the applicants proposed
to set up temporary event tents,
covered seating, stage, and outdoor spaces
across approximately 40,000 square feet
on the Santa Monica Pier.
The opening night program will feature
10-minute aerial drone show conducted by approximately 2,500 drones operating over
the dry beach intertidal zone and surf zone adjacent to the Santa Monica Pier.
The applicants are requesting temporary use of public parking across four locations,
including 268 spaces on the Santa Monica Pier deck for the main event, 20 spaces in lot 1550
PCH for construction staging, 40 spaces at the Civic Center lot for event staff, and 66 spaces
and Lot One South for opening night guests. Next slide please. Due to the event size and the
proposed use of public parking, Special Condition 2 minimizes potential impacts on public access by
requiring the applicants to provide complementary bike valet for the general public and event
attendees, and to promote rideshare use including the designated pickup and drop-off locations and
all pre-event communications. Special Condition 2 also requires applicants to maintain public access
to the beach and pier at all times during event activities with interruptions in public
access limited to no more than five minutes.
Next slide.
There is no known sensitive habitat or tune areas located within the project area.
Thus, the project is not expected to result in any impacts to habitat or wildlife.
Special Condition 3 requires the applicant to ensure that event lighting minimizes light
spillage onto the beach and ocean and that equipment vehicles remain above the mean high
guideline preventing disturbance to intertidal areas in Beatrak. Special
condition 4 also includes measures to protect water quality during all event
activities, and special condition 6 requires applicants to notify event
staff, contractors, and event attendees that single-use plastics are prohibited.
Next slide please. This item includes one addendum to make minor changes to
certain special conditions in response to the applicant's requests. The applicant's
proposed to conclude opening night at 12 a.m. instead of 11 p.m. This change does
not affect the special conditions or make changes to parking requests. The
applicants note that the drone show will start approximately at 9 p.m. depending
on weather conditions which staff has made a change to special conditions 1
and 2 to allow for that flexibility. Lastly the addendum includes updated
exhibits to the floor plan and staging plan. In closing, commission staff
believes the project as conditioned is consistent with the chapter 3 policies
of the Coastal Act. Thus staff recommends approval of the Coastal
Development permit application with conditions as detailed in the staff
report and the associated addendum. The motion to accomplish this
recommendation can be found on page 5 of the staff report and this concludes my
presentation and I'm available for any questions. Great thank you very much.
Okay I'll ask my colleagues if they have any ex partes to report. Commissioner
And I'm looking forward to that.
Thank you Madam Chair.
On the 13th of this month I had a meeting initiated by a request
from Ann Blemker. That meeting included myself, Eric Alden,
Kara Bush, Roxanne Tanimori, Susan McCabe and my chief of
staff Priscilla Ramos. I was given background on this
project as well as the event and the structure of it,
specifically 21 and over but free for everyone with a process
I had an ex parte with the same parties, minus Commissioner Lopez and his chief of staff,
and the same information was covered via Zoom.
It was on Monday, the 13th this week.
Seeing no...
Oh, Commissioner Moreno.
I also had an ex parte on April 9th.
Thank you.
Pretty much same.
I'll read it for the record, Anne Blake,
Blaker, Eric Alden, Carter Bush, and Roxanne Tenamori.
Is that, yeah, okay, myself.
And we spoke on the Michelob Ultra Pitchside Club
on the Santa Monica Pier for the kickoff event
for FIFA World Cup games.
Thank you.
Great, thank you very much.
With that, I will open the public hearing.
Chris, thank you.
All right, we'll start with the applicants.
They're here in person.
Eric Alden and Roxanne Tanamori, they have a presentation.
How long did you request for the presentation?
If you could do it in five, we would greatly appreciate.
Four would be even better than five.
Three would be better than four.
We will do it.
Oh my gosh.
Thank you.
I'm getting very close to the challenge.
I'm going for it.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Roxanne Tanamori, Assistant Director
for the City of Santa Monica's
community development department. I'm also joined by Erin Orosco who is our
major events program manager as well. I want to thank Coastal staff for their
collaborative work on this application. We do agree with all of the conditions
of approval. Just a little note about from the city's perspective. The city is
preparing for a series of major event opportunities over the next two years.
Recently our council approved study of partnerships for the FIFA World Cup, a
a two-day music festival in the fall of 2026, Super Bowl and Winter of 2027, and the 2028
Olympic and Paralympic Games. This temporary activation for the Pitchside Club is really
the first of these important opportunities that would support economic investment,
much-needed economic activity in our community, and just generate positive visibility for our
coastal community. As we look ahead to these potential activations, the city does take
seriously the planning and operational readiness that will be necessary to
make sure that these events have all of the measures that address public access
and public safety needs, neighborhood impact and protections for our coast. We
believe the Pitchside Club really incorporates all of these values and we
hope this Commission will agree and with that I will pass it on to Eric Alden.
Thank you. Yes, thank you and thank you to the Commission for meeting with us
today. I'm Eric Alden with Momentum Worldwide, we represent the event team for the Pitchside Club,
you can go to the next slide. We're going to also say thank you to Jennifer for the thorough
report and the commission staff and the partnership with the city of Santa Monica.
As mentioned, the Pitchside Club is a free temporary fan viewing event experience tied to
the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which actually kicks off in Los Angeles with the Team USA match. And that's
And that's why we're bringing it here, is to really celebrate this exciting moment for
the City of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and just the U.S. in general.
It's going to be taking place on a small portion of the Santa Monica Pier, with a special opening
night on June 11th with the 10-minute drone show.
And then June 12th to the 25th is open to the general public from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m.
each day.
You can go to the next slide.
But most importantly, I do want to mention that the remainder of the pier and its businesses
and attractions remain open to the public, and throughout the entire period that were
there.
So this slide just shows the location that was shown over in the previous one.
We can go to the next slide.
And as Jennifer shown in her presentation as well, just on the opening night, we do
extend over into the drone area onto the beach.
Go to the next slide.
Now we're just showing you a pretty render of what the space will look like when it's
there.
This is the Pitchside Club.
It is meant to be a fun, welcoming fan environment,
reflecting kind of the excitement of the FIFA World Cup.
Guests arrive through an exciting kind of soccer moment
in the front before they go into the experience.
You can go to the next slide.
Once inside, the main viewing area
is really the heartbeat of the experience,
but we have food and beverage, soccer skill games,
featuring Messi, a photo opportunity
with the superior player, the match trophy,
jersey customization, really trying to create
a memorable moment that only happens here,
what, once every 30 or so years, so I'm really looking forward to it.
Next slide.
Just showing that we've done our due diligence on our egress planning and done our exits.
Clear circulation paths kind of throughout.
You can go to the next slide.
Capacity management as well as something that's key to us.
We want to make sure the attendance is actively managed through time ticketing, which I'll
talk about on the next slide.
Live counts, on-site operation staff and keeping everything nice and tight.
Go to the next slide.
But most importantly public access is at the core of the planning and we want to thank
Jennifer and staff for helping us do this.
So we've implemented several measures to protect the broader public experience at the pier.
That's time ticketing.
That's really going to make sure that we're not causing any congestion for anybody else
just coming to the pier to enjoy it that day.
Guests are encouraged to use rail, bus, ride share, bicycle.
Jennifer mentioned that we are creating a bike valet which is super exciting which will
be open during our operating hours for people to use.
Then you go to the next slide.
Yes, and I just want to close by acknowledging
the commission staff recommending approval
with the 11 special conditions
addressing the key areas shown here.
We appreciate the thorough review
and we're in full agreement with the staff recommendation
and all proposed special conditions
and we respectfully request your approval.
Thank you very much for your time.
Well done.
Thank you, appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
Chris, any comments?
Thank you.
There are no other speakers for this item,
Just those available for questions.
Great, thank you very much.
Well, then I will close the public hearing
and return to our commission.
Comments, the motion, Commissioner Lopez.
Just one thought is I watched this presentation
and heard about all the different events
that could come in the near future.
I'd hate to spend staff time kind of reiterating
on the same concept.
So if we can take lessons learned
and like we saw in the last Creative Pilot Project
and say, here's what we like, here's kind of the boilerplate,
here's what works, I would love to see that.
Given this vision that they have to utilize this portion of the pier in the near future for several events
So just so that we're not recreating the wheel and spending staff time to recreate that wheel each time. Thank you
I'm commissioner. I'm prepared to make a motion, please
Sorry, sorry, I'm sorry, excuse me
With with regard to the I mean I'm I'm just concerned based on the
The earlier comments when we were discussing Santa Monica and traffic, et cetera, are you going to be posted?
Where's the information going to be about public transit and I mean, bike it's at night.
So I'm a little concerned about bike really being, you know, something for anybody that's in far ways.
How you guys started to belabor this, but I'm just very concerned that this is going to be an absolute.
Really a scene because it's so crowded already.
How are you guys going to deal with that?
Yes, so we can discuss this together, but not only on the website where people have
to go and claim the tickets for them to attend, it'll be listed there and we'll make it very
clear where any public parking might take place and make sure we're not, we're making
it clear where they shouldn't be parking, but mostly encouraging ways to get there.
We'll also do a no before you go email in advance before they attend that day, really
stressing and encouraging them to attend.
Also to your comment about the bike valet, we will be open 11 to 9 with the sunlight.
The anticipated sundown is around 815 that time of year.
So we do anticipate making sure the other areas are mostly being focused on and hopefully
we'll mitigate any sort of traffic issues, especially with the time ticketing.
The idea is not to have everyone show up at once, but slowly kind of throughout the day.
Yeah.
Are you working with the city to provide additional public transit or is it just like the same
way it is all the time?
I mean, this is something I would really strongly recommend
to avoid this kind of crush and not and protect access,
that there's an event like this.
I was just curious if you were concerned.
We had discussed the transportation plan closely
with Jennifer and didn't identify a need
for additional at the time.
It will be good to know as we get closer to the Olympics
in all of those events.
This will be like the trial home, so thank you.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
Those are very important questions.
Thank you for raising that.
I hope that you'll look at all alternatives to avoid jams.
With that, I would move that the commission approve coastal development permit number
five dash 26 dash 0042 pursuant to the staff recommendation and recommend a yes vote.
Second.
That's a motion by Commissioner Notoff, a second by Commissioner Jackson.
They're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for sticking around.
All right.
We're going to take a brief break.
Please be back at 4.
We're going to start right at 4.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you, everybody, to my fellow commissioners.
going to get started. And we are at item 17A. Thank you. And item 17A will be presented
by Jeff Palm, a Coastal Program Analyst in our South Coast District. We have a PowerPoint
for this, please. And Jeff, take it away. All right. Good afternoon, commissioners.
Item 17A is the hearing for an appeal of the Executive Director's determination to reject
to Coastal Development Permit Amendment application for the annual Big Bang on the Bay event,
a one-day event that includes a ticketed block party and aerial display.
The applicant is Naples Restaurant Group, LLC.
Next slide, please.
The subject temporary event has a complex permit history, which is relevant to the appeal
at hand.
Big Bang on the Bay has been held as an annual private event since 2011.
As shown on this slide, the block party portion of the event is primarily located within Alameda
bay landing in southeast Long Beach, and the fireworks display has previously launched
from a barge in open coastal waters of Alameda Bay.
Until 2023, a CDP was not required for this event pursuant to the commission's guidelines
for the exclusion of temporary events.
The commission determined in 2023 that due to potential impacts to water quality in marine
mammals, birds, and other species of concern as well as potential impacts to public coastal
access and recreation that a CDP is required for the event, and subsequently approved CDPs
for the event in 2023 and 2024.
The 2024 event was held on September 1, rather than July 3, due to the lateness of the CDP
application submittal and its incomplete status, primarily due to the application's failure
to include an analysis of alternatives to fireworks given the environmental impacts
associated with fireworks at this location.
In the August 2024 Commission hearing, several commissioners provided direction to the applicant
and staff that they would be unlikely to support future fireworks shows for the private Big
Bang on the Bay event due to growing concerns regarding potential adverse impacts the fireworks
pose may have on coastal resources in the event passivity, and requested the applicant
consider the use of a drone show for future events.
The applicant submitted a CDP application in December 2024, including a request for
for five years of the annual firework show
and associated block party.
Commissioned staff met with the applicant in February 2025
to discuss the proposed event
and recommended the applicant consider revising
their proposal to re-eliminate the firework component
of the event and seriously evaluate a drone show alternative.
However, the applicant did not choose
to revise their application.
On May 9th, 2025, the commission approved
CDP number five dash two five dash zero zero zero two
pursuant to the staff recommendation
through an amending motion which allowed the applicant to hold a final fireworks
display for the 2025 Big Bang on the Bay event but required elimination of the
fireworks display for the 2026 through 2029 events. Commission staff sent the
applicant a letter on January 12th to remind them that a fireworks display is
not permissible for the 2026 through 2029 events. The applicant submitted the
subject amendment application the following day which requests a firework
display for the 2026 Big Bang on the Bay event.
Next slide please.
In the Commission's approval of CDP number 5250002,
the Commission found that a drone show has been identified
as the least environmentally damaging alternative
to a fireworks display.
Therefore, the Commission imposed special condition one,
which allowed the Permity to hold a final fireworks display
for the 2025 Big Bang on the Bay event,
while specifically eliminating the use of fireworks
future events. This special condition allowed the applicant the option to use
a drone show for the remaining four events authorized by the permit. The
Commission found that the additional year preparation would allow the
permittee to work with Commission staff and the City of Long Beach to
effectively eliminate the fireworks show and transition to a drone show without
negatively impacting event attendance. Next slide please. In addition to special
condition 1, the Commission imposed special condition 14 requiring the
permittee to schedule and participate in a minimum of one quarterly meeting with
commissioned staff to facilitate the effective transition from a 2025
fireworks show to potential drone shows for the 2026 through 2029 Big Bang on
the Bay events. Therefore, the intent of Special Conditions 1 and 14 were to
effectuate the elimination of the fireworks display and to allow for the
transition to potential drone shows for the Big Bang on the Bay event beginning
in 2026 in order to avoid and minimize adverse impacts
on coastal resources.
Next slide please.
The subject amendment application was received
on January 13th, which requests a 20-minute fireworks display
located within Alamitos Bay and Long Beach
for the Big Bang and the Bay event
to be held on July 3rd, 2026.
However, such request is inconsistent
with Special Condition 1 of the Commission-approved CDP,
which requires elimination of the fireworks display
after the 2025 event.
Next slide, please.
Section 13166 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
requires that the executive director reject an amendment
application if the proposed amendment would lessen
or avoid the intended effect of an approved or conditionally
approved permit unless the applicant presents
newly discovered material information, which they could
not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced
before the permit was granted.
On January 27, the executive director rejected the subject
amendment request, finding that the development
is inconsistent with the commission approved conditions of CDP number 525002 and that it
is not possible to accept the amendment request because the proposed development would lessen
or avoid the intended effect of the permit.
The executive director found the request for a fireworks display for the 2026 Big Bang
on the Bay event to be in direct conflict with special conditions 1 and 14 and found
that no newly discovered information was submitted as part of the amendment application.
Next slide please.
On February 6, the Commission staff received a letter from the applicant's representative
requesting to appeal the executive director's determination that the proposed fireworks
display lessens and avoids the intent of the permit.
The letter includes four grounds for appeal.
First, the applicant's representative asserts the benefits and virtues of the event should
be considered undisputed.
The appeal letter discusses the benefits of the annual temporary event, including public
access and recreational opportunities and direct community benefit resulting from charitable
fundraising events.
The applicant's appeal does not make any arguments pertaining to how the amendment request is
consistent with the conditions of approval under the first ground for appeal, but rather
reiterates community benefits of the event, which were considered by the Commission at
the May 9, 2025 hearing.
The second ground for appeal asserts the applicant's record of avoiding and minimizing potential
impacts to marine resources and environmental concerns is exemplary.
The appeal discusses the event's compliance with permit requirements from various regulatory
agencies and asserts the event has been conducted without adverse impact on
coastal resources. This was also considered by the Commission in its May
20 foot 25 decision in which the Commission identified a drone show to be
least environmentally damaging alternative to a fireworks display
through analysis of the impacts of the proposed fireworks display poses on
coastal resources including water quality, nesting birds, and marine debris.
Similar to the first ground for appeal, the second ground for appeal does not
make any arguments regarding the proposal's consistency with the underlying conditions
of approval, nor does it provide any new information that was not already considered by the Commission
at the May 2025 hearing.
In the applicant's third ground for appeal, the applicant asserts the cost of a drone
show would make the event infeasible.
This also was already considered by the Commission at the May 2025 hearing.
In fact, the staff report for the underlying permit provides a drone show cost analysis,
which references the same cost estimate of $70,000 for 500 drones as provided in the
applicant's appeal letter.
Therefore, the cost of a drone show was previously considered by the Commission, and the applicant
has provided the same information that was analyzed last year.
Next slide, please.
Finally, the applicant's fourth ground for appeal asserts that the Long Beach Fire Department
has advised that it will not permit a drone show, in part due to the extensive safety
perimeter required.
The applicant's assertion that the Long Beach Fire Department has advised it will not permit
drone show is incorrect. Commission staff contacted city staff who confirmed that the applicant has
not applied for a drone show for the Big Bang on the Bay event for the city to review. The Long
Beach Police Department has raised concerns with their capacity to clear and secure the approved
drone staging areas identified on this slide during the July 4th holiday weekend. In addition,
the Fire Department has raised feasibility concerns with some of the drone staging locations
due to the need to maintain a fire lane and the proximity to the Alameda's Bay Yacht Club.
However, Special Condition 1AI clarifies that the applicant may request alternative drone staging
areas for the review and written approval of the Executive Director if the drone staging areas
identified on this slide are determined to be infeasible. To date, the Fire Department has not
provided any formal determination to suggest they will not permit a drone show for the event.
Next slide, please. Area closures were also analyzed in the Commission's May 2025 approval,
as shown on this slide.
In fact, the fire department also clarified
that either a fireworks display or a drone show
requires vessel traffic to be cleared
for safety perimeters prior to the shows,
noting that the safety perimeter for a drone show
is dependent on the drone show proposal.
A specific safety perimeter for a drone show
for this event is not currently available,
given the applicant has not provided project plans
that include important details, including,
but not limited to, the number of drones,
staging area, and show location.
In any case, these feasibility concerns were considered by the Commission at the May 2025
hearing, and Special Condition 1-AI was designed to provide flexibility in their drone show
design.
Additionally, the Commission provided further flexibility through Special Condition 2, which
allows the event to take place on any day between July 3 and September 30.
In closing, the Commission provided a clear directive in its May 9, 2025 approval requiring
the applicant to eliminate the use of a fireworks display beginning in 2026.
Thus, the Commission's action allowed the permittee to continue implementation of the
block party component of the event either without any area display or, if the permittee
shows, with implementation of a drone show alternative.
Acceptance of an amendment application to allow for the continued use of fireworks contrary
to the specific conditions of approval of the underlying CDP would be inconsistent with
Section 13166 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission uphold the Executive Director's determination
to reject the proposed amendment.
The motion and resolution can be found on page 5 of the staff report.
In addition, staff would note that an addendum was posted to the Commission's website for
this item, which addresses correspondence received after publication of the staff report.
The issues raised in correspondence are substantially addressed in the staff report for this item
as well as previous staff reports for this event.
This concludes a staff presentation and staff is available for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Palm.
Okay.
To my colleagues, are there any ex partes to report?
Seeing none, I'll turn it to Chris.
All right.
Thank you.
I have Carolyn Wilson listed as an appellant initially.
Is that the case?
That would be the applicant's representative.
Yes.
Okay.
And we'll have them first, Carolyn Wilson, and then we'll have council member Christina
Dougin followed by the rest of the speakers. Carolyn Wilson. John Morris, who's president
of Room With You. Can you speak first please? Yes, go ahead. Could you turn the mic on sir?
Mic on? All right, great. Well, I was started out this week having a great week. You know,
Monday was my birthday, 78 years old, and Monday night had my 12th grandchild about 11 p.m. The
The next morning, which was yesterday before my seven-hour drive up here to see you guys,
I got to see my 12th grandson, and then I found out he named him John after me.
How lucky am I?
So now I've got two grandchildren to have my birthday.
That's not bad, huh?
But that's just a lightness here till we get into the heavy stuff.
So I really want to make it clear here.
I am just the messenger here.
I'm the guy that put on this event 15 years ago, when the city asked me to put on an event
for the 10-year anniversary of 9-11.
They wanted to have a morning versus,
they'd never really had a celebration of life
for that moment.
So we organized a whole event that day,
it was absolutely amazing,
and we ended it with fireworks in Alameda's Bay.
And it was stunning, it was unbelievable.
And then the city came back to me and said,
hey, if you wanna do fireworks in the Bay again,
you can pick any day you want,
but you can't pick July 4th because resources won't help.
And I jumped into July 3rd
because nobody has to wake up on the 4th.
And it's worked out great, and then I tied it
to the Long Beach Firefighters Foundation.
And they raised money for the first couple years
for the firefighters.
Then we switched gears and made it
to the non-profits of Long Beach.
We have like 15 different non-profits
that benefit from this event,
from that little block party we show,
where other than that block party,
which is 1,500 people roughly,
130,000 people surround the Bay.
Seal Beach has maybe 35 to 50,000
on their beach watching the show.
And we've raised over close to $2 million
over these 15 years that go to kids programs
in the needy part of Long Beach.
It's a big event for them.
About three and a half years ago,
I got sued by the SERF, C-E-R-F, to me, blackmail.
They sued me because I didn't have a federal permit
to do fireworks.
Nobody had a federal permit in the Southern California
there was no way to get one. Since the trial you can now get a federal permit to do fireworks which
we have and we've had it for three years now, two years. We spent somewhat two and a half years in
federal court. I win my case in federal court, Serf then appealed it to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals. I win that case two to one. They then appeal that again and I win the next round
3-0, because we proved we do not pollute the water, we do not affect wildlife.
We've done testing for 10 years of the water and never once has Coastal Commission staff
questioned those reports. Never once have they questioned the reports of the birds.
We have never had one issue. We're all about the environment. My restaurant sits right on
on the water, right around where the fireworks is.
The last thing I wanna do is tick off half the neighborhood
if they hate the fireworks.
The community of Long Beach loves the fireworks.
You've received, I know that you've received
from Congressman Robert Garcia.
You've received from state Senator Lena Gonzalez.
You've seen it, you've got a letter
from Assemblyman Josh Lontal.
You got a letter from Mayor Rex Richardson.
You got a letter from Ms. Dugan, the councilwoman,
and you also got one from Roberta Uranga,
your commissioner from last year,
who thanked God for him last year.
He actually saved my day,
because it was a no vote all the way around.
And when it got to him, he goes,
he went and talked about the boys club.
And it's a major thing for the boys and girls club.
So I, and then I listened to you today.
You just approved SeaWorld with a great drone show.
I heard the music, I was sitting in the other room.
I didn't see the drone show.
But I see they're going to do 40 firework shows.
And they're OK with that.
And Surf even calls in and blesses it.
Sues me for 20 minutes, which is OK with 40 shows in San Diego.
I don't get it.
Then you also approved, about six months ago, Capitolo Beach.
They wrote in a nice little letter
saying how the cost of doing drones in Capitolo Beach
won't work.
It's not viable.
It'll take too much.
so you give them a two year contract to do fireworks.
San Diego last year, you give them two year contract.
I asked to extend mine last year
because this year is the country's 250th birthday.
Wanna do the fireworks for the country's 250th birthday.
Here we are, no pollution, no effect on birds,
raises a lot of money for the community,
the whole community's behind it,
and do you think for one minute,
the politicians that I listed would have wrote that letter
if they thought for one minute that we were polluting the water or affecting
bird life, not in a million years.
They're totally environmental people, just as we are.
But I'm here today just to ask and tell that I think that this is a
phenomenal show and I understand your preferences drones, but what staff
didn't tell you, we did meet with the staff.
I met with three different drone companies.
no, I didn't put an application in because during the meetings where we're going to take
off and land from. So the first guy I met says 250 drones. What does that do for me?
Who gets to see that? Because we're in a circle, as you saw in the pictures. Circular. So who
gets to see 250 drones? And you look right at me and you say, hey, your customers at
the boathouse, they love it. I said, yeah, what about the guys behind it that are paying
for it while they won't see it.
I said, okay, can they do more?
I can't do more.
Go to the next company.
What do you think?
I got this bay.
Where do we go?
He said, well, number one, where are we going
to take off and land from?
Staff here give us three locations.
They don't work.
You can't use those, not viable.
The cost went up tremendously.
So then I go to the guy and I said, you know,
these fireworks, it's champagne taste.
It's not a beer budget.
The community that surrounds the Bay pays for it.
I want a drone show.
We're going to do this.
I want a drone show that everybody in the circle
can see it.
Thousand drones.
So all of a sudden from a $40,000 fireworks show,
we're up to close to $200,000.
That's about what we raise a little over $200,000
doing the fireworks show.
So to me, it's just, and there was nowhere to land
and take off from.
Sir, I apologize for interrupting you.
We were remiss in not asking how much time you needed.
Can you please let us know how much it's hard for me to say because that took seven hours to get here
I spent three hundred thousand dollars in federal court fighting over this fireworks. I understand you all tired
I've been watching you your body language is tired. I'll take a couple more minutes. Perfect. Thank you
Now you've thrown me off
You know your personal preference. I know is the drones
But you can't penalize everybody else
fireworks are still legal
We're environmentally friendly. We use Garden State fireworks. They're known to bring have the best fireworks
environmentally free fireworks
SeaWorld
Capitola Beach, Dana Point, Laguna, Redondo all having fireworks this year
but not Alameda's Bay
We have worked so closely with everybody we get all the permits
The hardest people to work with of course is the Coastal Commission staff
They give me the runaround every year.
Three weeks ago, we submitted our envelopes,
pre-stamped envelopes, addressed,
and 10 days later, we got an email.
Hey, we just noticed that the muted stamps,
we don't accept muted stamps,
you have to bring over regular stamp.
I'm out of town, so I gotta call a guy
to run over there with 200 stamps.
It's kinda like, huh?
You don't accept muted stamps since when?
Then last week, last Thursday,
we got an email from the coastal staff again
Oh, you're not in compliance with your bird reports.
They've had that report for nine months.
Why are they waiting till last week?
Just to wind me up?
I think to me, do the right thing.
This is, I mean, we're doing everything
that you want of us, everything.
There's no environmental issues whatsoever.
If there was a drone show possibility, I would've done it.
Like you were the one to brought it up
in front of me last year.
I remember, you're looking at me.
And I'm just saying we did everything, but we did everything.
We did everything you wanted and we got the letters and I want to end it with this.
This was actually written 3rd of July, 1776.
John Adams, this will be the most memorable epic in the history of America.
It ought to be solemnized and pump and parade with shows, games, sports,
guns, bells, bomb fires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other,
from this time forward, forever more. I just thought I'd end it on that because I know you're
tired today. I'll leave it at that. Okay, before we move on, I'd like to turn to Commissioner
O'Malley. He has a statement to make. Yeah, thank you. And I'll just kind of ask council if there's
a, if based on some of the information that was brought, if I should recuse myself from the
decision. So I don't think you need to but in an abundance of caution given that
you are on the board of the entity that sue the applicant I would recommend
under government code section 81 sorry just sent it to you but I got an email or
email sorry it's good I got it. It's government code section 87 100. So under
days of 100. I will be recusing myself. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Chris.
All right. Carolyn Wilson. Thank you commissioners commission staff and of
course the city of Gonzalez for hosting today's hearing. I'm here obviously to
support both house. I would quickly note that the appeal did provide our
position that the requested amendment would be consistent with the existing
the existing permit. Specifically, we stated the crux of the appeals, the commission's
failure to adopt an amendment to further serve the attention of the existing permit, just
to enhance and preserve public access, community enjoyment, and allow boat house additional
time to transition into a drone show to the extent feasible. I also want to address the
statement the boat house's appeal is not based on information, as Mr. Morris previously or
just communicated in December of last year during our meeting with staff in the city
of Long Beach Fire Department advised in that meeting that the show would not be permitted
in Alameda of the Bay.
Staff's current alternative to the invisibility of a drone display is to not have the show
altogether.
Eliminating the big vein event altogether would be a disservice to the community.
I think it was Commissioner Lopez who mentioned earlier in the day that $50,000 would make
a huge impact for a nonprofit and we could not agree more.
I would also like to address a quick issue raised
with me just six days ago
and something that was referenced in the staff's addendum.
This relates to the avian monitoring reports.
I don't wanna make a big fuss over this,
but just to be sure and to clarify the record here,
staff first notified my office that they perceive an issue
in the avian monitoring report on April 9th, six days ago.
The following day, April 10th,
we received communication from the enforcement division
indicating that there may have been a violation of the CDP.
This game is a complete surprise
and we were essentially given five days
to respond and advance the hearing.
Despite that limited timeframe,
we worked with our environmental team over the weekend
and we provided a response last night.
We remain concerned by both the timing of this notice
and the impression it gives the commissioners and the public.
But that said, we want to be abundantly clear.
Lookouts and its environmental team
are being committed to transparency and collaboration.
And we just ask that our response we consider thank you. Thank you next councilmember Christina Dugan
Commissioners, can you hear me?
You started out a little bit choppy you might have not great not the greatest reception. We'll try to see if it works. Go ahead
Okay. My name is Christina Duggan and I represent District 3 in the city of Long Beach
I'm here to express my full support for the Big Bang on the Bay 2026 and respectfully
urge the Commission to approve the appeal.
Every year, it provides a rare opportunity for more than 125 people from across Southeast
Los Angeles to access the coastline.
For many of these families, this is one of the only times they experience the beach in
a meaningful way.
Beyond public access, this event is a critical fundraiser
for nonprofits supporting West Long Beach,
which is a community that continues
to face disproportionate environmental impacts
from an industrial shoreline.
As a Long Beach resident, I understand the need
to improve air quality and water quality of our coastline.
I respect and admire the Coastal Commission's commitment
environmental protection and we share that commitment locally. However, we have not yet
identified a viable path to transition to a drone show that would provide the same level of
coastal access or the same level of community benefit. Big Bang on the Bay currently follows
established best practices to minimize environmental impacts. Additionally, as Long Beach addresses the
rise in illegal fireworks. This event provides a controlled, professionally managed alternative
whereas unregulated fireworks remain far more widespread and have a much greater impact on
our neighborhoods. Eliminating this event would simultaneously reduce access to the coastline
and cut off funding for the very organizations working to address our local challenges.
I'm proud that Alamitos Bay in district 3 serves as a gathering place for the region to celebrate
this annual tradition. I respectfully ask the Coastal Commission to support Big Bang on the
Bay and approve this appeal. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you.
Next in we have thank you. Let me see
22 more speakers
We have two in the room in the restaurant zoom. We'll start with Mitch Silverstein and Anna Christiansen
Thank you Mitch Silverstein with SurFighter Foundation
SurFighter strongly supports the staff recommendation to uphold staff's original rejection of the proposed amendment
Last May the Commission granted the applicant one final fireworks show and required a transition to drone shows starting this year
Special condition one require revised drone shown plans by January 15th. Instead two days before the deadline
They requested another fireworks show the amendment request satisfies neither criteria for a CDP amendment
The first is that the amendment would directly lessen or avoid the attended effect of the original CDP
And the second is that the appeal presents
New information beyond what the Commission considered in the original hearing the amendment satisfies neither exception
So rejection is required staff address both of the main rationales offered for the amendment
the cost of drone shows and the inability to permit one with the fire department. The cost argument was already analyzed last May
so no new information. On the fire department issue staff could contact to the fire department directly and found that a drone show permit application
was never even submitted. The fire department had just raised concerns about the
pre-approved staging areas which special condition one had already anticipated by allowing alternatives.
This is not a merits re-argument. The Commission's May 2025 findings that drone shows are the least environmentally damaging alternative to fireworks
over open coastal waters don't disappear because the applicant finds the transition inconvenient.
Fireworks casings introduced toxic chemicals and plastics into Alameda's Bay, harming water quality,
marine mammals, and nesting birds in direct conflict with the Coastal Act.
Those findings drove the fireworks phase out and they remain valid today. Surfighter urges the
Commission uphold the executive director's determination. Granting this amendment would
reverse the intent of the original CDP in direct contradiction to the regulation's governing
Remembering amendment requests further mode furthermore to allow previously agreed upon conditions to be reversed whenever an applicant finds the trick finds them
Inconvenient would undermine Commission integrity, please reject the request. Thank you
Thank you, Anna Christiansen and then our first three zoom speakers Shane Hardy Brenna Dernan and Nancy Okada
Anna Christiansen
We can rearrange that yeah and can trail Nancy Okada and then Anna Christiansen. They have a joint presentation
Thank you. Sorry about that. I think we did have that noted but we were we
arranged it last second. So Ann Cantrell go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon
commissioners Ann Cantrell Sierra Club. Fireworks pollution is not patriotic nor
charitable nor fun. Toxic chemicals and debris pollute the air and water during
a fireworks show. There are other ways to celebrate and raise money for charity.
You can do good without harm.
Next slide.
John Morris described the 2024 fireworks barge
with $50,000 worth of ammo by saying, quote,
you would think we're getting ready for World War III,
but it's just big bang on the bay.
Fireworks are like a war zone for pets, vets, and wildlife.
With the addition of old cost for permits and water debris cleanup for a fireworks show,
a $70,000 drone show would be comparable.
Next, the applicant's assertion that the Big Bang was conducted without adverse impact
to coastal resources is false.
These dead, I'm sorry, there, thanks.
These dead chicks on Fuel Dock Road are some of the collateral damage of Big Bang Fireworks
in 2025. In 2024, a juvenile Great Blue Perron fell from its nest into the Bay.
Vote owners report finding dead birds in the marina every year after the Big Bay.
The applicant claims their record of avoiding impacts to marine resources is exemplary.
However, hired biologists submitted no bird report for the night of the event nor immediately
after.
And Nancy Okada will continue.
If you'll put on the next slide, please.
Thank you, Nancy Okada.
OK, you can hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
OK.
Chicks hatching on Kildark Road and other nesting
sites on Alameda's Bay risk falling from their nest.
They risk being abandoned, being traumatized,
and malnourished because of the constant noise and lights
from 20 minutes of fireworks.
Next slide, please.
Coastal access is degraded, not enhanced.
People say they love fireworks shows, but, you know,
like Moss to a Flame, they put themselves and others at risk.
In fact, firework blasts can cause permanent hearing loss.
A single fireworks show can spike air quality levels
by 42% causing respiratory illness,
worsening asthma, and COPD, and leading to cancer,
heart disease, birth complications, and PTSD.
Next slide, please.
The applicant's statement that a drone show
is not possible is false.
SeaWorld's show has a thousand drones
over a smaller area of water.
And the Big Bang drone show proposed
by the Coastal Commission staff in 2025
would not fly over homes or significantly limit access
to the beach or to Alameda's Bay.
And now Anna Christensen will conclude
and you can put on the next slide, thank you.
Thank you.
Need to press it one more time.
Sorry.
Charity or charity washing.
Previous big bang expenses have totaled more than 2 thirds
of all funds raised.
The accepted standard is the opposite.
Successful fundraisers can even generate $10 for every one
or two inexpensive.
If we truly care for others, we will not
use them as an excuse to harm the air they breathe,
the water they're recreating, and the land that sustains them.
You know, the Boys and Girls Club has over a million-dollar budget.
This fireworks show was not essential then, and it isn't now.
I just want to add that, some of these rebuttals here.
Next, requesting a fireworks display in 2026 expressly violates the current five-year CDP.
On 6-18-25, the applicant, Mr. Morris, signature, was on this contract right here.
You can see a signature there.
He promised to abide by all terms and conditions thereof.
So this was fine for him, and now it's not.
As staff comments, the permittee now
wishes to have the benefits of the accepted permit
and avoid the obligations imposed.
Last slide.
The community, we're counting on the commissioners
to follow the law and not the lobbyists.
Requesting another fireworks show is a blatant attempt
to negate the express intentions of the CDP
and prohibit fireworks after 2025.
Respect the executive director
and respect your own protocols and vote no.
Thank you very much.
All right, thank you.
Now back to our Zoom participants.
We have Shane Hardy, Brenda Durnan,
and then Kristin Northrop.
Shane Hardy, go ahead.
Shane, you're on mute still.
Thank you, good afternoon commissioners.
Speaking on behalf and in support of the Big Bang on the Bay,
my name is Shane Hardy.
fellow community leader and executive director
of Eminent Giving Initiative,
a nonprofit based here in the city of Long Beach.
And that serves as a fundraising conduit
for organizations that directly benefit
from the Big Bang on the Bay event.
Our mission is to strengthen our community
by partnering with local organizations and causes
that enrich the lives of children and families
through community events and engagement.
Regarding Big Bang on the Bay,
I've had the honor of supporting the events planning
and logistics, ensuring permit compliance,
and most importantly, helping direct the funding
that generates, that's directed to local charities
that serve our Long Beach community.
These organizations include New Life Beginnings
Women and Children Shelter, which provides housing
for women and children escaping domestic abuse,
the YMCA of Lost Out till Meetles in Long Beach,
where a single mother just recently just received
a full year of after-school care for her kids.
And then also the Autism Partnership Foundation,
which directly benefits from this event
as it advances resources and treatment
for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
These are just a few highlights of over the 15 charities
that benefit from our effort.
Lastly, over 2,500 petition signatures
were submitted by the Long Beach community,
those that fund this event.
And also the numerous of letters of support
submitted by leaders such as Lena Gonzalez,
Senator Lena Gonzalez, Congressman Robert Garcia,
Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal, and Mayor Rick Sureson
which underscores the meaningful impact of this event
and by reinforcing the commitment to strong oversight,
thorough reporting, and well-organized public safe access.
So I thank you for the time and consideration
and so in seeds back into our Long Beach community.
Thank you.
Next Brenda Durnan, Kristin Northrop, and then
Alan Arslanian.
Brenda Durnan.
Hi, yes.
My name's Brenda Durnan.
I don't have a fancy slide like some of the other people
that are against this because I'm just a community
member at heart.
Very blessed to be a homeowner in Long Beach
that every morning I wake up
and I have a bird's eye view of the Alameda Bay.
I just wanna correct your staff member's initial statement
saying that this is a private event,
simply because John Morris does it on behalf of us.
This is a community event and it's a community event
that everybody in Long Beach and surrounding areas wants.
I wake up on the 3rd of July for the past few years,
minus the one just happy to see all of my neighbors
around me preparing their homes
for this joyous community events.
And it's not just about the fireworks.
It's about bringing our entire community together
for the entire day.
I see people from all over our community
and just there to enjoy this special day
that on behalf of John, submitting this,
like fireworks display for us.
So we are all so fortunate to have had this
and I truly urge the commission to allow our community
to have this event and afford us the same privilege
that you have given to other surrounding areas.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kristen Northrop, Alan Arslanian, Stewart Ledzim.
Kristen Northrop.
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
My name is Kristen Northrop.
I am Policy Advocate for Coastal Environmental Rights
Foundation.
SIRS supports staff's recommendation
to uphold the executive director's decision.
And frankly, this one seems pretty straightforward.
The applicant is asking you to ignore conditions
that they already agreed to.
The commission made a clear deliberate decision in 2025.
Fireworks were allowed one final time,
and then they were to be eliminated starting in 2026.
That was the deal.
Now, instead of following through,
the applicant is back asking for a redo
because they do not like the outcome.
That's not how this process is supposed to work.
What is especially frustrating
is that none of the arguments being made now are new.
Cost concerns, already discussed.
Feasibility, already analyzed.
Permitting issues, they haven't even applied for a drone show permit.
This isn't about impossibility, it's about unwillingness.
Meanwhile, the Commission didn't leave the applicant without options.
You explicitly asked aloud for drone shows as a less harmful alternative,
and you gave them time to prepare for that transition.
This wasn't a surprise requirement.
It was a central condition of approval.
And let's be honest, the rest of the world is already moving towards this direction.
As we just saw, other operators like SeaWorld are starting to transition to drone-based shows
because they're quieter, cleaner, and far less disruptive to wildlife.
The technology exists.
Others are using it, including the event we just heard that includes the drone show.
The only question here is why the applicant thinks they should be exempt from the same shift.
This isn't about whether an event is popular or raises money.
Those points were already considered. This is about whether the Commission stands by its
decisions and protects coastal resources as intended. The applicant had a path forward,
they chose not to take it, and no fireworks show is environmentally friendly. I urge you to uphold
the executive director's determination. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Allen Arslanian. Stuart Lettsom
and then Barry Vince. Allen Arslanian. Good afternoon, Commissioners and staff. Thank you
for your time. I'll keep it short. My name is Eleanor Solanyan, a homeowner in Long Beach,
90802, and a Surfrider Long Beach Executive Committee member, volunteering with our beach
and river cleanups, and our ocean-friendly gardens program. Speaking today to support
the Commission's staff recommendation, deny the application's permit, amendment, or request
for the fireworks display over Alameda's Bay. Fireworks over any body of water pollutes the
waterway and the sensitive plants and wildlife in and around the area. Specifically, the already
low amounts of eelgrass we have in Alameda's Bay as a habitat for the green sea turtles that are
seen around the bay all year. Our coastal waters must be protected for both animals and humans,
and as someone who swims and kayaks in the bay and has picked up trash after this event,
I've experienced the effects of the air and water quality firsthand, with thick smoke that lingers
along the waterline and particulates that settle on and into the water and onto surrounding
streets and neighboring homes. As a proud American myself, I am all for celebrating
the 250th anniversary of our country and what better way to do so in ushering in a new tradition
of drone fireworks that are both safer for animals and for humans. I ask you please to uphold the
the executive director's rejection
of the applicant's permit amendment request.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Stuart Ledseem, Barry Vince, and Susan Kirks.
Stuart Ledseem.
Stuart, you're in as a panelist.
You should be able to unmute and turn your camera on.
There you go.
I see that you're unmuted.
Okay, am I good to go?
Oh yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, my name is Stuart Ledseem.
I'm a retired environmental contractor
well as the founder of the Belmontshire Rugby Club and pretty active in the Long Beach community.
The Big Bang on the Bay fireworks has brought many communities together to celebrate wonderful
charities, two of which I'm passionate about. That's my Rugby Club, the Los Altos YMCA and the
Boys and Girls Club. The funds these charities receive from the Big Bang on the Bay has given
many youths in the Long Beach area opportunities they would not have had.
It's, for us, the Belmontshire Rugby Club, I say to the young people in Long Beach, join
our gang, not the other gangs.
These funds are critical to help our youth develop and gain added levels of education,
which also result in scholarships and to various colleges.
Thank you very much for the time.
I appreciate very much.
Thank you.
Next, Barry Vince, Susan Kirks, and Cora Lee.
Barry Vince.
Am I on okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, cool.
Yeah, my name's Barry Vince
and I'm a member of the Long Beach community.
And I think it's important to understand
that John is basically just a voice of all of us, right?
There's thousands and thousands of people
who want this event to take place for various reasons.
For my opportunities, and we don't operate
on millions of dollars worth of budget,
like some of the big charities that were previously mentioned.
And we raised $21,000 last year.
For impact for us, just for an example,
$21,000 provides 21 jobs.
Those are people from the inner community,
people who cannot find jobs.
We work with justice-impacted people.
We place them on jobs.
And we place 21 people
because of the impact of this event directly.
So it is significant.
And I think sometimes some of the people
that are talking are more worried about birds
and the environmental issues in our actual people.
Let's help our people a little bit here.
I see that numerous fireworks shows were approved
in San Diego by the same committee for SeaWorld.
I don't see why this is even a problem
or why John's up there today.
But I would certainly appreciate your consideration
in supporting John's appeal and I'm in full support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Susan Kirks, Corliss Lee, and then Jesse Howard.
Susan Kirks.
Thank you.
Good evening again, Norman.
Good evening.
Good afternoon, Norman.
Commissioners and staff, I'll make my comment.
I appreciate the organization members
who have for years given you evidence of the impacts
of the fireworks at Long Beach.
The event can be big fun on the road.
Why does it have to be big fun on the road?
I was present last week in your meeting topic
was to the commission to vote
with the staff. And frankly, I'm sorry, Susan, but you're cutting in and out. We're barely
able to hear you. We're going to move to the next speaker and then maybe try you again.
Corliss Lee, go ahead. Okay, hi, this is Corliss Lee. I'm with the East Side Voice in Long
and I support not increasing the fireworks shows. I have two things I'd
like to speak about. One of them is that you've been hiring a biologist for this
event for the last three years. I've seen the same biologist because I'm down
there doing the bird cows and this biologist operates with an adversarial
posture and is paid for by the boathouse, and so is advocating for the boathouse. If you aren't
seeing reports that show that there's damage to birds, perhaps who's paying for that service
should be changed. Secondly, I'd like to talk about cost. I was in charge of training for
buyers and subcontract managers at Boeing, all 42 sites when I was working. And I can tell you that
Everything is negotiable. Where there's a will, there's a way. It is probably possible to lower
cost by subcontracting from earlier drone shows and get their programming. So I'm not sure that
the costs that are coming up here have really been looked at or actively negotiated. The third
thing I'd like to bring up is we did this once already. We were here, we brought all of our
our materials and speakers, and we got a vote on this.
And they voted to move on from fireworks.
I think it's important to respect your colleagues.
I think we already had the answer on this,
and please respect the outcome of that vote.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Let's briefly try Susan Kirk's one more time,
if you can unmute and see if your audio is any better.
Thank you.
Is that better?
Keep going.
I'm getting some feedback.
We're still having some issues.
I can just say, I'm sorry.
But you're still cutting in and out.
We're going to keep moving on.
We can try you again maybe at the end, if you can rejoin.
But we're going to move on to Jesse Howard, James Eats,
and then George Two Horses.
So Jesse Howard, you should be able to unmute now.
Hi, my name is Jesse Howard, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
All right, super.
You know, I'm Jesse Howard,
I live here in the shore, the part of the community.
There's kind of like three basic communities.
There's kind of like the peninsula, Naples, the shore,
and this event kind of connects everybody
within those neighborhoods
and not just within the neighborhoods,
but also the entire city
and people even outside of the city.
This year marks a 250th anniversary of the United States.
So it's kind of a big deal for us to celebrate this
here on Los Alamitos Bay.
Los Alamitos Bay and what John and the Boathouse have,
it's a natural amphitheater.
Water reflects the fireworks, amplifies the visual impact.
We've kind of talked about drones, drones, drones.
However, drones are not necessarily
environmentally friendly either.
If you think about, if we've got one drone going down
in the water, we've got lithium ion batteries,
plastics, and something that's probably a lot worse
than firework debris, if there is even firework debris
left in the water.
The Big Bang on the Bay is not just an event,
it's a Long Beach tradition rooted in the community.
It reinforces local identity as a coastal,
family oriented and civic minded city,
creates shared memories across generations.
Kids today become future community stakeholders.
Economic and local business has also benefited with this.
Public safety and structured celebration.
There's a big problem in Long Beach and LA and San Diego
regarding illegal fireworks that we're not talking about.
This is a professionally produced fireworks show.
And that's something we didn't talk about as well
is the illegal fireworks and the debris that are there.
This limits that, because we have fireworks to celebrate.
We also, you know, there's a,
when it's done professionally,
we've reduced the risk for fire
in a dense coastal neighborhood,
provides a safe controlled environment
for large scale celebration,
aligns with the city and community goals for organizations,
you know, parents out there that are bitching
about the birds and the fireworks.
But I think if you take the vote,
the number of people that support this
outnumbered by, you know, 150,000 to 5 people. The civic patriotism, you know,
we're, thank you, forces the freedom, community, national pride. Yeah, thank you.
Next will be James Eats, George Two Horses, and then Gordana Cajer. James Eats.
James, you're in as a panelist, you should be able to unmute. There you go.
There we go. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Harmon and members of the Commission.
My name is James Eats, president of the Belmont Chua Rugby Club.
We are about 500 members of which 400 members are youth boys and girls ages 6 to 18, many from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds. The Big Bang is our club's single largest
fundraising event for the year. Any loss or decline in funding is significant. As an example,
to bring us into the future.
Daily financial of our daily
financial challenges this
season. We are not playing many
youth home games because we
don't have funds for the
fields. Switching gears to the
staffing report. The Big Bang
characterization of 15 local
charities with $1 million
raised since 2011 does not in
any way recognize the
charitable benefits of the
event. So I'd like to present
2026, we hosted our first ever College Pathways
regional tournament where 40 colleges and universities,
including Ivy League representatives attended
to observe our youth players.
As a result, Belmont's youth received $1.5 million
in college scholarship post tournament.
Let me repeat that, $1.5 million in scholarships.
Belmont delivered for our youth over $50 in benefits
for every dollar donation.
I believe all 15 Big Bang charities
have similar success stories,
meaning the charitable potential of this event
is $50 million in benefits
and should be carefully considered.
Not simply mentioned as $1 million raised in the report.
Lastly, Belmont Shore, like the commission,
wants to protect Alaminos Bay.
It's important to understand that Big Bang
unique event with all proceeds going to charity. We don't discharge hunt it the
event does not discharge hundreds or tens of fireworks shows annually. It
discharges one. It has a unique size and met all environmental stewardship
requirements. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next, George two
horses, Gordana Cager and Laura Adams. We have about seven more speakers. George
Just two horses.
George, you're in as a panelist.
You should be able to unmute.
Let's see anything.
Gordana Cajer, please go ahead.
Chair Harmon and commissioners,
my name is Gordana Cajer.
I'm a resident of Long Beach
and a member of the California Environmental Rights
Foundation.
I urge you to uphold your ED's decision
and reject this appeal.
I've watched the Coastal Commission for years
and was completely unaware of this complex appeal process
that allows a permittee the ability to appeal
a Coastal Commission permit to bring new information
or facts to a prior decision made by the commission.
I'm grateful that permittees can rightfully
and legitimately use this appeal process.
However, as you can gather from your staff report,
this is not the case before you today.
Instead this permittee appellant and his history
with coastal development permits is summed up
in the final sentence of your staff report.
Quote, the permittee wishes to have the benefits
of the accepted permit
and avoid the obligations imposed, close quote.
And as surf notes in their letter,
this applicant has a long pattern in practice
of ignoring environmental laws and conditions placed
them from earlier event permits. Please reject this permittee's spurious attempt to ignore their
obligation to end fireworks over Alameda's Bay. Please uphold your ED's decision to deny this appeal
and in doing so the residents of Long Beach and California will be assured that our coastal zone
and sensitive marine areas, marine and bird life will be protected from fireworks. Thank you.
Thank you. Next, George two horses. I saw that you're unmuted for a second there.
There you go. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
All right. Yeah, I'm a Long Beach resident, 40 years lifelong resident. I respectfully request
that you uphold your previous decision and deny the applicant the fireworks show. I would like
to add that in the applicant's appeal they cited Pi environmental. That's who they hire to do the
their avian monitoring. That report is state's falsehoods. It lies. Okay. How do I know? I was
was there. I was there in 2024. I bought a very expensive camera to monitor the situation.
I collected video graphic evidence of birds flushing. They state the birds didn't flush.
That's not true. That evidence was submitted to this commission. And I hope it was a part
of their decision to deny the permit this time around. So going forward, I would, you
know, if you're on staff, be aware of pie environmental, they're very clearly willing
to lie for the people that pay them. And maybe adjust your rulings on how just that whole
system of how they hire their own people supposedly monitoring their events. Other than that,
Yes, the charity washing, that's real.
They, over 70% of their budget goes to the party.
Okay, not to the charities.
But ways of including the club had a $6 million budget.
Okay, over $6 million budget.
They donated $5,000 to them.
Okay, and finally, low and tall.
You got letters from Lowenthal, Gonzalez,
all these city leaders.
How did that happen?
How does this guy get all these letters?
Well, here's the secret, man.
He's business partners with Josh Lowman Thal.
You might wanna look into that.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Laura Adams, William Sangmeister,
Brent Marty and Laura Adams.
Hello, am I being heard?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
I'm here as a local resident
and I'm shocked at what I'm hearing.
The lobbying against this fireworks show
and directly toward the applicant is absolutely disgusting.
I live and am in this community
and I'm very proud to see what is done year after year.
And the fact that previous commenters
are talking just about the Boys and Girls Club
is absolutely crazy.
It's not just the Boys and Girls Club.
It's bigger than that.
My family has directly been benefited
from the autism partnership at a time of crisis
with my family.
And if that entity did not exist,
which this event directly supports,
autism would be extremely impacted by that.
They changed the outcome
of a terrible situation in our lives.
More importantly, this is our country's 250 year anniversary.
It absolutely deserves a meaningful
and shared celebration.
Big Bang is a tradition in our community.
And like others have said, it brings the outside in.
And we absolutely enjoy the day,
not the 78 shows of celebration.
And also more importantly,
the amount of money that is raised,
like I said previously, to outside organizations.
Yes, the Boys and Girls Club have a huge budget,
but these smaller nonprofits and other organizations do not.
And so it takes the community
to raise those funds to keep them alive.
From a public safety standpoint,
it is a professional show.
It is a controlled environment.
We do have a problem in Long Beach
with illegal fireworks and outside communities.
Long Beach is huge.
People come to the shore to enjoy the beach,
and then that is where those illegal fireworks
will be set off.
So if we had something to entertain those people,
this is a nice way to divert that.
Other alternatives like drone shows
maybe seem like a good idea.
Thank you.
We need to keep moving on.
William Sangmeister, Brent Mardian, Elina Tucci.
William Sangmeister.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
All right, my name is William Sangmeister
and I'm a resident of Naples Island.
I asked the same question two years ago
this show was postponed, but I guess I'm gonna have to ask it again. Does the Coastal Commission
dislike charity? Why does the Coastal Commission apply a double standard to fireworks shows,
allowing the Downtown Long Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and San Diego for the
July shows to go on this year, but not the much smaller Big Bang on the Bay, which, unlike the
others, has a primary goal of raising money for charity? Is it that you have a personal vendetta
against Mr. Morris for wanting to raise money for charity? Besides the charity aspect, what
difference actually disqualifies Big Bang on the Bay from going on this year. The Newport Beach
Show is in particular is held in Back Bay which is a nature preserve and evidence has shown that
Big Bang on the Bay has not affected the nesting patterns of birds in Alameda's Bay. Why wasn't
Mr. why isn't Mr. Moore has been given the same leeway as San Diego which is starting with drone
shows next year? Why has SeaWorld been given a pilot program that allows for both drones and
fireworks all summer long while Big Bang on the Bay, which is one night a year, was given a hard
deadline of 2026. And when it comes to drone shows, besides the fact that the idea has been shot down
by local enforcement as well as not being financially feasible, how certain are you that
a drone show will not be more harmful to the birds? How certain are you that the birds won't
try to attack the drones and to seriously injure themselves? I have seen that very thing happen
with privately owned drones in Alameda's Bay numerous times. To close, the Coastal Commission's
behavior in this matter perfectly exemplifies why people dislike the government. While a private
citizen can make a large investment into a project in an attempt to better their community,
it will likely just be shot down by an envious board on a power trip. Thank you.
Thank you. Our last three speakers, and then we'll try Susan Kirk's one more time,
I'm Brent Mardian, Elena Tucci, David Black.
Brent Mardian.
Yeah, how you doing?
Can you guys hear me okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, perfect.
So first of all, let me just push back a little bit.
I'm a consultant for John.
I own Pi Environmental.
So to Mr. George Two Feathers or whatever his name was,
just so you know, the way contracting works
is that the clients contract you
to do their monitoring for them.
That's true for the Army Corps.
That's true for the EPA.
that's true for the Coastal Commission.
So the idea that we're biasing our data
based on who our client is, is just unethical
and it's inappropriate to make that assertion.
So let me just tell you something here.
I agree with the Coastal Commission and the staff
and their sort of understanding
that there is the potential for some issues
around these shows, water quality, bird issues
and things like that.
Where I think I have the big disagreement
is that we've got a decade worth of data
where certified laboratories are saying
that there's nothing in the water attributable
to fireworks, that there's no exceedances of aquatic health
indicators of numeric objectives established under the
California toxic rule. So there's none of that. So anybody
that's making any claims that there's water quality impacts is
wrong. They're just factually wrong. We have for this show,
anyways, we have 10 years worth of data there. The real issue
and I'm gonna get to this is conflation, right? It's really
conflation. And it's not about consistency with the Coastal
It's not about environmental issues.
What it really is is that some people don't like fireworks
and they're basically conflating this show,
which happens at a rate of 0.0038% of the year or 20 minutes.
And they're conflating that with the fireworks show
that goes on 150 nights down in San Diego.
That's literally right next to endangered species.
ESA species of a least turned rookery.
I can't even believe the Coastal Commission
permitted that in the first place.
much less continues to permit it,
where this show there's no ESA species,
there's 10 years worth of water quality data,
five years worth of bird data at the minimum,
and tons of trash.
So I'm sorry that you're put in a bad position
by having to make a decision between the coast
with between your staff's recommendation
and the underprivileged kids in Long Beach.
But I can tell you,
and if you just let me finish this real quick,
I can tell you right now as the consultant
that's been involved in this
and also does a bunch of these kinds of shows
around the region, that this show is operating
under the most strict environmental regulations
of any fireworks show in Southern California.
And I've said this and I'll leave this at the end.
This is the most environmentally monitored
20 minutes in Southern.
Thank you.
And next, Alina Tucci and David Black.
Alina Tucci.
I am requesting a no vote on this agenda item.
I support the executive director's and staff's rejection
of the CDP amendment application and concur
that the applicants frown for appeal or without merit.
As a fourth generation Long Beach resident,
I find this event increasingly problematic
due to the noise inclusion it generates.
The disruption to negatively impacts the piece
of residential communities,
particularly those of infants, toddlers, combat veterans,
individuals with sensory and respiratory sensitivities
and beloved pets, as well as migratory
and native area wildlife.
I recently attended the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival where I experienced a relatively
modest choreographed drone display.
Experiencing it, I felt more like a participant in the residence and supported the Big Bang
event, which show up for a drone show and continue to support charity.
A mid-range custom animation and music synchronized display ranges in cost from $30,000 to $75,000.
For example, a 2023 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 4th of July drones should be $5,000.
Drones could be launched from a barge similar to the one used to launch the fireworks.
I believe such modern alternatives are viable, entertaining, inclusive, and far more suitable
than traditional pyrotechnics.
It is our responsibility to steward and protect the environment and the ecology it supports,
notably that of wildlife, especially sea life and seabird populations.
You are not the California Charitable Commission, you are the Coastal Commission, and I urge
you to continue to prioritize the long-term health of the dwindling local rookery over
the interest of a well-connected group and those who are complicit in seeking to bypass
environmental science and obstinate to more suitable, sustainable alternatives.
I encourage you to protect the browning ground or the appellant will continue to drive that
population to the brink of collapse, or worse yet, the extinction of that nesting area.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my views.
Thank you. David Black.
Hi, my name is David Black. I'm a resident of Long Beach, and I'd like to thank the chair
and commissioners for their time today. I'm in full support of the Big Bang on the Bay.
First, I want to acknowledge the concerns raised by the Sierra Club, their affiliates, and the
Audubon Society. There has been ongoing complaints about pollution in an alamaze bay and potential
risks to birds. Most concerns deserve to be heard and taken seriously but it's
also important to look at what the actual record shows. This event has been
monitored for years and even with that level of scrutiny there's been no clear
evidence of lasting harm such as nest abandonment or pollution. Yet despite
that the conclusion has been made that the risk alone is enough to change
course and that's where I think we need to take a step back. The reality is
fireworks over water are common statewide long-standing traditions. They
happen in San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Francisco. In Northern
California, for instance, you have the same thing in Sausalito and Oakland.
Multiple shows often launched from barges over water in the same conditions
we have in Long Beach. If this type of event is acceptable statewide, we should
look towards a consistent statewide approach that treats each city equally.
otherwise decisions made may appear capricious. Every one of these communities
has the environment to worry about and protect. A clear statewide policy should
be used, not a case-by-case approach that leaves one city carrying a different
burden. Now is the time to ask whether this decision reflects a balanced
consideration of the entire community and the people who benefit from the
funds raised by the Big Bang of the Bay, or whether certain voices are being
and given more weight than others.
We can protect the environment and we do that in Long Beach.
We should also be fair and we should be consistent.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, and now one last try with Susan Kirks.
Can you please unmute?
We'll try it as an attendee and see how it works.
Thank you.
The commenters name was George two horses,
not quote towards two feathers or whatever it means,
end of quote, please support your staff recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think you're still breaking up a little,
but we got the gist of your message.
Everyone's accounted for.
I see some hands raised,
but we didn't receive their signups in a timely manner.
Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
Thank you, Chris.
Thank you to the public.
Okay, with that, we will close the public hearing
and I will return to staff, Mr. Palm.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do have a short list of comments I want to make.
I'll try to be as brief as possible
and I'll turn it over to Mr. Hudson
for any additional remarks.
First and foremost, you did hear the applicant
make a statement that staff have not questioned
the environmental reports from previous years.
We disagree with that statement.
In fact, our previous staff reports
for the last two years did just that.
We reviewed the monitoring reports.
We looked at the data and we came to separate conclusions.
We did find that there were impacts to birds,
marine debris, and water quality.
And that is actually partially why the commission
approved a five-year permit last year
that required the transition to Jones.
So I just wanted to make that first statement.
Additionally, you heard some comments from the applicant
as well as the representative regarding violations
with the bird monitoring from last year.
Just for some additional context,
we received notice from members of the public
approximately a week ago regarding some issues
with the 2025 bird monitoring report.
In part, what's relative to the violation
that's being reviewed, the potential violation I should say,
which is being reviewed, is that the bird monitoring
condition requires the permittee to monitor prior to,
during and immediately after the fireworks.
The monitoring report that we received
include data for the morning of the fireworks event.
And then the next data was from the morning thereafter.
and by data, I mean direct observations
recorded in the report.
And so I just wanna emphasize
that is not the subject of today's hearing.
That is not something that staff used to analyze,
which led to our recommendation before you today.
However, we are looking into that separately.
But again, that is not a subject of today's hearing.
In addition, you've heard some additional comments
about the fire department regarding the feasibility.
I did mention this in my presentation.
I wanna just kinda reemphasize.
The fire department has raised feasibility concerns
with some of those drone staging locations
that were approved through the 2025 permit.
Again, the special condition allows the permittee
to find alternative drone staging locations within the bay
or really anywhere else that may be feasible.
And so what's made this exceptionally challenging
is again, we have not received an application
for a drone staging plan.
It's very, very difficult to analyze
Both commission staff as well as fire department staff
is something that can be permissible
without a drone staging plan.
Again, it includes important details
that would allow the fire department to determine
what a safety perimeter would actually be.
I'd also just note that this is something
that we looked into last year.
There were similar feasibility concerns raised
by the applicant last year.
Staff looked into this.
We spoke with several drone operators
and staff were informed that it would be possible
to have a drone show within this location.
The next comment I just wanted to make briefly
is an overarching comment.
You heard a lot of remarks about positive support
for this event, and staff share that support.
In fact, the Permitee has a permit through 2029,
and so what is before you today
is not to cancel this event.
The event is permitted through 2029,
and that includes many other elements
beyond just what we're talking about
with the fireworks and the drone show.
There's a full schedule of events
that include aerial flyovers, a block party, et cetera.
All of that is still approved under the existing permit,
and they don't have to come back to the commission
for that through 2029.
And so there is actually a lot of support for this event.
The caveat is that in 2025,
the commission approved this event in such a way
that imposes the least environmentally damaging alternative
on the applicant in that they have to switch to drones
beginning this year.
And so the goal is to allow the event to continue
in a way that is most protective of coastal resources.
And now finally, I wanna attempt to reorient
the conversation a little bit here today
because this hearing is not a matter of re-litigating
or re-analyzing the issues around fireworks and drones.
It's really narrowly a conversation of can the commission
accept this amendment request based on the conditions
that were imposed approximately a year ago
that specifically require the applicant to transition
from fireworks in 2025 to drones
or the option of drones, I should say, beginning this year.
And so, I just really wanna emphasize that,
although there's a lot of comments surrounding
these, you know, preference between fireworks and drones,
that is something that was considered last year,
and this hearing today is a decision
on whether or not this amendment can be accepted
based on the commission-approved conditions of the permit.
With that, I will close and turn over to Mr. Hudson
for additional comments.
All right, thank you, Jeff.
I'd like to provide just an overarching observation,
And first, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the many members of the public who
spoke on this matter today, both in support and opposition to the staff recommendation.
And we appreciate that sort of participation in the process.
I would remind the audience, as Jeff had just mentioned, that what we're here to talk about
today is not the benefits of the approved event nor even the benefits of fireworks versus
drones or vice versa.
The action before us today is limited to the appeal of an executive director determination
to reject an amendment application that staff believes would have lessened the intended
effect of a condition.
It does not provide an opportunity to rehear the merits of the original project.
Pursuant to the Commission's regulations, we are unable to accept an application for
an amendment to a previously approved coastal development permit that would lessen the intended
effect of a condition of approval.
In this case, the Commission approved the underlying CDP that allows for a five-year
approval of the annual Block Party fundraising event with a special condition allowing for
that firework display only during the first year, as you heard, and has specifically prohibited
the use of fireworks after that first year.
The condition specifically allowed only two options to meet that requirement.
First, implement the Block Party fundraiser without an aerial display.
And two, use an alternative aerial display if feasible, such as either a laser light
show or drone show.
And as staff explained, we believe a laser light show or a drone show would be feasible
and no evidence has been provided to the contrary.
Regardless, the question before us today is limited to whether the proposed amendment
would lessen the intended effect of that previous condition,
which staff believes is clearly the case here.
And thus your staff continues to recommend
that the commission uphold the executive director's
determination to reject the proposed amendment.
And with that, I'm just going to turn to Dr. Hucklebridge.
And with that, I'll close the staff comment, thank you.
Great, thank you very much.
Appreciate everyone's participation.
Okay, I will return to my colleagues comments.
Commissioner Wilson. I just so just a clarifying question
and it's
for staff and
for the executive director, so
Just one more can you just say this one more time like really clear because this is is so specific and I guess what I'm asking is
if we were to
If we were to accept this
this appeal then we would be making a determination of what will be that determination and would it open us up to litigation
Like you know rid of mandate litigation from from other parties. I guess what I'm getting at
So if the Commission I think what you're asking is the the action if you were to accept the amendment would be to reject
the executive director's determination not to accept the amendment that would
mean that we would accept the amendment and we would need to bring it back to
you for a hearing on the merits of the amendment. What would we think the
timing of that would be? Unclear. That's my only question for now. I'll let other
members. Vice Chair Hart. Thank you. I want to speak because I was there
obviously on the commission number of years at the original hearing and I just
want to reinforce what staff has said that we had a long discussion of the
impact of fireworks on this in aluminous Bay which is a central part of the
Pacific Flyway very important ecological area we had an extensive
extensive discussion about that and including the pros and cons of fireworks
versus drones. The Commission has heard and debated this issue and what's before
us today is whether or not we're going to support the executive director's
determination on this topic. I am I would be more than happy to reiterate all my
points that I may have made I don't recall specifically if I made them all
but I'm very familiar with the impacts of fireworks and I think that we saw
earlier today when we're talking about the SeaWorld drone show the benefits and
the support for drones and you know there are numerous reasons why that's
the case that I don't think I need to reiterate but they've been fully
discussed. So I would just turn to my fellow commissioners and say that this
has already been discussed this has already been voted on and it was
crystal clear to the applicant that that was the final year of fireworks, and one
of the things that we said at the time was you'll have a full year to develop
the drone proposal that will then benefit all of the nonprofits that
everyone has been speaking about today. You know, there's no goal here not to
raise money for the nonprofits. In fact, drone shows have become more and more
popular, and that's why we're seeing the transition. There's absolutely nothing
That would have stopped the applicant or the I'm sure I'm not sure what he is called in this particular
Agent I guess or applicant
for from fleshing out the drone show proposal
Buddy, but that just never happened. Um
Just a couple days before it was due they once again submitted the fireworks proposal
so I think it would be incorrect for the Commission to get back into drones versus fireworks versus something else and
simply focus on the issue that's before us, which is whether or not this
permit amendment is appropriate or whether we should support the Executive
Director. I feel very strongly, I did the time, and I feel even more strongly now
that we need to uphold the Executive Director's determination on this.
Commissioner Jackson. Thank you. Thank you for all the speakers. Thank you for
for staff, fireworks, e-bikes, parking, you know?
You can't get away from those very passionate issues
that we all wrestle with,
particularly the coastal communities.
And you know, no one loves the oohs and ahhs
of fireworks more than this old guy.
And I'm glad you focused and refocused the discussion
because I was taking notes and I kept thinking, you know,
And I am as bleeding a heart as there is when it comes to charities and all the great things
that people are doing for those who are not as fortunate as many of us.
But this isn't about that.
I was not on the commission when this was litigated a year ago, but I watched it.
It was one of the first meetings I watched.
And it was passionate.
There were great arguments on both sides.
But what was crystal clear to me as the new guy who didn't know a whole lot was there
was a condition, the conditions were approved, agreed upon, and that's how it was determined
and decided and ultimately signed on the dotted line literally.
So I always try to impart words of wisdom to my boys and I always talk about say what
you mean and mean what you say and your words reliable and you know at the end
of the day that's what it's really about and so there was an agreement that was
made upon if we didn't like the agreement then that should have we
shouldn't have entered into the agreement but we did and it was crystal
clear you get your five years but at the end of this year you you have to phase
out the fireworks so again not looking at the positive impacts and the community
benefits because we all understand that. But I'm looking strictly at the
principle and the consistency of upholding a decision based on an
agreement that was reached by both parties. Thank you, Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I just want to be clear that the reason for my vote today is based on
the frame of the issue that we're voting on. And I say that because for
me here in this community, this one we're sitting today just a couple of
years ago, illegal fireworks took a life. We had a house burn down with folks were
not able to get out of it and it was a tough moment for our community so I've
been pro organized fireworks given the fact that those draw community create
opportunity without putting community at risk but for the very same reasons
Commissioner Jackson just pointed out there's a contract I'm looking back on I
didn't sit on this commission at the time but the question are we gonna honor
the agreement that was entered into I think it was clear there there is no
gray here for me the only gray I see is in the question of impact or not between
staff and dueling experts but that's negated by the fact that there was a
solid agreement that was in front of us sort of this question of is there a
reason to toss this agreement today no if I was sitting here then would I have
questioned it based on my lived experiences and realities probably but
That's not what we're looking at today.
We're looking at this contract as it sits.
And so for those reasons,
I'm compelled to support staff's position today.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
I just wanna go back to one thing Mr. Hudson said.
We are not saying the event can't take place.
We're saying that one specific aspect of it
can't take place.
And I would find it very hard to believe
that the good people of Long Beach
would not give their donations to these organizations
because they're not gonna see a fireworks show.
I gotta believe people, when they give,
they're giving to the organization,
they're not giving to whether they got a chicken dinner
or a filet mignon.
They're giving to the organization
and they're giving to these organizations
that benefit from this huge event.
It's one aspect of the event.
So just keep it in perspective.
I agree with everything my colleagues have said,
But let's just keep this in perspective.
It's one small piece of a very large,
what sounds like a terrific event.
So I would hope that the good people of Long Beach
would continue to support their community
and continue with their philanthropic dollars in this event.
Commissioner Redoni.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I appreciate the other commissioners pointing out
that our choice today is a very narrow decision.
In my mind, I was present in May 21, 2025,
and I only voted to extend it
because of the conditions that it was going to end.
And I think that's important going forward.
It's not the merit of what you're doing or not doing.
It's what the decision called for.
And honestly, you agreed to that.
And I take that agreement very proudly
that you agreed to what this commission had proposed.
and so supporting the executive director's decision today
is an easy choice for me based on that.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
All right, thanks.
So I wanna say that I was one of the commissioners
of two commissioners that wanted to extend this
for longer than one year last time,
and that would have been two years.
But I will say this, like I,
And hearing what the consequence of accepting this appeal
would be, I don't see this,
I don't see relitigating this,
getting us to a different place.
And so that is for me,
I don't think it would be healthy for this discussion.
I don't think it'd be healthy for the community
of Long Beach to have that happen.
So I feel like I really needed to support
staff's recommendation on this and support the executive
director because I think I was in a very nuanced minority even
then.
So I just want to say that really clearly
because there's a couple of things.
And I do appreciate the community rallying
around fireworks and their tradition in our common culture.
But I also appreciate that things change
and we move to other technologies
and we move to other ways of doing things
that have, especially when we're impacting other parts
of our environment and our community.
And so I think that's relevant.
And so I accept that.
I think that's, and I'm hopeful we see more of that.
And I likewise believe that these large events
can gather and bring together charitable giving
with or without these things, this type of event.
So I guess from that perspective, I'm all right.
I just wanna say, yeah, I'm conflicted,
I guess I would say in this transition,
but I'm supportive of staff recommendation at this time.
Thanks.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart.
I was going to make a motion.
Would you have any comments, Chair?
No, I guess I'll just, well, I guess I will make brief comments.
Thank you.
I'm in agreement with my colleagues and just want to highlight that for me there's been
new material information or change that would justify a change to the agreement that was
so clearly laid out as my colleagues have so articulately expressed.
So I will be supporting staff's recommendation.
Thank you.
Overturn the executive director's decision to reject coastal development permit amendment application number five dash two five dash two zero
Zero two dash a one and I recommend a no vote
I'll second that that's a motion by vice-chair Hart a second by me. We're asking for a no vote and we have a roll call vote, please
Yes, mr. Jackson
No
Jackson no commissioner Rodoni
No, we're Donnie. No commissioner Lee. No Lee. No commissioner Lopez. No
Lopez, no commissioner lowenberg. No
Lowenberg. No commissioner not off. No not off. No commissioner Moreno
What a no. No, right. No. No commissioner Wilson
No Wilson. No commissioner O'Malley. Oh is recused
commissioner
Heart no hearts. No chair Harman. No
Harman, no, the vote is unanimous. Thank you. The Commission concurs with the executive directors determination
Thank you. Okay. I think we'd like to power through if that's okay if we could please move on to item 18 a
All right, thank you and we do have a PowerPoint for this presentation, please if we can pull that up I
I would just note we're going to keep our staff presentation will be fairly short about
three minutes.
We do have an applicant who's opposed to one of the conditions.
So I need to walk through that.
So item 18a is an application by the Sea Breeze Development Company for a coastal development
permit amendment to convert a previously approved five-unit apartment building to condos.
Convert a common area recreation room and two storage rooms into a 758 square foot ADU
ground floor and to merge two lots over which the structure currently sits. As can be seen in
this aerial photograph, the subject sites located in a densely developed urban neighborhood within
the Venice community of the city of LA. Next slide please. The sites currently developed with a
three-story five-unit apartment building with five storage rooms and a rec room and an 11-space garage
shown on the ground floor. Next slide please. There is an addendum for this item and includes
a minor revision to special condition one that clarifies that six units including the
ADU would be allowed on the site and the addendum responds to a letter from the applicant's
representative objecting to the requirements of special edition three to maintain the affordable
unit on site for the life of the development and the addendum also responds to a second
letter from a neighboring property owner requesting additional conditions of approval.
Now, specifically, the applicant argues the Commission's original 1989 approval for the
five-unit apartment building, including the one on-site affordable unit, was silent as
to the duration of affordability.
The applicant notes that in the City of LA's recent Meloac determination, which found that
one affordable unit exists, the City chose to only require the affordable unit be maintained
on site for a 30-year period rather than for the life of the development.
In response, staff would note, and as explained in more detail in the addendum, at the original
time of the Commission's action in 1989, the maximum allowable density for this site was
only four units.
The original proposal was for a six-unit apartment building.
It included one unit reserved as affordable for persons of moderate income, and that was
the project before the Commission.
On review and approval of that dual permit, the Commission found it was appropriate to
allow for the increase in density because one of the proposed units would be designated
as affordable.
Thus, the Commission, our original decision approved, it was a five-unit approval rather
than six with a clear understanding that one unit would be reserved as an affordable unit
for persons of moderate income, and your staff believes the conversion of that affordable
unit to a market rate unit would require an amendment or a new CDP.
The Commission's findings for the underlying CDP specifically noted that, as shown here
on this slide, if in the future the affordable units cease to be maintained, then pursuant
to the City's conditions of approval, which were incorporated as part of our decision,
then the City's building permits could be revoked.
Additionally, the Commission's findings do not contemplate the designation that the designation
of the affordable unit would cease at any point in the future, but instead provided
that failure to maintain the unit as affordable at any point in the future would constitute
a violation.
Thus for the reasons, those reasons, and as more fully explained in that addendum, staff
continues to recommend the Special Condition 3 requiring that the affordable unit on site
be maintained for the life the development continue to be required in
addition the addendum also responds to a second letter received by other neighbors
Gavin and Michelle Langley requesting additional changes to the project such
as widening the fronting alley constructing new storm drain
improvements allegations that the roof deck on site is unpermitted and that
additional parking should be required briefly that was responded to in the
addendum staff noted that the majority of those requests do not raise chapter
three consistency issues that the project complies with all parking
requirements and that our staff will evaluate the alleged violations on site
next slide please in closing I would just note the staff believes the
proposed amendment only with the required special conditions is consistent
with the chapter three policies of the Coastal Act and the Venice LUP the
Motions to carry out this recommendation or on page four of the staff report. I am available for questions
Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Are there any ex partes?
Hey seeing none Chris. I'll turn to you
All right. We have the applicant's representative Travis Bruce
On zoom they're being moved in
All right, and when you're able to please unmute and go ahead
Yeah, hello. Good evening commissioners and coastal staff. Thanks for your time today. I know it's getting late
My name is Travis Bruce. I'm with the company Pacific Urbanism and we're representatives for the applicant
Dario Alvarez the principal of Pacific Urbanism is also president of the meeting and we have Christina crop
Who is our land use council for the applicant is here as well to answer questions from the condition if they have any
to address all of the
issues.
Frank Murphy, the original
developer, the current owner,
and the applicant is also
present as well.
As mentioned, the only reason
we're here today to not just
simply accept the case as is is
related to special condition
number three.
We have no other issues with any
of the other Coastal
Commission recommendations or
As mentioned, the proposed special condition number three states, there's the rent for
the life of the development clause in this.
Simply put, we're requesting the special condition number three language remain consistent with
the original condition language of the 89CDP instead of adding the additional language
of for the life of the project.
This new special condition is more strict than the original special condition which
which defers to the City and the original LA Community Development Department, which
is now the Housing Department, which is the ones controlling the length of time requirement
for the Affordable Unit. In that original staff report, the condition for the Affordable
Unit states, one of the six proposed units shall be reserved for rental to persons of
moderate income and moderate income rent levels, as defined by the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development. This unit shall be registered with the Los Angeles City
Community Development Department for administration of the rent level, which shall be reviewed
annually by the department. In that original condition, there is nothing saying anything
related to the life of the project or creating a perpetuity requirement of that affordable unit.
For the record, the owner, when they went into agreement with the original CDP,
was of the understanding that there would be a regulated affordability period. So introducing
this new condition is also creating a level of administrative confusion between the two
governing entities which is the city and the coastal commission. In the city of LA's CDP,
the letter of determination, the language for that affordable unit, which is condition number five,
states affordable replacement unit, mellow act, one dwelling unit shall be restricted as an
affordable replacement unit for at least 30 years. Again, this is stating 30 years and does not have
a life of the project or perpetuity clause included in it. By adding this language into
the special commission, into this special condition by the coastal permit, this is imposing stricter
conditions than the city, and stricter conditions than the original CDP, which is an amendment two.
In conclusion, we're not asking to get out of anything related to the affordable unit,
we're simply asking that the special condition is revised to reflect the original
EDP condition in its language. If I may, I'd like to speak to the comment that was received
related to the illegal roof deck. I've provided staff with plans for this as well.
Sir, how much more time do you need? 30 seconds. Go for it.
So the statement that the roof deck is unpermitted is entirely unfounded and untrue.
We've provided staff with the original approved plans, which are stamped by both city planning
and the building department, which show there's a roof deck in the original 1991 approval for
this project. Thank you. Let's see. All right, thank you. Dario Alvarez.
Hello Coastal Commission, can you hear me? Yes we can hear you. Okay. Can you see me? We can see you as well.
There you go. You just muted yourself. There you go. Good evening Coastal Commission, my name is
Dario Alvarez. I am an architect and agent for the owner and I want to address the use of a lifetime
affordability requirement as the standard in this case by looking at the standards and regulatory
framework that was in place at the time of the original approval in the late 1980s.
Affordability requirements were not imposed in perpetuity. They were long, but they were
defined in duration. So I have here the Coastal Commission's 2015 report on affordable housing
policies and implementation. On pages 24 and 25 of the report, the Commission reproduces its housing
guidelines from that period in question and states that the affordability covenants
run for a period of 30 years from the date the agreement is recorded. The Commission's own
framework establishes that time and it's not a lifetime condition. This section also refers
to Housing and Urban Development Standards and Section 8 programs confirming that these
requirements were structured within the term-based limits. This is Housing and Urban Development's
guidelines that were in place at the time. And HUD shows that on Section 8 contracts,
there were 20-year limits placed. Then there's the IRS Internal Revenue Code, Section 42,
which governs low-income housing tax credits. That was enacted in 1986. The program establishes
for 15-year compliance periods. So across coastal policy and federal programs at the time,
the framework is long-term but time-defined and tied to a specific program or public benefit,
which brings me to my second point. Longer durations are associated with subsidy,
additional density, or another form of exchange. Exchange being the operative term there, which
is what justifies the term. This project proceeded under a hardship framework. There's no additional
density granted beyond the affordable unit and there was no subsidy. So as Travis Bruce mentioned
we're not disputing the requirement to provide an affordable unit, we're only asking that the
language of the condition reflect the framework in place at the time of approval and remain
proportional to what is actually being granted. We respectfully request that the commission modify
the condition as proposed and as an alternative we ask that this item be continued or taken under
submission and be brought back with additional findings if it's required that the commission
review some of the additional evidence that I'm presenting here. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Christina Krop, did you all show us to speak or are you able for questions?
Good evening. I'll take a minute since I've been here all day. Good afternoon, good evening
commissioners. Christina Krop land use council for the applicant. I would like to echo our team's
concerns regarding the inconsistency between proposed special condition three as it relates
both to the original CDP condition as well as the currently proposed affordability requirement of
the city of Los Angeles. I do have a concern that in the addenda Coastal Commission staff
is interpreting city of Los Angeles staff findings and that their interpretation of those findings
is inconsistent with how the city's interpreting and has implemented the affordability requirement.
And so it would appear to me that the Coastal Commission's reading of City of Los Angeles
requirements may not necessarily be correct. As Travis noted, the developer has been the same
developer since the 1980s. He's I believe he still might be here today with us to answer any
questions. His understanding was not that this was a unit that was going to be held in perpetuity.
And so, you know, I wasn't there in 1989,
but everything that we're reading doesn't lead us
to believe that that was the requirement.
So we would just ask that the condition be kept
in alignment with current city requirements.
And again, if necessary, we were happy to come back
for further clarity on this point.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our only other speaker, Gavin Langley.
Gavin, go ahead.
Can you see me?
Yes, go ahead.
Okay.
I own a house directly diagonally opposite the project.
I have concern about this changing from condo to condos
because we'll be dealing with the HOA.
In May 25th of 2023, I attended a public hearing
when the planning department
and the Bureau of Engineering recommended
that there be a five foot property taken away from this.
Here is the recommendation
that was printed in December 20th, 2023.
Improved court, the Virginia court,
which is Carroll Canal being dedicated,
adjoining the subdivision by the construction
of a suitable surfacing to complete a 15 foot wide alley
with two foot wide longitudinal concrete gutter
including any necessary removal encroachments, et cetera.
Just today, while I've been waiting on this call for you,
there's been a vehicle here between the property owner's wall
and a electrical pole,
a concrete truck that can't get through the street.
This is a common occurrence.
This is a FedEx truck that happens every day.
I don't understand the track map
that was basically published.
This said that the track map was gonna have
this five foot dedication taken away from it.
Whenever construction happens on this street,
there's 25 properties on either side of the street.
It's imposed on anybody doing construction
on the Venice Boulevard side.
We have a problem.
We had a fire here in 2022.
Fire trucks can't get down the street.
A trash truck is nine feet wide.
There's only 10 feet wide
between the subject properties owners wall.
All I'm asking is that he removes the property wall
around his trash enclosure and relocates it down the street.
In addition, the ADU is attached to unit one,
according to what you're saying.
He has it as a rec room on his plans.
It's an office currently.
I believe the owner will just basically hold on to unit one
and not sell it and leave the building down below as ADU.
It's a foot below the street.
There's no access from the garage.
I believe that there's no wheelchair access.
the ramp should be included from the street.
I work in architecture for over 30 years.
I think it reconsider the wall and the five foot setback
and the ADU on this project.
Thank you, no more speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
All right, Mr. Hudson, back to you.
All right, thank you.
Many of the, I'm going to keep my responses short note
that many of the responses were contained
within the staff presentation and the addendum.
I would just like to respond very briefly to note
that response to the last speaker with the applicants team,
our staff was not interpreting the city's findings.
Our staff was evaluating the commission's findings
in our 1989 coastal permit.
There was no, as I mentioned before,
there was no consideration for a time limit
on the affordable units and the original findings.
And there's no conflict with our condition today
and the city's mellow act of termination
as another speaker was concerned.
The city's MELOWAC condition requires
the affordable unit be maintained for at least 30 years.
Our condition simply requires that the affordable unit
be maintained for the life of the development.
Thus, those conditions don't conflict.
I would also just note that in response
to one of the speakers who noted that there should be
an increase in density allowed
if we want additional time for the unit.
I would note that there was an increase in density
the original 1989 action. That was what the proposal was. It was for an affordable unit
similar to what we see for a density bonus type provision, although it preceded the density
bonus provision in the certified LUP. It allowed for that additional density on site and we
specifically had findings that we were noting the presence of the affordable unit. There
was no discussion of any deadline. I would just note that in response to the last speaker
not associated with the applicant, I would note that most of the issues that were raised
by that speaker outside the purview of this amendment, which is for the conduization,
and we do not see an issue with the proposed ADU.
So with that, I'll just end my comments and note that I am here for questions.
Thank you very much.
Okay, to my colleagues, comments, questions.
Commissioner Lohmenberg.
So to me, this is very simple.
There is special condition number three.
It specifically says in very plain English remains the existing affordable unit on the
site for the life of the development.
If the applicant would like to tear the building down, the affordable unit will relook at the
whole thing.
So I don't understand the whole argument, Mr. Alvarez and the lawyer.
It's in plain English.
When HUD's requirements have zero to do with this, all of that is irrelevant.
When someone buys a piece of property and they have restrictions on the property, you
get that in a title report.
So whoever bought this project had the opportunity through their counsel or through the title
company to look at all these conditions.
To come back now and say, whoops, I didn't realize.
No, no whoops.
It's in plain English here.
I don't, to me it's not even a, we should be talking about it.
That unit has to stay affordable for the life of this project.
Hard stop.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
I move that the Commission approve the proposed amendment to Coastal Development Permit number
five dash eight nine dash nine two zero dash a one pursuant to the staff recommendation.
I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
So a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Jackson.
They're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Thank you.
Okay.
Moving on.
Item 18B, please.
All right.
Thank you.
Item 18B will have a very short presentation by staff.
I would just note that I don't think we have any speakers in opposition.
This was an item that we did expect to have, at least some speakers, given that it is the
Shore Hotel of which we heard about in this morning's enforcement report.
The item will be presented briefly by Vince Lee, a Coastal Program Analyst in our South
Coast District.
If we could pull up the PowerPoint presentation, please, and Vince, please take it away.
Thank you, Steve.
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Item 18B is the hearing for a CDP amendment application submitted by Sunshine Enterprises
to extend the deadline for construction of the micro-hotel, which was approved by the
Commission in December of 2019.
The standard of review is Chapter 3, and Santa Monica certified the OUP may be used as guidance.
Next slide.
On December of 2019, the Commission approved the underlying CDP for Sunshine Enterprises
to construct a new 164-room hotel, which included a special condition to require construction
and occupancy of the 14-room 34-bed micro-hotel within two years of the date of the Commission
action, as a portion of the mitigation package to offset the impacts incurred by the unpermitted
demolition of two lower cost hotels containing 72 lower cost rooms. On September of 2020,
the commission issued the CDP and the micro hotel rooms were to be constructed and certificate
of occupancy to be issued by December 12th, 2021. However, due to the processing and
permitting delays from the city during the pandemic, despite the applicant's diligent
effort to acquire the city's approval of the micro hotel, the applicant indicated to
commission staff that it was unable to conform to the deadline and find a good cause on September
of 2021. Prior to the lapse of the deadline, the commission's executive director extended the
deadline by one year to December 12th, 2022, consistent with the trying frames outlined in
the conditions. On October of 2022, with further delays in acquiring plan check approval from the
city's building and safety division for the micro hotel, the applicant submitted a material
amendment application to once again extended the Alliance for another two years to December 12,
2024. Commission staff reviewed the submitted amendment application, conducted a meeting with
the City's then Director of Community Development on December of 2022 to discuss the building code
issues associated with the proposed micro hotel, and kept the application incomplete until the
matter was resolved between the City and the applicant, thus postponing Commission action
until the uncertainty in construction timeline was removed. On February 12, 2025, the applicant
finally received approval from the city's building and safety for the Micro Hotel and on July
of 2025, the applicant received the stamp approved plans for the city, which was in
substantial conformance with the 2019 plans approved by the Commission and consistent with
the special condition. The construction of the Micro Hotel began on December 10, 2025.
Next slide. Now with the confirmed construction schedule, the applicant submitted a revised
project description requesting change to special condition 9 of the CDP for extension of the
deadline to January 29, 2027. The applicant also submitted program elements necessary to
accomplish the reservation of the micro hotel for the proposed programmatic use and a detailed
summary of the overnight use lodging program consistent with special condition 9.
In addition, consistent with Special Condition 10 of the underlying CDP, the applicant has been
submitting annual monitoring reports from 2020 to 2025, evidencing the hotel's operation of the
required 72 moderate classrooms on site and implementation of the overnight youth lodging
program. Next slide. The applicant has been diligent in its pursuit of construction of the
micro hotel, which is now underway and complying with the related requirements of the permit.
It is also important to note that Special Condition 8 of the underlying permit foresaw
that construction of the micro hotel would potentially take some time, and to ensure
that mitigation for the loss of low-cost overnight accommodations was immediately realized,
it required the applicant to provide 72 of the existing market rate hotel rooms
at moderate cost for the life of the development. Once the micro hotel is built,
the micro hotel rooms may be counted towards the 72 moderate cost rooms requirement.
Commission staff has confirmed that the applicant has provided the 72 rooms on site at moderate cost
since the commission acted on the underlying CDP and will continue to do so after the micro
hotel is completed. In closing, commission staff believes that the proposed extension of the
deadline for the construction of the micro hotel to January 29, 2027 is consistent with the intent
of the underlying permit as well as section 30213 of the post-select and the LEP policy 35 to
protect existing lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. The staff recommends approval of the
Coastal Development Permit Amendment application as conditioned and the motion can be found on page
5. This concludes staff presentation and we are available for questions. Great, thank you very
much. Any expertise? Okay and confirming Chris there are no public speakers? We just have the
The one, the applicant's representative,
Alicia Bartley, they have a presentation.
Hi.
I actually do not need to give my presentation.
It's getting late.
I, assuming that I heard that we've got no opponents,
which I'm very, very pleased to hear.
We have been working hard on this
and I appreciate the assistance of staff working on this
for putting all the time and attention
that he has spent on this.
So I concur with staffs, the staff report
and am available for questions.
Thank you very much, Ms. Bartley.
Really appreciate it.
No other speakers.
Great.
OK, thank you so much, Mr. Hudson.
OK, I love it.
I'll return to the commission.
Commissioner Wilson.
Well, as one of two commissioners here
who were present at that meeting where this was approved,
I think Carol voted yes and I voted no.
But that may be, well, for reasons I won't go into.
And I also want to appreciate that the applicant
knows when not to talk us out of a project.
So I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit Amendment number 5-18-0872-A1
pursuant to the staff recommendation and I recommend a yes vote.
Carol?
Yes.
I'll second and I have a comment.
Okay it's been now seven years since that vote.
But I remember it very well because it was one of our first votes.
And obviously I'm disappointed that this hasn't moved forward more quickly.
I, I, you know, I understand, but I'm not going to say I'm not disappointed.
It's such an important part.
And it was a really significant violation and as I recall what I voted for was the significant
penalty as well as this micro-hotel, not sure what, never mind, it's too late for this kind
of back and forth.
All right.
on that note
Thank you motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Vice Chair Hart. They're asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimous consent
Just want to say finally
No objections motion carries. Thank you. And we will thank you adjourn for the day. See you. Oh
There is so sorry. There's we're not adjourned yet. There's a thank you Commissioner O'Malley
Jump the gun. We're very close
item 19. This is the last
Agenda item before we get to the statewide items. It's the deputy director's report for South Central Coast
District item 19 and includes three permit waivers five permit extensions
We're not aware of any opposition to any of the items. We're asking whether three or more commissioners have any objections to those items
Staff is available for any questions
Thank you any expertise
Any public comments no speakers no speakers great. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no objections the Commission concurs
Okay statewide items. Do we have anything today?
Think nothing. All right. Fantastic. Now. We really are adjourned. See y'all tomorrow. Thank you