Welcome back to the Friday session of the California Coastal Commission. Can we start with a roll call, please?
Seconds almost ready
Commissioner O'Malley still here
Commissioner Eckerly here
Who is here today?
Commissioner Jackson proud to serve
Commissioner we're donating here
Commissioner Conkle
here
Commissioner Lee here
Commissioner Lopez
Commissioner Lowenberg
Commissioner not half here
Commissioner Moreno, it's not commissioner Williams
Sure Wilson present chair Harmon here. I'm here. Sorry. Sorry, yeah
That's
Commissioner
Hearts your thank you
Great, thank you very much. And I see Commissioner Williams. Mr. Moreno looking in welcome. Um
Now we will go to the virtual meeting procedures, please
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
If you have internet access in which to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item, we recommend that 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 scannable QR code for paperless submittal are available on the Commission's
staff table just outside the meeting room. For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual
hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda webpage, which is a guide on providing comments
via Zoom or by phone. Members of the public speaking during general public comment may
be given up to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. Request to speak
during the general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. on the day of
each 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 web page 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 and number and instructions for how to participate and provide testimony by
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the commission, the organizer will invite you to turn on your video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Great. Thank you very much, Galen. Okay. Now we'll move to agenda changes.
Thank you. Good morning to the commission and to everybody who's joining us today.
On the agenda changes, we did have a posted sheet, but there are several changes to that.
So I'll walk through that and note the changes as I do.
Starting with item 5A, that's CDP application 525690, the SHAHASI application that is postponed.
Item 6A, that's CDP application 525-754 at 1101 Electric Avenue and Seal Beach.
That is postponed also.
And that's a new addition.
Item 9A, this is CDP application 126-141 with the County of Del Norte, Point St. George,
Western Lily Habitat Restoration Project.
That is moved to consent.
Item 9B, CDP Application 125, 392, Smith River Ranch project is moved to consent.
Item 9C, that's CDP Application 125, 781, the California Trout Elk River Estuary Restoration
Project in Humboldt County, that is moved to consent.
Item 12a, the CDP application 525139, this is the Driftwood Bluffs condominium association
in San Clemente that is moved to consent.
Item 12b, CDP application 525664, powered in Newport Beach that is withdrawn.
Item 12c, CDP application 525663, Rafla in Newport Beach that is withdrawn.
And then newly added this morning is item 13A, the Pacific Edge Hotel Amendment.
This is CDP amendment number A5, LGB 2560A1, applicant's dune drifter LLC.
That is moved to consent.
And that concludes our agenda changes this morning.
Awesome.
Thank you very much.
And now I'll turn to our chief counsel for her report on closed session.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
Yesterday the Commission met in closed session.
It received litigation information and advice
regarding the following cases.
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation
versus California Coastal Commission,
Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund
versus California Coastal Commission,
Levy et al. versus California Coastal Commission,
Sable Offshore Corporation
et al. versus California Coastal Commission,
and City of Dana Point versus California Coastal Commission.
The Commission also received litigation information
and advice, and took action on the following cases, Bel Air Bay Club versus California
Coastal Commission, Friends of Oceana Dunes versus California Department of Parks and
Recreation at all, and Fowler Packing Company at all versus County of Santa Cruz at all.
And that concludes my report.
Awesome.
Thank you very much.
And with that, I will turn back to Chris for public comment.
Thank you.
Okey-dokey.
For members of the public, I will 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 a panelist. As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload.
This may take a moment to speed up the procedures. We will bring several people in at a time.
But please remain muted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak. After your
Your time is up.
You will be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room, I will call your names in order that they
appear on our sign-up list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you
approach to speak.
There is a raise hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by dialing star nine.
If you're participating by zoom, you should see a button on your zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand
now.
When it is your time to speak, we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star 6.
So first up, oh, sorry.
First up, we have Bill Lipay in person.
Thank you.
Yeah, good morning commissioners, chair and staff.
My name is Bill Lipam, born and raised
here in Monterey County.
And I just want to say a quick thank you
to the Capara family, the Robba family
and Taylor Farms for this beautiful place
that they've put forward.
I wish Dennis was here, God rest his soul.
I wish he was here to give all of you some knowledge
to all you Joe College types up here.
You know, I've got 15 years experience
in local water policy.
I served on the GSA Board of Directors
and have been helping to help implement
the groundwater sustainability plans
that are currently on file with DWR.
Sea water intrusion's a big problem
on the coastal area here,
especially in the 184 coastal area
and some of the east side.
It's advancing right now under the valley floor,
approaching the city limits of Salinas.
State intervention is looming
if we miss the Sigma 2040 deadline.
Yet the people who actually live here
keep getting blocked from solving our own problems.
In 2018, Measure J was passed by a clear majority of voters
and that was to study the ownership of CalAM's water system
and convert it to a public utility.
The staff at the district did the work, did their due diligence, and determined it was
feasible and applied to LAFCO for latent powers.
LAFCO staff and consultants reviewed the work and recommended approval.
But the LAFCO commissioners at the time voted 5-2 didn't deny that, and that was mostly
commissioners from the Salinas Valley that denied that application.
That was in 2021.
And then in 2022, this commission approved Callum-Slantwell permits by an 8-2 vote,
keeping the private control in place.
The people of the peninsula are still fighting LAFCOs and justice in appeals courts today.
The intersecting bureaucracy has repeatedly denied the people of Monterey County the right
to determine our own future on the most precious resource we have, that's drinking water.
Is that time up already?
Anyway, I just hope that you would let us fix our problems.
We have some great ideas out there and we'd just like you to stay out of the way.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Light.
Next up we have looks like about eight speakers on Zoom starting with Camila Rang, Adam Leverins
and John Doe.
Camila Rang please go ahead.
Good morning.
I have a presentation.
Thank you.
Good morning commissioners Camilla Rank from Dalmore here reporting again how Sandang is
not following their promised mitigation commitments in regards to Dalmore Bluff.
In fact they're doing the opposite of what they promised.
I was going to start complaining about Sandang closing the beach access at 11th Street but
Jessica were that they are working on the way around that.
So that's fantastic news and if you had something to do with that thank you.
Next slide, please.
And other commitment was to make an upper bluff path
between Fourth Street and Coast Boulevard.
It has not even started.
And in fact, they have made a path that already exists
and with their new path will be based on narrower,
cut off two thirds with a section
which we call congestion.
This is the most worked path in Del Mar
and suddenly we all crammed into work
in single line to meet at this section.
It's completely opposite to their mitigation
to create a path.
Next slide, please.
We also know that they're trying to get out
of their commitment to create a safe passage
across or under the railroad to the beach.
This is the only mitigation actually meant something to us
since the self-organized standing walking path
already is there.
But a safe crossing, that's what was needed,
especially now that they are more than doubling
the train traffic to over 100 a day.
All we want is a very simple tunnel,
more at grade, without burns, only arms,
who believe right by the railroads so longs for a minute
for every train that passes and won't work.
Next slide, please.
First, I know this was not a commitment from SANDAG,
but they are uglifying and destroying our bluff,
which was once beautiful and filled with white flowers.
Look at this.
Our hearts cry every time you walk by
this once beautiful land.
Now it's a concrete gray cement bluff.
It's beyond sad that in their bother
making the cement sand color just gray.
Also they can run their money making freight trains.
The light rail could easily take a different route
or at least not wear the bluff down with heavy vibration
as from the freight and military transportations.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Rang.
Next up we have Adam Leverins, John Doe and Susan Kirks.
Adam Leverins, please go ahead.
Good morning, is my audio coming in okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
Great, thanks.
Again, good morning commissioners and staff.
Adam Levrens, as you've heard over the last couple years,
I dreamed for about a decade and a half
of holding a mooring permit
and having a boat in Newport Beach.
That was realized in late 2023.
What wasn't realized though is how intent the city was
on restricting access to people with a lot more money
than I and many of my cohorts have.
The slide up here is title 17, their Harbor Code.
It's about 70 pages long.
There are nine pages of mooring-specific regulations,
four additional pages if you have a liveaboard,
two legal-size pages of thorough vessel inspection.
Liveabords do that every year.
Other vessels do it when they're placed on the mooring
or whenever the city wants to harass them.
Next slide, please.
Mooring permittees have to name the city as insured
on their insurance policies.
This next graphic is the number of pages
for residential peers, one page,
and the vessel inspection, zero pages.
Next slide please.
Emails with the Harbor Department asking
if homeowners have to ensure, register, report ownership
of their vessels to the city, they don't.
Asking if their vessels have to be inspected, they don't.
And just the vast level of oppression,
and this is just part of it.
I've discovered in the last week,
I'm under threat of losing my mooring
because they accuse me of spending too much time on my boat.
Title 17, if you're on a mooring,
you're allowed to spend 36 days a year on your boat.
If you have enough money to stay in a marina,
you could stay there 180 days.
It's very difficult to maintain a boat in salt water.
The system is designed for failure.
And again, SOS, please help us with keeping our access.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Lebron.
Next up we have John Dow, Susan Kirks and Janelle Gallardi. John Dow please go ahead.
Good morning commissioners. John Dow with Save Our Beaches San Clemente. My comments concern
OCTA's CDP application for area 4 which proposes significant additional hard armoring at San
Clemente State Park and OCTA's claim that late added one-time sand placement makes that armoring
acceptable. It does not. We already know what hard armoring does in San Clemente.
It narrows the beach, increases wave reflection, accelerates erosion, and disrupts the natural
movement of sand. Once waves begin breaking directly on a wall or revetment, the sandy beach
disappears. Hard armoring worsens the problem it's supposed to solve. Worse, that added erosion is
then used to justify more armoring, creating a coastal doom loop that destroys public trust
beaches piece-by-piece. Consequently, OCTA's proposed one-time sand placement of roughly
270,000 cubic yards is insufficient. OCTA's own materials acknowledge that placed sand
erodes and requires renourishment over time. Because OCTA and others have cut off natural
replenishment, that sand must now be artificially maintained. The question is not whether sand
helps, of course it does. The question is whether a one-time placement can eliminate
or mitigate the long-term impacts of a permanent hard structure on shoreline sand supply.
It cannot. That is the legal standard. Section 30235 allows armoring only when it is required
to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger and when it is designed to mitigate
adverse impacts on sand supply. If the Commission approves any hard structure here,
the Coastal Act requires a continuing obligation to maintain a real sandy beach in front of it
for the life of the project. But that exposes a fundamental flaw. If a sandy beach must be
maintained in perpetuity, the need for the hard structure disappears. And delay makes us worse.
With a significant El Nino forecast this winter, postponing meaningful sand placement creates a
foreseeable risk that OCTA will later use storm impacts to justify more emergency rock. I urge you
to reject hard armoring at area four and require meaningful continuous sand replenishment. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dow.
Next up we have Susan Kirks, Janelle Gallardi,
and Walter Lamb.
Susan Kirks, please go ahead.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, commissioners and staff.
I'm sharing today about a tragedy
that occurred last week in Morro Bay for your awareness.
An adult female badger was struck by a vehicle
on State Route or Highway 1 and killed.
Her three cubs were left by the side of the road.
Fortunately, a community member discovered them,
and Pacific Wildlife Care was able to rescue them
and take them in.
These cubs are about three months old,
a little over three months old.
Juvenile badgers usually disperse from their mother
when they are about five to six months old
or in summer months, June to August.
This week, Sonoma County Wildlife Rescue,
who has an enclosure that will be large enough
for them to grow together and be cared for
for a brief period of time, was fundraising,
or is fundraising, so Flying Tales, T-A-I-L-S,
can fly the Cubs from Morro Bay
The Petaluma Municipal Airport in Sinoama County. Hopefully, they will be able to be cared for,
normally develop, and recover from the trauma as much as possible and be released back to the wild.
Also, yesterday in your enforcement item on the property near Big Sur,
a group of eucalyptus trees was sighted as invasive and scheduled for removal.
I'd like to share with you that eucalyptus trees
are considered non-native, but they are not invasive
and are often planted as windrows.
And eucalyptus trees that are mature like these
are often very important nesting sites
for raptors and large birds like great egrets,
black crowns, and...
Please conduct bird surveys
and then reconsider about removal
because these can be important nesting sites.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Kirks.
Next up, we have Janelle Gallardi, Walter Lamb,
and Margaret Malloy.
Janelle Gallardi, please go ahead.
Can you hear me okay?
We can hear you, yes.
Wonderful.
Well, Bienvenidos a mi comunidad de Gonzales.
This is my hometown.
And I am a fifth generation farmer's daughter
struggling to keep my family farm alive.
These have been some of the worst financial years
of our operation and its 50 years of existence.
The regulatory costs on farmers have exploded
with an increase of over 1300% since 2006.
Agriculture in California is experiencing death
by a thousand cuts.
When I think of all the government appointed agencies
that are non-elected by taxpayers like myself,
like the California commissioner,
I feel my community of Gonzales is a minority representation.
I am so thankful though, for the appointment of Chris Lopez
to help make our voices heard.
California is the number one agricultural state in America.
Even Mr. Newsom at one point said,
our industry was essential.
And I still believe it is.
California farms are consistently disappearing
over the last 50 years,
compared to the overall population of California,
which has more than doubled.
Yet our water infrastructure has remained unchanged
since the 1970s.
and do not let these weather reports fool you.
We will never be in the clear
when it comes to drought conditions
because there will always be another one looming.
We must build more water infrastructure
and stop letting 50% of our captured water
escape into the ocean.
I don't understand when we talk about rising sea levels
that we're just adding more fresh water into the ocean
making the problem worse.
Also our farm workers are living in conditions
with one to three families in a single home
do the extreme lack of housing,
not just in my county here,
but all across the entire state.
I highly encourage the Coastal Commissioner
to streamline housing permits and projects.
Everyone forgets about us, farmers and farm workers,
but I know Chris will truly represent our community.
And I really pray that we can improve the lives
of rural Californians and agricultural workers
because we are the backbones on everyone's kitchen tables
providing the food that we eat.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, pardon me very much, Miss Gallardi.
Next up we have Walter Lamb, Margaret Malloy and Annie Griffin.
Walter Lamb, please go ahead.
Good morning commissioners.
Walter Lamb representing the Bina Wetlands Land Trust.
I want to quickly raise an issue we've been experiencing at the Bina Wetlands with the
SoCal Gas abandoned wells.
So just a bit of background, our organization supported the abandonment of these wells.
We supported the CDP, and we were very appreciative of staff for including language in the coastal
development permit that preserved our access through the process that we were able to continue
conducting field trips and stewardship, habitat stewardship.
And then when the project was done, we were really excited to have this sort of blank
slate.
can see all the mulch that got laid down where they used to be you know fenced in gas wells.
Our concern rises from the fact that we were expecting SoCal gas to very quickly install
native plants and to make sure that non-native weeds were not sort of going to overrun this site.
Our experience is that if you do nothing, even if you lay down, if you disperse a lot of seed,
That can very often be ineffective because the invasive seed bank
can be pretty substantial and we're seeing that now. If I could have the next slide please.
That's castor bean already starting to sprout up. We're going to see without any immediate action,
we will just see this overrun with all the invasive weeds that are on the sides of this.
And so we've communicated this to your staff. Your staff has been really responsive and we
appreciate that. But I think the concern is, oh and so I've got to have the next slide real quick.
So our stewardship site is on the left side of this road and the gas well, the banana gas
was on the right side of this road. If the right side gets overrun with invasive weeds,
that's going to make our job more difficult on that left side. So we have a very specific reason
to be concerned, let alone just the general health of the ecological reserve. I'm just gonna,
I'll keep coming back as we really want us for so-called gas to just realize that they are a
a little bit under the microscope. If we don't address this now, it's going to become increasingly
hard. If socal gas isn't required to do something, they're probably not going to do it. So that's
going to be a requirement now. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Lam. Next up, we've got Margaret Malloy, Annie Griffin, and Brian
Margaret Malloy please go ahead. Ms. Malloy it looks like you don't
currently have a mic connected. Okay Ms. Malloy can you unmute as an
attendee? Oh there we go. Alright please go ahead. Next up we've got Margaret
Malloy, Annie Griffin, and Brian Rosen. Margaret Malloy please go ahead. Hello
commissioners. First I want to uplift the comments of Ms. Gallart.
Ms. Molloy, it looks like you don't currently have a mic connected.
Hello?
Okay, Ms. Blake, you unmute. I'm an attendee.
I am unmuted.
There we go. All right. Please go ahead.
Can you restart the clock, please?
Ryan, Rose, first I want to uplift the comments. Hello, it looks like you
don't really have a mic connected. We're experiencing some problems clearly with
the audio. Do we need a minute or every time that you're on one second is my
Margaret. Can we pause mute her for a second while we sort it out. Thank you so
much. There's audio playing back from you, Margaret. It keeps repeating over. I'm
I'm gonna try to unmute again and see if that keeps happening.
Please try to unmute.
Hello?
Yes, okay.
Mr. Coleman, so I'm hearing myself.
I'm hearing myself, too.
Ms. Malloy, please mute any audio that you have going in,
even if you can't hear yourself talking.
It's all echoing back and coming back through.
So, go ahead.
Well, we'll come back to you in a second.
We'll move you down a few people just get it worked out.
We'll move on to Annie Griffin, Brian Rosen,
and then Nina Beatty.
All right, Annie Griffin, please go ahead.
All right, Ms. Griffin,
you should be able to go ahead and speak.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you, please go ahead.
Yes, good morning, commissioners.
Jack Cohen is a fire scientist, now retired,
but when he was employed
by the US Forest Service Fire Science Lab
in Missoula, Montana, he was considered the top go-to man
for how to reduce wildfires
in wildland urban interface settings.
Mr. Cohen's research over the years
has informed nationwide strategies
on how to prevent and manage wildland urban fires.
And he states that eucalyptus trees
are no more flammable than other trees
and that removing them or planting other vegetation
will not stop wildfires.
Because the problem is not eucalyptus,
it is a house ignition zoning problem.
And to this day, your board has been complicit
in ignoring that advice.
It is time to tell the developers
and the housing community
that they can no longer build wooden fences
and that the developers need to use non-flammable materials
because that's the real problem.
The thousands of eucalyptus trees cut down
in this witch hunt means thousands of tons
of greenhouse gases has not been absorbed by these trees.
The loss of rainfall all trees create, oxygen, lack,
loss of habitat for monarchs who prefer eucalyptus
to all of the trees despite the false science
trying to villainize them.
We have to change and we have to stop blaming the trees
because the timber industry is brainwashing all of us
to believe it's the trees that are the problem
and they're raping our forest as we speak.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ms. Griffin.
Next up we have Brian Rosen, Nina Beatty,
And then we're going to try Margaret Malloy again.
Brian Rosen, Brian Rosen, please go ahead.
I'm here.
Brian Rosen, I want to tell you a little story
about eucalyptus trees.
There's a trail behind Santa Barbara
that I've been hiking since the 70s.
And way up, maybe halfway up,
there's two eucalyptus trees,
just two small eucalyptus trees.
They're, I don't know, 40 feet high.
And then the big Thomas fire came through and it,
it wiped out the forest all the way from Ojai
to Santa Barbara.
And I hiked up there and all the beautiful pine trees
up there were gone, all the shrubs.
But the only thing that survived up there
were those two eucalyptus trees.
I found that very interesting.
So eucalyptus trees,
sometimes they're even a little resistant to fire.
And sometimes they form magnificent windbreaks
keep the embers from spreading. And looking online at the National Park
Service and other websites, I can mention they can be a mixed bag, but one way to
severely reduce fire danger is to, you cut a lot of the lower branches and
clear the ground. Now when you, to approve new houses in the coastal zone, we should
insist on non-flammable materials, wooden fences are highly flammable, and I hope the
Coastal Commission could insist on much stronger standards.
Eucalyptus trees are beautiful trees, they provide a lot of habitat like down in Santa
Barbara for the hawks and the monarch butterflies, and we need to make sure there's a lot of
community engagement because they're being villainized.
You know, most of us are, we're non-natives, I'm a non-native, only Native Americans are
lives, and maybe we all need to learn to live to each other and tolerate different kinds
of plants. They're all a valuable part of our ecosystem, and these big magnificent eucalyptus
trees that have been here longer than any of us definitely have a place, and they need
to be respected and not villainized. Oak trees burn down very, very well, like in the Thomas
Fire. Any kind of tree consume. Thank you very much. Thank you.
very much Mr. Rosen. Next up we have Nina Beatty and then we're going to try
Margaret Molloy again. Nina Beatty please go ahead. Ms. Beatty you can go
ahead please. Good morning. This week will be faced with Earth Day and this is a
very different Earth Day than we've had in previous years. We're faced with
disasters internationally. I'd like to give a quote by Dr. Seuss. He said,
unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.
It's not. The Iran war is just a horror zone. One of the issues that's not being
discussed is the role of PFAS and the coast and the ocean. When there's a
fire at a gas field, at a tank farm, they use PFAS compounds in the firefighting foam.
It's linked to cancer, immune dysfunction, and many other problems.
It flows, the runoff flows into the groundwater.
It flows into the marine environment.
The EPA is committed to keeping drinking water under four parts per trillion, and it released
in New Brunswick, in Brunswick, Maine, resulted in thousands of gallons, and PFO, there was
million parts per trillion in liquids and PFOS was 78 billion parts per
trillion. That is a small fraction of the amount of PFOS going into the environment
during the Iran war. And this is going to bioaccumulate and seafood is going to be
transported across regions. The second thing I want to bring up is about the
Vandenberg Space Force base plans to expand. They want to bring heavy and
super heavy rockets to Santa Barbara to the smallest of the southern part of the
base that's near Santa Barbara.
There's ozone destruction that results already
from our rocket, our aerospace industry,
with tremendous damage at Boca Chica from the Super Heavy
and the other launches, including debris and pollution
and wildlife damage.
This is not harmonious with Earth Day
with caring for the Earth.
If we want to protect our wildlife,
if we want to protect the ocean, we
have to stop the aerospace industry from doing the damage
There's a film on Saturday at the Marina Library, the Earth's Greatest Enemy.
I invite you to attend that.
I have information on how the PowerPoint I would have prepared for the Coastal Commission
is on my...
Thank you, Ms. Beatty.
We're going to try Margaret Malloy one more time.
Ms. Malloy, please go ahead.
Apologies for the earlier confusion there.
I want to uplift the comments of Ms. Galarte and the appointment of Commissioner Lopez.
Our agricultural industry is critical. It's the basket of life. So thank you for speaking on that.
I wanted to talk about the city of Los Angeles LCP program and the city's continuous violation
since the city's approval in 1978. That approval had a very specific prohibition on
administrative permits as a violation of the Coastal Act and on appeal fees as a disincentive
for broader participation. The city has violated both for 40 years. Nobody can ignore that,
but it is being ignored. So I'm asking for a meeting of senior staff with residents of the
Oakwood area in particular. It is the first and only remaining intentional African American coastal
community on the entire California coast and it's being decimated by violations of the city CDP
program and un-accountability by the Commission and when the Commission
approved the second CDP amendment on June 8th 2023 it wrote the Coastal Act
provides that when a local government chooses this option which is Coastal Act
section 30600B it shall submit its permit review ordinance for review by
the commission section 13304 of title 14 of the California code of regulations also applies.
The VSO was never approved. The VSO is cited by commission staff all the time. It's an
administrative permit. Thank you Ms. Malloy. Okay that concludes everyone that we've been
able to find. We have a few names of people who signed up to speak but we have not been able to
to find them in Zoom.
Those folks are Jane Relden, Katrin Homan,
and Lucia Casalen Nuevo.
So Jane Relden, Katrin Homan, and Lucia Casalen Nuevo.
If any of you can hear me, please go ahead and raise your hand.
Okay, looks like we cannot find them.
That concludes general public comment.
Great, thank you very much.
And thank you to the public for participating.
I will return to the commission and see
if anyone has any comments, questions?
Okay, Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I just want to thank all the public who engaged
with us today and share just one story
around the eucalyptus trees that matters to me.
We're sitting in Gonzales today.
It's a reason I want to share this story.
There was a father named Ezekiel who was on Highway 101
with his two-year-old daughter traveling north.
when a eucalyptus tree fell and took his life.
His wife was pregnant, and he never
got to meet his second child.
That was one of those moments that
got me to deep dive on eucalyptus trees,
worked with Caltrans to remove thousands of trees
along a specific dense corridor that was extremely windy,
which was the reason Ezekiel's life was taken.
So sitting in Gonzales today, I just
felt moved to share that and to share
that there's real impacts and I agree we need to plant more trees. So while we may
disagree on which type of tree I share the feeling that we do need to replant
and especially in my opinion natives I appreciate the passion and look forward
to continuing that conversation with Mr. Rosen as we have in the past through
both public comment and one-on-one but thank you all for engaging on that level
and I just lastly she had to leave but City Councilwoman Maria Orozco is with
us this morning, she's a former mayor as well here in Gonzales and so while she had to leave
the room I just wanted to thank her for joining us this morning as well as to those folks
who commented on water and the importance of the Salinas Valley to the rest of the world.
It means a lot to have you share those comments this morning. Thank you.
All right, thank you very much. And with that we will move to those items that were moved
from the regular calendar to consent. Mr. Schwig.
Thank you so yes items five and six were postponed so we're on to item seven.
There's five items we're recommending be moved to the consent calendar this morning starting
with item 9a this is the Del Norte County restoration project on the Point St. George
Headland to protect the federally endangered Western Lillie.
Item 9B, project that includes revegetation, access improvements, and other mitigation
to resolve a violation along the Smith River in Del Norte County.
Item 9C, significant restoration project in the Elk River Estuary in Humboldt County
to improve water quality, fish and aquatic habitats and provide public access amenities.
Item 12A for deck repairs and other improvements to address geotechnical hazards at a condominium
complex on a coastal canyon and blufftop lot in the city of San Clemente.
And last item 13A for changes to the plans for remodeling the Pacific Edge Hotel along
the oceanfront in Laguna Beach including a reduction in the total number of newly added
hotel rooms and consolidation of on-site parking into a new parking garage. I'll
just turn things over to Deputy Director Shannon Gray for some comments on the
North Coast items and then I'll finish up with a couple of comments of my own.
Thank you. Good morning. First with regard to item 9B, this is the restoration
project along the Smith River. We received one comment letter from a
representative of the Tallahassee nation with specific project questions. Staff
addressed questions and addendum to the staff report which can be found under the
addenda tab for this item. No other correspondence was received and staff is
not aware of any opposition to this item. Therefore we continue to recommend that
this item being moved to consent. Next, with regard to item 9c, the Elk River
Estuary Restoration Project, staff would note that an addendum was prepared for
this item to address the applicant's request to waive the permit application
fee. Special consideration for fee waivers is given to nonprofits, such as
Cal Trout, for undertaking publicly funded voluntary restoration and access
project and staff recommends waiving the fee in this case. Staff also received
correspondence from the Humboldt County Farm Bureau yesterday in opposition to the project.
The Farm Bureau raised issues related to conversion of agriculture, funding, long-term
maintenance responsibilities, land ownership, and fencing and grazing in the project area.
Staff have reviewed these issues and continue to recommend approval as presented in the staff
report and addendum including findings that fully address the permissible
conversion of agriculture to restored habitat. In this case the project is a
voluntary collaborative effort among the property owners to comprehensively plan
for the resiliency of the lower watershed in a manner that's intended to
assure the continued viability of agriculture along with protecting water
quality, cultural resources, wetlands, riparian and aquatic habitats. The
The viability of agriculture in the project area has generally been diminishing over time.
This is as a result of sea level rise and long term drainage failures.
And the restoration plan developed to help address those issues through floodplain design,
eco levies and improved fish friendly drainage structures in strategically located areas.
The grazing limitation and wildlife friendly fencing are part of the proposed development
which was established jointly by the property owners
and staff concurs that these are appropriate here.
In some staff determined that the correspondence
did not raise any new significant issues.
In addition, the applicant has more fully responded
to the Farm Bureau's concerns and correspondence
for this item, which is posted under the correspondence tab.
For these reasons, we continue to recommend
that this item be moved to consent.
We are available for any questions you may have
and the applicant and their consultants are also available.
I will now turn it back over to Mr. Schlinn.
Thank you.
So staff would also note there's an addendum on item 12A
that's the Driftwood Bluffs condominium project.
There's just a minor correction to special condition seven.
And on item 13A, the Pacific Edge Hotel,
there's correspondence raising concerns
about construction phase impacts on traffic circulation
and conformance with geotechnical requirements,
which staff has responded to and addressed
in the staff report addendum.
There's also comments from one member of the public
and from the city of Laguna Beach in favor of the project.
So with regard to these matters,
they have to consider an agreement
with the staff recommendations.
We're not aware of any other opposition
and staff recommends that the commission vote
and approve the items on consent.
Great, thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes to report?
Seeing none, any public comments?
Yes, we have Rachel McCain who signed up
from the Tolowa-Dinney Nation
regarding items 9A and 9B.
We are not seeing them on Zoom
but we do see another representative
from the Tolowa-Dinney Nation.
Is it Cynthia Ford?
And we have moved them in.
Cynthia, you should be able to go ahead.
This is Rachel McCain. I'm the Natural Resource Department Director for the Tawawa Dany Nation.
I just wanted to extend our department's support for this Western Lilly Restoration Project.
We really appreciate the hard work of local CDFW staff in reinvigorating this effort and
helping to bring together the many partners in the area out there at the vicinity of Taukia,
which is also known as Point St. George.
we just wanted to make sure that the Commission is aware of the fire history
in that area. Tallahawdanny historically burned that area for millennia and the
cessation of that practice has led to some of the habitat degradation that is
also now affecting the Western Lillie. So we're happy to continue with
implementation of the activities outlined in this permit and beyond with
Support and coordination of all parties involved. That's all we had on that item. Thank you
Thank you
And then for all items 9a 9b 9c 12a and 13a move to consent
We had people available for questions. We had no other speakers signed up. Okay, great. Thank you very much
Any comments seeing none? Okay, then I will return to the Commission comments questions or a motion
I'd like to make a motion to approve these items move to consent
All great projects very happy. They're happening some in Humboldt County some in Del Norte and
Yeah, the restoration
Yay
It restoration. Yay indeed
Okay, it's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner O'Malley and we will take a roll call vote
Cuz we have a commissioner online today. Thank you
All right, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes
Malley yes, Commissioner Hart
Hart yes, Commissioner Jackson. Yes
Jackson. Yes, Commissioner Rodoni. Yes, Rodoni. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes, Lee. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes
Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Lowenberg
Stepped out a Commissioner not off. Yes
Not off. Yes, Commissioner Moreno
Moreno. Yes, Moreno. Yes, Commissioner Wilson
Yes
Wilson, yes. Chair Harmon? Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is unanimous. Great, thank you. The
consent calendar is adopted. Okay, move on to item 8. Item 8 is the deputy director's
report for the North Coast District, which includes one waiver and one
immaterial amendment for development in Humboldt County. The waiver being
reported to you today is a Humboldt Bay Harbor District project involving
sediment sampling in multiple locations within Humboldt Bay to help identify
suitable areas for eelgrass mitigation opportunities. This will provide
important data for mitigation planning related to the district's proposed
heavy-lift marine terminal project. And the inventory amendment is for an
additional three-mile extension of broadband infrastructure for the
purpose of bringing last-mile services further into the Samoa Peninsula in
Humboldt County. This advances the goals of the original project as well as the
goals of the state to increase the availability of reliable high-speed
internet access to underserved areas in the region. Staff is not aware of any
opposition to these items and we are asking whether three or more
commissioners object. Great, thank you very much. Any ex partes? Any public
comments? There are no speakers for this item. Thank you very much. Do three or more
commissioners object to any item in the Deputy Director's report? Seeing no
objections the Commission concurs thank you okay that brings us to item 10
please thank you so item 10 is the deputy director's report for South
Coast District Orange County in this packet we're reporting four waivers for
several home remodels including ADU projects and Seal Beach and one small
sand placement project the Capistrano Beach County Park in Dana point staff
received one email with comments on the sand placement project suggesting the
county look at rock placement shoreline armoring as a more permanent measure
there but otherwise no known opposition and we're asking whether three or more
commissioners object to any of the waivers or extension any of the waivers
in the report thank you any expertise any public comments no speakers great to
three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report.
Seeing no objection the Commission concurs. Thank you. All right, item 11a
please. Great and there is a staff PowerPoint presentation on this matter
if we could bring that up and Dulce Cortez with our Long Beach office will
be doing the staff presentation on this matter. Dulce, as soon as you're ready
please begin. Awesome thank you Carl. Good morning commissioners. Item F11A is a local
coastal program amendment request submitted by the city of Newport Beach. The proposed amendment
would revise both the certified land use plan and implementation plan to implement the city's
adopted six cycle housing element within the coastal zone. This presentation will provide
an overview of the proposed housing opportunity overlay, staff's analysis, and the recommended
suggested modifications. Next slide please. The city proposes to establish a new housing
opportunity overlay applicable to 26 parcels located within the Colso zone. These parcels
are part of a broader set of housing element sites and the overlay would allow residential
development addition to the underlying land use designations including commercial, visitor serving,
marine related and open space and recreational uses. The standard review for the land use plan
Amendment is chapter three of the Coastal Act while for the implementation plan amendment the
Commission must determine whether the proposed changes conform with and are adequate to carry
out the certified land use plan. Next slide please. Within the Coastal Zone the 26 proposed
housing opportunity overlay parcels shown in blue on this map in the slide have a combined capacity
of approximately 1,441 residential units. This represents only a portion of the total 8,174 units
allowed on site citywide which includes sites both inside and outside the coastal zone.
Several of the coastal zone sites are currently designated for visitor serving or marine related
uses while others are developed as recreational open space. The primary concerns regarding the
housing opportunity overlay amendment center on sites 23 through 26 in the airport area shown
within the yellow oval in the upper right corner. These parcels are presently designated for open
space and recreational uses, and are located immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana-Delhi
Channel.
The channel is site of the Orange County Public Works Channel expansion project, which includes
the restoration and creation of riparian habitat that commission ecology staff has identified
as potential Esha.
Next slide, please.
Staff identified several key issues related to coastal act consistency.
These include the potential displacement of priority visitor serving and marine related
uses, impacts to public recreation and open space, the need to protect habitat
areas adjacent to the Santa Ana Del High channel, and the presence of cultural
resources on several sites. Each of these concerns relates to core
Coastal Act policies and is addressed to the suggested modifications discussed in
the following slides. Next slide please. The proposed land use
plan amendment would allow residential development at densities ranging from
20 to 50 dwelling units per acre regardless of the underlying land use
designation. However, as submitted, the amendment does not adequately ensure the retention or
replacement of priority visitor serving and marine-related uses. The city's certified land use plan,
consistent with the Coastal Act, prioritizes these uses over residential development. As a result,
without additional safeguards, the proposed overlay could result in the displacement of
uses that are specifically protected under the Coastal Act. Therefore, staff recommends
modifications requiring that where such priority uses exist or are planned they must be retained,
replaced, or supplemented with functionally equivalent uses when residential development
is proposed. Next slide please. The proposed implementation plan amendment would add in a
new section, section 21.28.070 to establish development standards for the housing opportunity
overlay. The amendment also identifies four overlay sub-areas however staff recommends removing
The Housing Opportunity Dash 2 sub area due to its location within the deferred certification area where the local COSA program has not yet been certified.
In addition, staff has identified the need for modifications to ensure that development under the Housing Opportunity Overlay remains consistent with existing LCP policies addressing natural landforms, scenic and visual resources, cultural resources, and habitat protection.
Next slide, please.
Without these modifications, the housing opportunity overlay could allow residential development to displace hotels, visitors serving commercial uses or marine related uses and could also result in loss of recreational open space and reduce public access on certain sites.
To address these concerns, staff recommends modifications to prohibit the conversion of overnight accommodations to residential use,
Require the retention or replacement of priority coastal uses and ensure that open space and recreational uses are preserved where they currently exist or are planned. Next slide please.
The key suggested modifications reflect this approach. These include removing the housing opportunity dash two sub area from the overlay.
requiring the retention or replacement of priority uses under the Coastal Act,
prohibiting the conversion of hotels and overnight accommodations, establishing habitat
buffer requirements adjacent to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel, requiring a public accessible
recreational corridor, and ensuring that development remains consistent with cultural
and habitat resource protection policies. Next slide, please. Sites 23 through 26,
shown in the teal within the yellow box, are located adjacent to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel,
where a planned restoration project is proposed to restore
and or create environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
Given this context, staff recommends establishing a minimum 100-foot buffer
consisting of a 50-foot Esha buffer located immediately adjacent
to the channel and an additional 50-foot transitional buffer
that allows for public access trail and low impact recreational opportunities.
The full 100 buffer is necessary for three key reasons.
First, it provides the minimum space needed to ensure protection of biological resources and maintain the habitat functions associated with the planned restoration project.
Second, the additional 50-foot transitional buffer accommodates low-impact recreation and a future public access trail in a manner that avoids
resource degradation and maintains compatibility with adjacent habitat.
Third, maintaining this wider setback reduces development pressure along the channel and improves hazard avoidance by preserving open space that can support storm water management and reduce potential flood related impacts.
Together, these components ensure protection of biological resources, habitat functions, and low cost visitors serving recreational uses, while still allowing residential development to occur on these sites in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act.
After the staff report was published, Commission staff received several letters in opposition to the project with regard to habitat protection,
development feasibility, and open space preservation, which are posted as correspondence with this item.
To address these concerns, Commission staff posted an addendum that refines suggested modification 6 and clarifies findings while maintaining the level of resource protection necessary for coastal act consistency. Next slide please.
In closing, staff is recommending the commission take the following actions for the amendment request.
First, staff recommends that the commission deny the LUP amendment as submitted.
Second, staff recommends that the commission approve the LUP amendment with modifications.
Third, staff recommends that the commission deny the IP amendment as submitted.
Lastly, staff recommends that the commission approve the IP amendment with modifications.
This concludes staff presentation and staff is available for questions.
Great. Thank you very much. I'll return to the commission and see if there are any ex partes to report.
I was staring at it up on my screen. Just listening. All right. So I had a I had a meeting on the 13th of this month with Don Schmitz. It was initiated by Diana Springer. And president of the meeting were Jaime Murillo, Don Schmitz, and my chief of staff Priscilla Ramos.
We talked about this particular project.
Some concerns about the trajectory of the trail through the property and what that might do to usability and potential count of units on the property.
Commissioner Jackson, thank you, Madam Chair.
I also had a discussion yesterday morning.
I think it was about 10 30 for about four to five minutes with Mr.
Schmitz highlighting the same concerns that Commissioner Lopez outlined.
Thank you and I had a similar meeting that occurred this morning at 840 just a few minutes
talking about the same issues but also noting what a huge amount of work has gone into this
from both sides and just how getting 95% of the way there is also a huge success.
With that I will turn it to Galen.
Thank you.
All right, and we also have Mr. Schmitz in the room.
If you'd like to step up to the mic, Mr. Schmitz,
how much time would you like?
I'd just press the button then.
Probably more than you're willing to give me,
but the normal 15 minutes is adequate.
I'd also like to say, Chair,
that there's two other people from the city
which are signed up to speak,
but Ben Zadiba, who's here,
he's here to answer questions.
and also the city attorney, Yolanda Summerhill,
is logged on to answer questions as well.
And am I gonna get a clicker?
No, okay, we'll do the next slide thing.
Good morning, commissioners, thank you very much.
If you'll, before you start the clock,
if you'll get my PowerPoint presentation up,
I would be grateful.
We need every second.
So the city adopted its sixth cycle
of its housing element.
There was 50 public meetings to do this.
And the proposal is to align us with the state housing
mandates with the coastal resource protections.
Next slide, please.
Most of you are intimately familiar
with HCD and their regional housing needs assessments.
They required us to have 4,845 new units.
We appealed that, by the way, and asked it to be ratcheted back to 2,426 units.
We were denied that.
So we have to produce this, or fall out of compliance with HCD.
We must demonstrate realistic development capacity within the coastal zone.
Next slide, please.
You've seen this slide?
We have 26 sites within the coastal zone.
It's important that we have sites within the coastal zone.
Bill 686 does not allow segregation of housing within a few neighborhoods, the Fair Housing
Act requires inclusive communities, and of course, our own Coastal Act 30604H requires
equitable distribution of environmental benefits. That includes housing, and the commissioner
has taken that position a number of times. Next slide, please. We must balance coastal
resource protection feasible housing in housing rezoning to meet those state
requirements so we have to have a balanced approach in regards to this
and I do want to take a moment before we talked about the one professional
disagreement that we have with staff I want to sincerely give a heartfelt thank
you to mr. Schwing and the entire coastal staff team they worked with us
for a long time there are that we're in agreement with all the other suggested
modifications here. They put a tremendous amount of good faith effort in
regards to this and we are very grateful. So next slide, please. We do have a
disagreement in regards to the golf course property. Will you tell me when
I'm at 10 minutes, please? I don't have a clock readily apparent here, which is a
very important site for us to meet the HCD requirements. Next slide, please. This
is a piece of property, these four sides, these four parcels, that could
produce up to 693 units. That's a huge percentage of the units within the
coastal zone, so it's a critical site for us to meet the HCD requirements. Next
slide please. You can see that staff did mention the Dell High Channel improvement
project. This is roughly the area that is currently being reviewed by the
Coastal Commission. Staff of the County of Orange has an application. Next slide. The
Santa Ana del high channel project application is still incomplete with the Coastal Commission. It's still in flux. That's very important
So Orange County is also negotiating with this property and remember we're here from the city
We don't represent the property owners, but they're negotiating with the property owners to pick up
additional right-of-way for the drainage channel
Next slide. So there's unknown project timing in regards to this. It's conceptual in scope
We don't know exactly what it is going to be and so we need to avoid tying current requirements
To a conceptual project next slide the conceptual plans do show
next slide, please
Do show a maintenance road 20 to 26 feet wide which would be adjacent to this channel?
Improvement next slide here you can see a cross section of the maintenance road and they tend to grade out the channel and yes
put in some nice riparian habitat. Next slide please. Now what staff is
recommending is a across the board blanket buffer, say that three times
fast, along the length of the property. Next slide. Yeah let me okay let me know
when I'm at ten minutes left let me know I have five minutes left okay. So they
have this significantly reduces the developable area of this critical site.
It limits circulation. It undermines our ability to meet the compliance with the HCD requirements next slide, please
So I want to lay out for you next slide what this hundred foot buffer would look like first
This is the expanded 26 feet that the Orange County of Orange is looking to get from the property on our next slide
Then there would be the 20 to 26 foot wide maintenance road next slide
And then the staff is recommending that we put a 75 feet
Additional buffer on top of that as you can see it really pinches this side out next slide
We have an alternative that we think is superior next slide
Here's the 26 foot wide expansion of the channel area next slide
Then we have the 20 foot wide maintenance road next slide which we would then convert into a multi-use trail
This is the Santa Ana River. It's right there in Newport Beach. We have beautiful bike paths along these drainage channels next slide, please
This is a critical trail connection because it would go to the upper Bay
Preserve area next slide which is has all sorts of trails and multi-use trails and equestrian areas
And those trails are all going through environmentally sensitive habitat area next slide
Then we would like to have a 25-foot setback on top of that and this would create 50 feet
Which is consistent with what our local coastal program says currently next slide and in that area as staff has indicated
they would like to see in this area we would have seating areas with Escher planted on
the sides and little pocket exercise areas.
Next slide.
Now alternatively, to the additional 50-foot buffer that staff is recommending, which is
really not very utile, we are recommending that we have two pocket parks on the opposite
ends of the property.
That would be 1.4, 1.5 acres, which is exactly the acreage for the additional 50-foot buffer
that staff is recommending to you, next slide.
But we think this would be
a far superior recreational opportunity
for the general coastal zone-going public.
These are two parks I had the honor to represent the city on
and the Coastal Commission approved.
These are real live playgrounds
and provide that recreational opportunity
on both ends of the property, next slide.
One of the pocket parks would be next to an existing park
that the city of Newport Beach has, next slide.
Mesa Birch Park, and it has an existing area. So we're creating this focus for the general
public to come in and recreate and then jump onto this trail system that we want to create
that would take you all the way down into the Newport Upper Bay Preserve. Next slide.
This is the recreational opportunity that would be, air quotes here, lost. This is the
golf course. It's a private golf course and as you can see it doesn't exactly
bring a lot of the public into the coastal zone. So what we are proposing
with the multi-use trail, the exercise areas, and the pocket parks to replace
this this golf course along with the critical housing that HCD is requiring of
us would obviously in our opinion be significant improvement from the
recreational opportunities that we have out there right now. Next slide please. So
these are these are key outcomes and this is in the handout and I suspect
I'm getting low on time here but it supports the housing feasibility that is
required of us by the state of California and balances that with the
Coast LAC policies for environmental protection because it would have the
setbacks already promulgated in our local coastal program from the expanded
repairing area and it would maximize public access and recreational
opportunities. Next slide. This is anchored in our certified implementation plan. This
is Newport Beach municipal code section 21.30B. You can read the numbers. But basically this
is what we are proposing consistent with the buffers from a riparian area that this Coastal
Commission has certified in the city of Newport Beach citywide. We're not asking for anything
special here. It's already vetted and certified. It's consistent with the Coastal Commission's
previous actions within the city and it avoids introducing unknown and unproven regulations
predicated upon a speculative project which is the Delphi enhancement and it allows the
flexibility to where we can maximize access and protect the environment and still get
that critical housing. Next slide. And this is just another citation from our LCP in
regards to the ESHA buffers and allowing that flexibility, something that the Commission
has already acted on historically. Next slide. So with that, I want to wrap it up. How much
time do I have retained for rebuttal? Five and a half minutes. Thank you. I'm available
We do have a couple of questions
that we have now or after the
rebuttal.
Thank you, commissioners.
Thank you.
Okay.
Galen.
All right.
Looks like we have Jim Auster in
the room.
Thank you.
I am a golfer.
Live in the neighborhood of the
Newport Beach Golf Course.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
I represent Newport, Save
Newport Beach Golf Course.
Board Beach Golf Course that we've been fighting to save our golf course from
development for the last five years since the owners put that property on
the housing element list. And so far we've been successful in beating off
four different development proposals by the owners to kill the golf course. Their
Their main objective is to make an enormous profit on their original investment that was
purchased at a low price from the Irvine Company intended only to be a golf course because
that is the only safe and appropriate use of this land which is directly in the John
Wayne Airport flight path which was not mentioned by the representative from the city.
This is in a zone that the Airport Land Use Commission has rejected for development because
of the crash and noise and air pollution risk for any high density uses in this location.
It is the most inappropriate location for housing.
our neighborhood was annexed by Newport Beach. The entire half of our community
of single-family homes with goats in the street and chickens and horses in the
backyard was condemned for high-density office space because of its
proximity to the airport and the noise pollution. This site that the city is now
proposing for housing they had to modify the noise impact I'm sorry how much time
do I have I'm sorry your time is up sir please finish I'm sorry I I need more
time I'm the only representative to fight his 15-minute presentation sir
please finish your thought can make your final okay the bottom line is the city
already has 5,000 units in the pipeline to meet their housing requirement, the element
housing requirement. There is no need to destroy our golf course for this housing. They already
have met the required number of unit. They have not revised their application, which
stated that this site was essential. It is no longer essential. You can save Newport
beach golf course you can approve the housing on the other areas but it's
entirely inappropriate and the city will be liable okay I don't think I don't
think that's fair enough time all right next up on zoom we have Adam
love you.
Thank you.
Adam leverage Wade Womack and
Heather, see select for first
step, Adam leverage Mr
leverage Go ahead, please.
Is my audio coming in.
Yes, we can hear you. Great.
Thank you. First, Chair Harmon,
I want to file a protest. It's
my understanding that are for
agenda items speakers are to
get up to three minutes at
discretion of the chair. I
don't know how many speakers
I think would be appropriate.
Sure, thank you.
Your protest is noted.
Okay, I'm mainly talking about affordable housing.
You've heard from me on that.
That's a concern for all of us,
especially in the coastal zone.
And a lot of stuff that the city manipulates
coastal into approving doesn't work out
to benefit affordable housing.
Before you is a manufactured home park.
This is in the early 20 teens.
I count over 50 manufactured home units.
It's on the harbor.
There's a public accessible beach in front of all of this.
Next slide, please.
In about 2014, the city bulldozed it
and turned it into a wonderful park
in their Harbor Department headquarters.
But they converted more than 30, less than 50% of it
to paid access only.
And I manufactured homes or affordable housing.
Next slide, please.
These are the no trespassing signs they put up
on that 40 some odd percent of property that was formerly a public beach. Next slide please.
In 2024 the city bought a triplex on Balboa Peninsula between the ocean and the harbor
about 2400 square feet 2.6 million dollars to bulldoze it and turn it into a parking lot.
It's two blocks away from a 614 space parking lot. I continually contest at council that parking
is a crisis three months a year in Newport. Housing is a crisis year round and if the city
waits five years to redevelop this property they don't have to replace it like for like
with affordable housing. As you know they're trying to eliminate the 51 affordable housing
units that have liveaboard permits in the harbor and it's just the onslaught they give exemptions
to developers keep cutting the percentage. The affordable housing is never getting built
and passage of this plan which I expect is going to lead down the same path and I just want you to
recognize what is happening here in spite in spite of the glowing report Mr. Schmitz just presented.
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Leverans. Next up we have Wade Womack, Heather Seaslak, and Jim Mosher.
Wade Womack please go ahead. Can you hear me? Very barely. If I could have the three minutes
that would be great but here we go. Good morning commissioners chair Harmon thank you for the time.
Here's the Newport Beach golf course rate sheet. It's $20. It's low cost. The city consultant has
misrepresented to you that this is a private club. That is false. It is a public course. 50 percent
subsidized by the county of Orange as it relates to the back nine. Please protect this affordable
recreational access in the coastal zone. Next slide please. Next slide please. Next slide please.
Go back one side please. Thank you. Here's your staff report. If you look in the green boxes it
indicates that we need 1874 units and that 1400 are in the coastal zone or something to the effect.
This is material leave wrong. This is incorrect. You've been given false or inaccurate information
by the city's consultant. Next slide please. Here is the city's CEQA document. Here you will see the
RINA requirement is 4800 which we all agree on. And next in the green box you will see that the city
has allotted for and created ten thousand housing sites in Newport Beach. Staff thanks
bending the rules and getting you to bend your allegiance to the Coastal Act. They believe,
based I believe on misinformation, they believe you need to bend all the rules
to accommodate this nichy housing that's going to gyp a lot of people at a lot of coastal access
and affordable recreation and other levels. If I may conclude such an aside from my step.
Please, you're closing thought. Thank you. Staff concludes these LCP amendments are necessary to
meet housing needs but that conclusion depends entirely on the accuracy of the housing numbers
presented to you and when this appears thank you sir thank you mr. Walmack
next up we have Heather C slack looks like you may be logged in under Newport
Bay if you can hear us missy slack please go ahead yes and thank you
commission their Harmon and commissioners I was wondering if you can
also have dr. David Ben Wallace he is attend as an attendee added as a
panelist so he could speak directly after me to finish our our Conservancy's comment.
Sure please go ahead. Thank you so much. So respected Chair Harmon and the rest of the
commissioners. I'm Heather Ceselek, Operations Director for Newport Bay Conservancy. I'm
representing Newport Bay Naturalist and Friends Board of Directors and we wish to comment on this
the City of Newport Beach.
While we definitely recognize the importance of meeting housing needs, we are deeply concerned about the implications of this amendment,
particularly on the impacts of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, the Upper Newport Bay Nature Reserve, the City's Big Canyon Nature Park,
and all those natural open spaces that represent the Upper Newport Bay.
is one of Southern California's most important estuarian ecosystems supporting migratory birds,
native biodiversity, and critical ecological processes. This proposed increase in residential
areas directly adjacent to the reserve raises significant habitat degradation, water quality,
and long-term integrity. We believe that this proposal does not significantly demonstrate
consistency with the California Coastal Act, particularly with respect to protecting these
environmentally sensitive habitat areas and maintaining water quality. The proposed overlay
allows for residential development regardless of underlying use. We've heard that. Enabling
conversion of open spaces such as a golf course and these low density areas. These landscapes,
while not formally designed as habitat function as these ecological barriers and movement corridors.
Their conversion would result in reduced habitat permeability, loss of transitional space that is
critical for the wildlife and endangered species that the upper Newport Bay supports. It also,
this high density development will increase these impervious surfaces leading to greater
stormwater runoff from entering the bay. It's already sensitive to nutrient loading. It is
already designated as an impaired water body. These additional nutrients will exacerbate
an ecological stress to impair water quality. I'd like to now turn it over to Dr. David Banwellus
who will finish off the conservancy. Thank you. Good morning. Can everyone hear me?
Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead. Oh, yes. You know, really privileged to be here with you
this morning. And one thing I wanted to touch on, that our colleague Heather mentioned was the
storm water runoff. And one of the things not mentioned about the Dalhi channel is the Dalhi
channel goes through a lot of the urban reaches in this area. And what happens when big rainfall
events happen is all of the material from the roadsides, the heavy metals and pollution that
we have from brake dust, from tires, from air pollution is collected and is deposited in that
drainage. And so every time there's a big rain, while we love rain in the bay, some of those things
add to the nutrient load as well as the pollutant load in the area. And so one of the biggest
concerns we have as a conservancy is that golf course there, while it doesn't serve the highest
habitat quality compared to the salt marsh and the upper Newport Bay ecological reserve, but it also
is a way for that water to collect and surfaces to allow water infiltration before that reaches the
bay. And so when we put more impervious surfaces in the Dao Hai channel, that runoff will increase.
And so if we allow that golf course to transition to something else, they will increase the pollutant
load and detract from the Dao Hai channel improvement project. And so one of the things
we need to think about is also sea level rise and thinking about in the next not five to six
years but the next couple decades and we need to choose wisely where we put developments because
some of the areas that we see today and that we're able to accommodate housing won't be that
they won't be that accessible in the future with sea level rise and during King tides many of these
areas may flood and that increases the probability that some of these communities will be impacted
in the future. And so in closing we really need to think about lowering impervious services
to address pollutant runoff and also think critically about sea level rise for the coming
decades. So I implore the commission to think very critically about the next step and housing
is something we do need but not in a particular location. Thank you. Thank you. Next up we have
of Jim Mosher, Terry Welsh and Carolyn Colesworthy.
Mr. Mosher, please go ahead.
Thank you.
I believe this item should be continued
for at least three reasons.
First, the addendum posted late yesterday
alters proposed policy 2.2.11-1
to permanent land shrine in the city's certified
coastal land use plan,
a system of housing overlays in focus areas
consistent with a quote, housing element, end quote,
without identifying the specific version
of the housing element it is referring to.
Housing elements change, yet this policy will remain,
which incidentally appears to endorse adding 5,537 units
of likely market rate housing
in poorly defined parts of the coastal zone,
which as Mr. Womack pointed out is far over the slightly
over 1000 units that staff report indicates
the city is seeking capacity for.
Second, the addendum acknowledges for the first time
a city resolution that added a request
to increase height limits currently in the IP,
but it continues to recommend approval saying
that height concerns will be addressed in the CDP process.
If the CDP process were sufficient
to address all height concerns,
there would be no reason for any IP
to impose any height limits at all.
So I think before changing the IP,
that height increase request needs to be analyzed.
Third, only two of the coastal zone sites requested
would increase the density of housing
at locations where it already exists.
At all others, the new housing may potentially
displace higher priority uses.
I provided in writing the example of one of the city's
few waterfront properties long preserved
in the coastal planning for marine commercial uses.
As I read the proposed modifications,
if the marine uses don't currently exist on that site,
as they may not, the city will have no requirement
to continue to preserve current acreage of marine uses.
I think the modifications need further refinement.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Terry Welsh,
followed by Carolyn Colesworthy.
Terry Welsh, please go ahead.
Hello, commissioners.
My name is Terry Welsh,
and I'm the president of the Coastal Corridor Alliance,
and I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Coastal Corridor Alliance urges the commission
to not approve this amendment as it is currently written,
but rather go with your staff's recommendations.
And I want to give you a really good reason why.
Our organization, along with many, many other people
and the tribal community worked for decades
to create a publicly owned, permanently protected,
public open space, formerly known as Banning Ranch,
now known as Randall Preserve.
But there's one last little missing piece.
Next slide, please.
There's 11 acres of open space.
It's owned by the Newport Mesa Unified School District.
that's the local public school district.
And the city's amendment as it is currently written,
has a housing overlay on these 11 acres despite the fact
that there's documented California Knack Catcher,
Burrowing Owl and Vernal Pool Habitat on these 11 acres.
And these 11 acres are in an area of deferred certification.
So please commissioners do not approve this amendment
as it is currently written and go with your staff's
recommendations, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Carolyn Colesworthy.
Ms. Colesworthy, please go ahead.
Hello. Hello.
Yes, we can hear you, please go ahead.
Thank you so much.
Good morning, commissioners, chair and staff.
My name is Carolyn Colesworthy
of Colesworthy Real Estate Services.
I'm a third generation broker born and raised at the Bay.
I live at the Bay now.
I walk these areas frequently.
I would like to emphatically ask you
to see the maximum buffers
around our very sensitive habitat.
I realize that native plants are not always seen
to be as important as they are,
but if we want to avoid extinction,
the area is more sensitive than you may realize.
Building high density here, and I am in favor of housing,
but building high density here will impact
with impervious surfaces that will cause flooding,
light pollution, sound pollution,
and increased traffic will come.
And so I realize it's a matter of how large the buffers are
and I wanna emphasize that I appreciate
the broadest buffers to protect the bay,
The bay is coastal wetlands for the California coast as well as the west coast, and we are
the stewards.
Also, I don't hear tribal recognition, and it seems that this is going too quickly because
they are not here speaking.
This was a very short window to be ready to speak.
We need to maximize access, but we, you'd speak about maximizing access, but we need
to maximize habitat and I'm also wondering if there is any compromise if
the developments could be required to have a native plant pallet in addition
to a buffer but that seems to me a negotiating possibility because those
spaces will have landscaping as all housing projects do and native plants are so helpful.
There are no more speakers. Madam chair. Okay, thank you very much. And thank you to the public. I'll return to the applicant who has five minutes and 30 seconds for rebuttal for start the clock. We need to go to slide 35 standing by and keep the clock up for me.
Don't want to get in trouble with the chair again for the record Don Schmitz on behalf of the city of Newport Beach. There was actually some very good testimony there and I appreciate the opportunity to address that.
But I do want to start off by stating once again,
and we cannot lose sight of this,
in the fifth cycle HCD required us
to have five additional units.
And they popped that up to 4,845 additional units,
irrespective of our appeal.
The comments by Adam in regards to Marina Park,
I had the honor of representing
the city of Newport Beach and Marina Park.
It's one of the proudest projects
that I have ever represented.
Yes, we took out a bunch of mobile homes, many of which were on state lands, and we
created a beautiful transient marina and open green space and maximized public access.
I do appreciate the comments have weighed.
I most certainly did not mean to intimate that the golf course was a private club.
It's a privately owned golf course which is open to the public that brings damn few people
into the coastal zone.
And the 10,000 units which he referenced included the Banning Ranch, which Mr. Welsh, who I've
known for years, referenced.
That's suggested modification number three, to take that out.
It's a deferred certification area.
It's not part of the equation that's in front of you today.
And the city, as the applicant, is completely supportive of that suggested modification
to remove that area that Mr. Welsh was concerned about.
If I could go to the next slide, please.
Here's the nightmare scenario.
It's called the builder's remedy.
And if a city falls out of compliance with HCD, a property owner can come in and submit
for a builder's remedy, and they can ignore the density, they can ignore the heights.
This is what happened to Beverly Hills, 165 to 175 units, and they were relegated to telling
their constituents. The only influence we can have on this application is what the balconies
look like. And last time I checked Beverly Hills has some pretty significant resources
to fight these things and they lost badly in court. Next slide please. Santa Monica.
Another builder's remedy project. Sacramento is not playing around with us in regards to
this. They are demanding the communities all up and down the state provide the housing
And the counties and the cities understand that this is very
often not popular with their constituents,
but we have no choice.
Next slide, please.
So, public access and recreation.
There was a number of comments as it pertained to buffers,
water quality, couldn't agree more, couldn't agree more.
This golf course here, however, was developed in 1966.
It does not have the protections
of the certified local coastal program
that was certified by this coastal commission
as it pertains to grading and drainage
and filtration of runoff.
Any project that is proposed on any one of these sites
has to meet the rigorous environmental protections
that is within the certified LCP.
They have to get a coastal development permit.
You're not being asked to approve a project.
You are being asked to approve a housing overlay
that will allow this municipality
to stay in compliance with HCD requirements.
Is there a surplus?
There always is.
Every single county, every single city is required by HCD.
They don't bring it right down to the decimal point
in regards to the number of units which are available
because they know there will be
case-by-case review in regards to these sorts of things. But we have about 10% of the housing
allotment within the coastal zone. And as I referenced in my initial part of my presentation,
the Coastal Act and federal and state law require us to distribute the housing, and
that doesn't mean keeping anybody outside of the coastal zone that can't afford a single
family home. We have to have at least a reasonable percentage of it within the coastal zone.
And this alternative that we have here, the setbacks that we are proposing is not a minimalist
approach.
It is the riparian area setback that is already in our local coastal program.
Staff is asking for the extra 50 feet, so maybe there could be some additional recreational
opportunities.
But we are proposing these two pocket parks at an acre and a half, which will be far superior
to an additional strip of 50 feet without taking this site out as a practical location
to get the critical housing that we need.
Next slide, please.
What is before you today meets the Coastal Commission's objectives.
It balances out the protection of the environmental resources.
It maximizes public access.
Please note that on these overlay sites, which has priority uses, this is written and
staff was rigorous about this that it does not displace those priority priority
uses and we are consistent with that it provides a clear regulatory path it
maintains those environmental protections I want to end by again
thanking your staff for all the incredible hard work and I am available
for any questions that you may have thank you very much with that we will
close the public hearing and return to our staff mr. swing thank you chair
Mr. Harmon I just want to start by thanking the public for their comments today as well
as I wanted to extend our appreciation as well to the city for working with us on this
amendment it was a long time coming and a lot of work so it's great that we are just
basically down to this this one issue but you know to underscore this is an LCP amendment
We don't have a specific residential project in front of us on any one of the sites that
is part of this proposal, so I do want to underscore that.
However, there is a specific project that we are concerned about, and that is the Santa
Ana Del High Channel project that we do have an application filed with us, and we will
be bringing to the commission in the very near future.
understand the county is, I mean they have obligations to build this project
and we can expand a little bit about that including the habitat restoration
that is part of it. So protecting that habitat is really key. The, this, and as
far as I understand that project if you know permits are in place and whatnot
they are could begin construction as soon as next year the this particular
site it is a parks and rec site and that has been a major concern for us
initially when we looked at that proposal we looked at excluding site
because of that that particular use there were other sites within the
program that had you know other kinds of commercial uses and they were higher
priority but we weren't as concerned about mixing residential with those it
was this Parks and Rec site that that what caught our attention so our main
goal here has been number one protect the habitat number two provide still
provide for the public access and rec component that that property provides if
if it does, in fact, get developed in the future
with residential.
And that is where this 100-foot space comes into play.
It's both for biological protection.
It's also for recreation and open space.
And we have to mention that this channel, it's a channel.
There's water running down it.
The site gets developed with residential next door to it.
There's hazards there, flooding hazards
that we need to be mindful of with a sufficient setback.
With regard to the biological resources,
we do have Corey Clatterbuck with our biological unit,
and I do wanna ask her to speak to the concerns we have
and what we're trying to achieve with that buffer.
So Corey, as soon as you're ready, please go ahead.
Sure, good morning commissioners.
So like Carl said,
I have just a few points to add
regarding the ESHA buffer policies
and the proposed channel project.
So first, 100 foot riparian buffer
is not unique within LCPs.
Other LCPs require this size buffer
including local municipalities like the city of San Clemente.
Like other LCPs, certain uses are allowed
within the ESHA buffer
provides for those uses to be compatible with the resources. Staff's proposed language details
the size of the riparian buffer as well as those uses. Some LCPs go even further with policies that
encourage low impact uses adjacent to the Esha buffer rather than just within the Esha buffer
as proposed here. The goal of any Esha buffer is first and foremost to protect habitat values.
Recreation and open space may be recognized as compatible benefits
but should not drive the design or the size of the Esha buffer.
The city's suggested alternative would like to reconfigure Esha buffer area as open space.
We appreciate the city's desire to have a certain amount of open space,
but the buffer functions could be compromised if not primarily aligned along the feature
and therefore lessen the intent of the buffer.
The Santa Ana Delhi Channel drains directly into Back Bay of Newport Bay and it's one of our
critical remaining coastal wetlands. A section 404 permit condition issued by the Army Corps
of Engineers requires mitigation for work completed in the channel since 1986 and the proposed channel
project design creates marsh and riparian vegetation in the channel that is planned to
support sensitive species like light-footed Ridgway's rail. Staff suggested modification
supports the goals of the channel project and further protects the wildlife in upper Newport
Bay that may use the newly vegetated areas in the channel. Lastly, I want to acknowledge Ms.
Ciesliak and Dr. Benuelus who discussed the importance of transitional space and water
quality for habitats in Back Bay. These are some of the benefits of low-intensity uses in
staff's proposed Escher buffer and further supports the necessity of buffer size and uses
in this amendment with that I'll turn it back to the room just wanted to close
real fast I don't have much substantively to add to what the staff
did they did a great job responding to some of the questions I do want to echo
my thanks to the city again it's a lot of work to come down to this one issue
so just want to appreciate that and for the speakers who are coming out to
recognize all these competing uses and needs in this community and I think what
you're seeing here is our attempted balance we you know we are trying to
accommodate many different needs and uses for this community and that includes
habitat as was so well described by our ecologists as well as some of the
speakers from the Conservancy and others and the need for additional housing in
some of these communities so Newport Beach being one example so I think again
we will leave it to you to tell us whether we got the right balance struck
here but I that you know we worked really hard to try to again find ways
for housing that protect our coastal resources this is one of the most
ecologically valuable in sensitive areas in this region. Upper Newport Bay and
Newport Bay generally is a critically important ecological resource for the
whole area. So it is important to protect and that the new habitat that
will be along this channel is going to be used and critical for some of the
species that use this area. So that's why again just to reiterate what our staff
has said before, we thought that buffer was really important. That said you know
there is there will be a loss of some open space generally as proposed if a
project does go forward and we just want to acknowledge that but again trying to
find balance here is where this is where we landed so I'll turn it back to you
chair and we're available for questions and interested in the Commission's
discussion thank you very much thank you to everyone who's participated so far so
I'll return to the Commission and start with Commissioner Lohenberg doctor could
Would you just define what the one issue is?
Yes.
So, the one issue is related to this one site, this golf course site, and there's a housing
overlay and we have recommended a modification for you to approve.
Which is?
That would include a 100-foot buffer from the habitat that is to be planted and associated
with the restoration project that was discussed.
But the golf course would go away?
The golf course would go away with our modified even with our modifications and how many minutes it could I'm sorry
That's a good it could go away. We'd have no projects in front right? No, I understand
but the overlay would allow for that correct and
How many units could be put on that site the golf course site?
So that would be a better question. I think for the city
Please but also that amount with and without the buffer
for the record Don Schmitts.
The maximum would be just below 700 on this site.
In regards to with or without the buffer,
that is a pivotal question and also a very difficult one
to answer without actually designing a project.
We have to meet certain setbacks.
We have to have circulation.
But what we do know, and this is why
We gave you a suggest modification number six in your handout
the if you take a look at the exhibit the hundred foot really pinches the ends and
Makes the the east and west end of the property
Virtually unusable from a circulation standpoint, so we thought we would dedicate that to park
And then we also have to make sure that we are consistent with the LCP requirements for height and drainage
So I don't know exactly what the number would be till we design a project.
Okay. My next question is, thank you.
Thank you.
There have been different numbers thrown around.
Can we verify, there's this number of 4,500-ish required by the state?
And there was a claim made that there are 10,000 units that could be approved now.
Is that, did I misunderstand that or did, where are we on that?
Because if we could carve out, if they could meet their goals, but we could do
something with the golf course, is there, is there something there that that's
what I'm trying to get at.
And you know, I'm very much in favor of creating as much housing as possible.
But I also feel like having public amenities that are affordable are a part
of the quality of life for people in communities that are quite expensive and
being able to play around a golf for 20 or under 100 bucks
leads to the quality of life for people
that can't afford to become, who can afford these country
clubs?
I mean, it's ridiculous.
So I think trying to weigh that if we could come to something
where everybody could be a little happy and a little sad
at the same time.
Let me try to answer your question,
though we may need some assistance from the city
on this.
The numbers that were referenced during public comment,
we did correct those in the addendum,
but I think they were generally talking about,
I think Mr. Schmitz mentioned that,
there were 10,000 total units, both in the coastal,
I mean, this was city-wide,
which includes both inside and outside the coastal zone.
There's a very large part of the city
it's outside the coastal zone and most of the housing allowance that
They've come up with through this overlay program is outside the coastal zone
So and if I understand things correctly that's around 8,000 units that's allowed for total in the city
and
Somewhere a little bit under 2,000 units in in the coastal zone
So
They do have sufficient capacity in their plan
To read meet their arena requirements
With or without this site, although if I do understand things correctly
If you're trying to provide units in the coastal zone, this site is very important and the city may you may wish to
Have the city speak to that
No, that's okay. That's it. I'm
I'm gonna make a proposal at some point, but
Thank you commissioner Wilson
So I mean from my perspective I think a hundred foot buffer is a minimum to protect this resource in this very
limited space and I do understand it may have an impact on on
the develop ability of that site and
honestly, it's like
maybe we should be talking about height limits as a way to deal with that and in in some ways because I and I'm looking at
the area around there. It's interesting because we're talking about an area that has open
space. I wanted to ask, we were talking about policies to protect recreational areas, kind
of like on a square foot basis, but when we really analyze it, sometimes we talk about
density of use. When we're changing from golfing, which is a sport that a lot of people like,
But there may be more dense recreational opportunities that might be available in that exchange
or in that sort of balance moving forward.
Is that what you guys are considering in this?
Is that what you're basically opening this up to, is having that sort of balancing provision
dealt with?
Yes.
I think that's correct.
And still allowing for that recreational use but doing it in a different manner than it's
currently provided.
Yeah, and I want to I mean, you know just adjacent to this golf course are these like equestrian spaces
Which are extremely exclusive and they're big properties and they're not being potentially rezoned for for
Multifamily or high-density housing. Yeah, I'm just saying like what what is the city looking at in terms of those potential?
rezones or those potentials and they I'm just you know, if we're
Of course, the more exclusive recreational opportunities are highly protected and the
one that's not as exclusive as the one under threat.
And so I just want to point that out.
And they're next door to each other.
And I just think that that is, you know, a concern.
I mean, there's just some very large properties with very huge, look like estates or whatever
those are.
I'm going to, you know, why not give the entitlement for a higher density development to those property owners?
Mostly because their neighbors would be freaking out, right?
And so I just think that, you know, so where we look for those opportunities tends to be where we upset the most resourced humans in our environment sometimes.
just pointing that out. So I agree with staff's recommendation on this and honestly I think you
could with adjustments to height and setbacks and those other kinds of things create higher
density and create bigger spaces for public recreation and access which is really needed
in this particular zone where I'm looking at it because again most like all of it to the south is
pretty exclusive. It's not for your everyday resident. So those are my comments. Thanks.
Thank you. Can I have one more thing to Mike? Sure. Has it been thought of to create a nine hole
golf course? Something smaller that people could do twice? I mean that's done all over. I mean in
San Francisco we've got Fleming that people do twice and it's right in the middle of a lot of
dense housing and it's great. It's great for people there and it's very affordable. Good question. I
think I would want to turn that over to the city. I'm not aware of any of those
types of proposals. Mr. Schmitz. Spot-on Commissioner. Yes, the nine holes on the
county property would be retained with the conversion of the site that we're
talking about going into housing. There would still be nine holes from the
existing golf course that would be retained. Yeah, let me see if I can get
at the right area, right.
While you're setting this up,
Mr. Schwing, quick question,
just for my own clarification.
I understand that with the Delphi project,
is that impacting the golf course at all,
or the golf course will fully ruin it?
Because I think what I'm hearing is some confusion
about whether it's just this overlay
that will impact the course.
My understanding is the Santa Ana Delphi project,
which will be coming before us,
Itself will also already impact the golf course or is that not true?
That is that is true. I mean there the
Project the channel will be expanded into the golf course property
But what we've recommended accounts for all that right the golf course property
That's owned by the county or that's in the coastal zone the the golf course property is privately owned. It's publicly accessible
The channel next to it is the county facility the county will be obtaining
Land from the private property owner to expand the golf course. I mean the channel
and as far as
The the golf course I understand things correctly it extends over multiple
Properties not just these four properties, but you can see just on the other side of the road
Some area of golf course over there. That's outside the coastal zone
and
That's all part. I believe of the whole golf course
But we'll leave that to the city to explain trying to trying to get the inset off can entirely
Thank You Don and thank you chair Harman commissioners for having us today
In the image on the screen you can see to the lower left side of the red box
There is a nine whole portion. Yes. Thank you nine whole portion of property
That is county-owned and that serves as runway protection zone for the John leaner airport
So that is not going away for the foreseeable future the and that has nine holes. Yes, that's correct
The middle parcel that is not colored in pink
That is outside of the coastal zone that has been approved for a wave park
that's a Snug Harbor surf park project and then the southerly portion which is the
sites that we're talking about today
That does have a portion of the golf course. So the comment about the golf course is
Already affected the snug Harbor surf Park project was approved for the middle parcel and
The property owner has indicated their interest in housing redevelopment
So I just wanted to make sure it's clear. It's owned by two different entities one is county owned and that serves as runway protection
That is not going away. That is not part of this project. That is nine holes
Golf will be retained in a smaller executive fashion in that in the you've got a like a you around
That's correct. The you blue border. That's the city boundary
So outside of the city boundary and the county and incorporated area that's owned by the County of Orange and that's being retained
That's nine holes and what's its own?
It's outside of the city zoning, but it's it's
I'm unaware of it, but I know it is limited to golf course because literally behind the red box
That's the John Lane Airport runway, so you really limited what you can put there, okay?
Thank you very much, okay Commissioner Jackson
Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for all the speakers today. Thank you for the presentation staff. Thanks for all your hard work
You know talking about HCD again, it's never-ending challenges and Sacramento and funded mandates that
Continue to plague all of us
I just want to make sure I'm clear as we discuss the golf course specifically.
I mean, at the end of the day, there's nothing that we as a commission can do or say that
would keep that golf course a golf course.
It is a privately owned golf course.
Now, I understand it's for public recreation, but that public recreation could be 50 pickle
on the property and there's
a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
There's a parking lot.
It's uncomfortable with staff's recommendation.
I also concur with my colleague.
I think the hunter foot setback is important,
particularly in light of the additional project
that's gonna be coming down our way soon.
I think it's incumbent that we have to take
that into consideration.
Not that I didn't appreciate the potential
for the trail and that recreational aspect of it.
And maybe that can be incorporated into
whatever is ultimately developed there.
But I just think it's critical that we have
maintain that that 100 foot buffer for all the reasons that were outlined. So thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Moreno.
Thank you for the presentation and congratulations to the city of Newport Beach. Finding innovative
ways to meet the state's mandate and in essence HCD's housing mandate. I represent the city
of San Diego as a council member and we have proudly built a lot of housing in the city
of San Diego and changed community plan updates, you name it, zoning, just in my district alone
I have approved 3,000 units of housing, 932 being affordable in my district.
So I think the pressures of the state to build more housing are very warranted.
the number one issue I have in my district is housing.
Now I do recognize that as a coastal commissioner,
we have to balance the needs of access to our coast
as well as amenities and the environment,
but housing matters are an issue
that every single agency in the state of California
needs to be addressing.
So, number one, congratulations.
I know this is very difficult.
I think it's appropriate to turn a golf course into housing.
I think it's very appropriate.
My only question is obviously the owner retains the rights
and the owner can propose whatever pencils out.
We're not talking about affordable housing
on these units, right?
Or is there any type of mandate?
Thank you, Commissioner Moreno, for the comment.
So we don't have a project before us,
So what I would tell you is there are two projects applied for currently in the coastal
zone that include affordable housing that are just waiting on this overlay to come into
play.
On this particular site, again, no project, but I will say that as far as affordable housing
propensity or prospective affordable housing, the airport area of the city has seen the
most potential for affordable unit production.
So I don't think it's out of the question that we would see some level of affordability
here.
Well, thank you for answering that, and I too, although the 100-foot buffer is going
to take away from the housing units that will be able to be built, I think it balances the
need for recreation activities, which are obviously open to the public or will be open
to the public.
So I do support staff's recommendation, and once again, over 50 meetings for the general
public.
Just kudos to you guys.
Thank you for really stepping up and I will be supportive of staff's recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Notoff.
Thank you.
I just wanted to clarify that I think that there's an opportunity here, the staff recommendation
with the buffer zone, which I too support, doesn't presuppose the number of units that
could be available on this acreage.
It's mostly just an acreage adjustment
rather than a unit adjustment.
We don't have a project in front of us
and there are architectural design options
that would allow just as much housing units
to be built in this area, meeting HCD numbers as well.
Also, kudos to the city for embracing the number that you've been reading a number
and looking at creative ways to design that.
But I don't see that the staff recommendation is going to reduce your ability to meet those numbers
because it's a design option that is available with the zoning that is in your proposal.
Thank you.
Thank You commissioner Lopez
Yeah, can I ask for the city's just generally you have we all obviously the city has a 10% inclusionary requirement
What is the city's are you at the ten or have you gone beyond that and if so, what's the number?
That's a great question. Commissioner Lopez. So the city does not have a city-wide inclusionary requirement in place today
It's part of our housing element policy action to study inclusionary housing
It's been documented that a too high of an inclusionary housing percentage can actually be an impediment to housing
And with Newport Beach the land values are high. So just a percentage high
That is too high would actually hinder housing production in the airport area. We do have an inclusionary requirement. That is
15% for for rent, but that does not apply to this particular parcel and that is not city-wide
Thank you. So looking at this project. I think for me and I've heard a lot of opinions here
obviously, we're talking a lot about
the golf course itself and the opportunity to recreate on this parcel and
With the trail in place and the two parks and the benefit of also adding the housing over to the top and the access
We're as has been said so many times. We're not looking at a project
I heard the concerns about permeability and I've seen
Incredible projects with permeable pavers put down to allow for that to happen on-site retention for percolation
I believe that when a project comes we can address all those pieces
But given what we're looking at today with the balance that we're being asked to execute on,
I personally would feel comfortable with 75, somewhere in between, but if the majority is going to 100,
it's not a sticking point for me because we don't have a project in front of us.
I know that there's other limiting factors like the airport next door,
and that height limit may impose a different pressure downward on any desire to go taller.
here all of these different pieces that will inevitably play into the final project we look at, but I would also hope the city would consider approving smaller units, right, for sort of entry for young people looking for that first unit they can't afford 1200, 1500 square feet in the zip code based on the per square foot cost, and so in that, I don't think we're looking at a unit cap by any decision we're making today,
But I know that it's going to put different constraints on the project and I hope that it will keep it doable
But again, I'm sort of on that percentage looking at the rest of my colleagues here. I'm comfortable with anywhere between 75 and 100
Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Commissioner Wilson then Commissioner Lee
Thanks, I just wanted to
reference why and I want to
Around the hundred foot setback and from my perspective and from a watershed perspective if you would want it to be bigger than this
I want to say because this location in the watershed is near the end the bottom and the
problem with this watershed is mostly built out and so it's not just the capacity of the on-site treatment and
Storage to slow the flow and to and to deal with that you're already at the bottom
It's like your your opportunity to actually expand the volume of the channel in this location and it's off-site
capacity in its off-channel capacity this is the last that the city has to do that in this in this particular
watershed and
And you could hear the stress and the and the concern from the I don't know what the save the bay or whatever
Whatever organization it was that was that was speaking to those concerns. They were speaking directly to
The need for treatment of stormwater and there just isn't a lot of it already in that watershed
And this is the last place before it actually hits the bay
And so I just want to like emphasize like as a resource this having just having this open piece of property if this was like
Almost anywhere else and you weren't pressured to it wouldn't be pressured to do housing in this area
you would probably use this entire piece of property to
modify and contain and and and
and treat stormwater as it comes down out of the basin.
This would be it.
This is your last chance to do it.
We just did an Elk River restoration
project in Humboldt Bay, excuse me, bottom of the watershed
that's being impacted by sediment and other things.
We just approved a huge project in that there
was a tension around the conversion of ag to do that.
In this case, I would say this is the place.
And so for me, 100 feet is laughable
in terms of the ability to actually provide the treatment
necessary to deal with that already existing problem.
So I just encourage the city and the project developer
to seek ways to increase density by maybe height and, again,
setbacks while allowing for opportunities
for not just recreation but also stormwater and watershed
management in this piece of property. I can't design it from this perspective and there's
not a project there, but I just want to encourage that we really take a look at and value these
last remaining vestiges of watershed treatment potential.
Thank you. Commissioner Lee, environmental systems engineer. I love it. We were talking
about that yesterday. Yes, I view this the same way with the understanding and reading
in the addendum that the widening of the channel is mandated for flood capacity.
This is like an Army Corps of Engineers requirement.
So, because of that, it's expanding the capacity just as Commissioner Wilson described at
this sort of last point of no return.
And so, I didn't view the 100 foot setback or buffer as a arbitrary number or sort of
a negotiable number.
And it's not a speculative project, either.
It is ESHA.
And so the 50-foot Escher buffer and then the additional buffer seemed like very important
requirements that were thoughtfully put together, even allowing the maintenance path to go through.
That area is an accommodation to not further reduce the usable land area of the golf course.
And so I'm aligned with the staff's recommendation and view that not as a random number that
was just come up with we should negotiate back and forth,
but one that was thoughtfully created using science
and using the requirements that are put in place
by this channel expansion.
Yes, private property.
So we'll see what happens with it.
I'm involved with an educational institution
that did acquire a private golf course,
is using it for restoration.
It's one of the largest privately owned water
reclamation underground storage facilities now
in the city of Los Angeles.
It has a public park component to it,
but private property is private property.
We'll see what happens with that.
But Commissioner Lopez also brought up
the inclusionary portion.
You're very right in noting that sometimes
that inclusionary percentage can be so high
that it stalls all projects.
We don't want that.
But LA's Transit Oriented Communities Program
has been wildly successful in increasing density,
reducing the average required square footage for units
so that you can have smaller, more affordable units,
but those usually range from nine to 12% affordability
with an increased density
and actually have produced thousands of affordable units
that otherwise wouldn't have been built
that are in line and part of market rate projects
that has produced more affordable units
than straight down the middle affordable housing developers
in the city of Los Angeles over the last decade.
One.
Both have your mics on.
Commissioner Jackson.
final comments ask question if I could so assuming there is a project at some
point is it the city's desire to ensure that there is a component to that that
is a design affordability by design or percentage that will in fact be
affordable or are we talking about market rate I mean you alluded to
affordable and you know I know you you know we don't know what's gonna happen
happen. We don't know whether you're going to ultimately build
on that project or not. But you know, affordability is we talk
about it a lot. But I know there's a lot of market rate
going up. And there's affordability by design as
Commissioner Lopez and Lee alluded to.
Yeah, and that's a great question. I don't have a
fantastic answer for you, but I'll try my best. So we are
seeing the proposals for smaller units, particularly again, in the
airport area, I've heard them called smart size units more
geared towards a young professional, someone who
doesn't have you know screaming kids like I do who need more room so we are
seeing that happening in particular with this site while the city doesn't have an
inclusionary percentage we do have you know state density bonus law which we're
seeing be utilized quite frequently in our city and then also we have by right
approval process when you include 20% affordable to low or very low income you
forego the title 20 in our municipal code planning and zoning requirements
a coastal development permit would still be required, but it is a way to
streamline and incentivize developers to provide affordability. So while we don't have an inclusionary percentage to apply to the site
I'm not really a pass maker.
I get all that. I appreciate all that. But is it the the city's intent to
find a developer that is willing to
you know apply for that 20% density or those things if indeed you you do decide to build on this project.
Well, this is a privately owned property. So the city wouldn't be able to tell developer that they have
Understand that right. I believe yeah, I get the whole HCD and and all that
I mean we are but by zoning right
I mean there we get to these numbers by working with property owners for potentially building on said property. Sure
Okay, and we would absolutely promote, you know, affordable housing inclusion. They're in
Okay, because I know a lot of particularly affluent communities
Aren't concerned not to intimate that you aren't
but the focus is on the housing and particularly in premium locations and that tends to be more market rate and
very little if any affordable by design or other sure and to your point the city has seen a lot of
Smaller townhome developments be proposed outside of the coastal zone and I could see something like that happening here where it is a more affordable
For sale project even though it doesn't qualify as a technical for affordable unit
In context with the city's broader housing program. It is affordable. Thank you
Thank you. And I'll make my closing comments before turning to Commissioner Wilson for a motion. Um, I would just say
dispositionally I'm generally inclined toward flexibility when
The alternative that we're balancing is around housing development understanding the critical necessity
but I do want to align myself very strongly with the comments of Commissioner Wilson on the
biological imperative that we see in this particular area.
Not only as the stormwater treatment,
but just the creek and the restoration opportunity.
I mean, this is of profound importance biologically.
So I was very much convinced by that.
And I think the existence of the Delphi Project, for me,
makes a huge difference.
That it is not speculative, but is indeed already
in the pipeline speaks to only, it really only makes it more important that we observe this. Now,
I will say, if for some totally unexpected reason that project goes away, perhaps the city may want
to revisit and that's a conversation we could have at the time, but with that project being where it
is in the pipeline, I just, to me,
I think 100 foot is really the minimum.
So with that said, and with gratitude,
this was a really important conversation for us
to have as a commission.
I think some of these questions we're seeing more and more of.
And we will continue to see more and more of.
And the balancing work goes to the heart
of I think what we are obligated to do as coastal commissioners
and what our staff works so hard to help us do in conjunction
with the city.
so really appreciate all the work that brought us to this.
And want to celebrate the other sites that we got to yes on.
This is one site, and what a huge undertaking this was.
So I will probably be voting yes on this,
and I'll turn to Commissioner Wilson.
I believe there's two motions on this.
Four? Oh, what did I volunteer for?
All right, well, I just echo the sentiment of erytheory relation
to the or in relation to the just the conversation that we're having actually
this whole meeting was meaty in terms of its conversations on all kinds of issues
and I just want to appreciate that. With motion one I move the Commission's
certified land use plan amendment number five dash NP B dash two four dash zero
zero three two dash two as submitted by the city of Newport Beach. I recommend a
No vote. Second. Okay, may we have a roll call vote, please. motion by Commissioner Wilson. I seconded and we're asking for a no vote, please.
All right, Commissioner Hart. No, Hart. No, Commissioner Jackson. No, Jackson. No, Commissioner Rodoni. No, Rodoni. No, Commissioner Lee. No, Lee. No, Commissioner Lopez. No, Lopez. No, Commissioner Loenberg.
No, no one Burke. No Commissioner not off. No not off. No Commissioner Moreno. What do you know? No, no, no commissioner Wilson
No, Wilson. No Commissioner O'Malley. No, O'Malley. No chair Harmon
No, Harmon. No, the vote is unanimous. Thank you, Commissioner Wilson
I move that the Commission certify the land use plan amendment number
lcp-5-n pb-2 4-0 0 3 2-2 for the city of Newport Beach if modified as
Recommended by staff and I recommend a yes vote
Second motion by Commissioner Wilson. I seconded. We're asking for a yes vote. We have a roll call vote, please
Commissioner Jackson
aye
Jackson yes commissioner where don't II I redoni yes Commissioner Lee. Yes Lee. Yes Commissioner Lopez. Yes
Lopez, yes, Commissioner Lowenberg.
Yes.
Lowenberg, yes, Commissioner Knotthoff.
Aye.
Knotthoff, yes, Commissioner Moreno.
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes, Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes, Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes, Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes, Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Hart, yes, Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Great, thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
All right, motion number four.
Moved that the Commission certified number three. Oh three. I just jumping ahead. I was so excited. Okay, nevermind
I moved to the Commission reject implementation plan number
Excuse me amendment number LCP-5-n PB-2-4-0-3-2-2 as submitted by the city of
Newport Beach and I recommend a yes vote
Second motion by Commissioner Wilson. I seconded. We're asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll call vote, please?
Commissioner we're don't eat. Yes. We're don't eat. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes Lee. Yes Commissioner Lopez
Yes, Lopez. Yes, Commissioner. Loewenberg. Yes, Loewenberg. Yes, mr. Not off. Hi, not off. Yes, Commissioner Moreno
More no. Yes, Moreno. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner Malley. Yes
Malley, yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes
Hart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson
Jackson yes chair Harmon. Yes, Harmon. Yes vote is unanimous. Great. Thank you fourth motion, please. Yeah, okay
Number four. I move that the Commission certify implementation plan amendment number LCP dash 5 dash NP B
Dash 2 4 dash 0 0 3 2 dash 2 if modified as recommended by staff and I'm still recommending a yes vote
Second. Thank you motion by Commissioner Wilson. I seconded asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll call, please?
Commissioner Lee yes Lee yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Lowenberg
Lowenberg yes, Commissioner not off. I not off. Yes, Commissioner Moreno Moreno. Yes, but I know yes Commissioner Wilson
Yes, Wilson. Yes, Commissioner O'Malley. Yes
O'Malley yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes
Hart. Yes, Commissioner Jackson. All right, Jackson. Yes, Commissioner Bodoni. Yes, we're doing a yes chair, Harmon. Yes
Harmon, yes the vote is unanimous.
Great, congratulations.
Thank you, thank you to our staff for all the hard work.
And I think we're done for the day.
So lots of people to thank.
I wanna start by thanking the City of Gonzales,
Commissioner Lopez, this was an excellent week
and we are so grateful for the hospitality
that you showed us and that the whole city showed us.
To the team, AGP, you guys are the best.
Thank you so much.
and our staff for the incredible work.
This was a great meeting, we really, really appreciate it
and we'll see you all next month in San Pedro.
Thank you, I wanna give a special shout out
to the city manager of Gonzales, Carmen Gill.
She's been really helpful.
So I'll set up this meeting here as well
as the center staff who have been helping all week,
Jessica and Julie and Martine.
Thank you all so much.