We're excited to be here and to start this May meeting of the California Coastal Commission.
We will call the meeting to order and begin with a roll call, please.
Commissioner Escalante?
No.
Commissioner Hart?
Here.
Commissioner Jackson?
Present.
Commissioner Kelly?
Here.
Commissioner Lee?
Here.
Commissioner Lopez?
Commissioner Lowenberg?
Here.
Commissioner Notoff?
Here.
Commissioner presciado
Here you get Commissioner Williams here
Commissioner Wilson present chair Harman
Here we have a core
Great. Thank you very much. Okay, so we will move 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-span.org.
If you have internet access and which to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item, we recommend you use the CalSPAN website.
Those who wish to address the commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform
or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the commission's web page.
paper forms and a scanable QR code for paperless submittal are available on the Commission's
staff table just outside of the meeting room. For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual
hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda webpage, which is a guide on providing comments
via Zoom or by phone. Members of the public speaking during general public comment may
be given up to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. Requests to speak
during general public comment period,
will not be accepted after nine a.m.
on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity
for the broadest range of public participation,
you may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item
that is not general public comment
are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak
at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak
on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens
the hearing on that particular item.
If you have Internet access, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the
link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have Internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission
staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
will provide you with a telephone call-in number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone. We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting
through a meeting organizer. When it is your time to address the commission, the organizer
will invite you to turn on your video and microphone or provide instructions on how
to unmute the phone. Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Great. Thank you very much. And now we will go over to Mr. Hudson for agenda
changes, please. Thank you. And good morning, Chair Harmon, Vice Chair Hart, and
commissioners. The changes for today's agenda are as follows. Item 7B is
postponed. That's the Tomzack CDP application in Newport Beach. Item 11A,
the University of California at Santa Barbara at long range development plan
amendment for the East Campus Housing Project is moved to consent. Item 12a
this is the related notice of impending development for the UCSB East Campus
Housing Project is moved to consent. Item 14a the City of Ventura CDP application
and item 14b the related City of Ventura CDP application are moved to
consent and item 18 a the bircher CDP application out of Newport Beach is
moved to consent that concludes the changes to today's agenda so that brings
us to item 4 general public comment and with that I'll turn the mic back over to
you madam chair great thank you very much all right we're so grateful to hear
from the public and as I'd like to remind everyone every month when we turn
to general public comment please keep your comments related to matters that
pertain to the Coastal Act and are relevant to us on this body. With that,
we're very excited to hear from you and we will turn it over to the team. 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. For each speaker, we,
pardon me, each speaker will be allowed two minutes during general public
comment at the discretion of the chair. In order to allow for live video
testimony on Zoom, we will be bringing you in as panelists.
As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload.
This may take a moment to speed up this process.
We will bring several people in at a time, but please remain muted and keep your video
off until we ask you to speak.
After your time is up, you will be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room, I will call your names in the order that they
appear on 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 9. If you are participating by Zoom, you should see
a button on your Zoom screen. If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able
to do so, please raise your hand now. When it is your time to speak, we will invite
you to unmute and turn on your camera. You can unmute yourself on a phone by
deling star six. First up we have Joseph Holscher, Arshayan Desai, and Teal Green.
Good morning. My name is Joseph Holscher. I'm a student at Pacific Christian High
School of RC Surfer and a co-founder of Surfers Who Serve. Surfers Who Serve is a student-led
organization that empowers young surfers to create positive change through community service,
environmental stewardship, and leadership by using our passion for surfing to support our
communities and protect our oceans. I've been surfing the Santa Monica Bay since I was five
years old, but between myself and the two friends here with me today, we have spent a combined two
decades in the water. The ocean is not just a hobby for us, it's not just an
Instagram photo, it's our community, our outlet, and honestly our way of
processing everything this generation deals with. Surfing teaches you presence
in a way almost nothing does. When a set is breaking, you're completely in the
moment. For teenagers growing up in a world that constantly demands something
from us, that kind of clarity is rare. It keeps us grounded, gives us confidence,
and shapes who we are. To us, the ocean is home. When the fires destroyed my hometown
of Pacific Palisades, it changed the way I look at our coastline and our
responsibility to protect it. My generation has already watched communities
and ecosystems disappear and we cannot allow the beaches that define Southern
California to become another casualty of that devastation. That's why I'm here
today. To support the California Coastal Act and stand with the California
Coastal Commission to oppose AB 1740 because our coastline deserves long-term
protection not short-term decisions that could permanently damage it. At
servers who serve we believe young people are ready to help and lead right
now. We've already spoken at Santa Monica City Hall about student-led beach
cleanups, collecting pollution data, and partnering with businesses on adopted
storm drain programs and using social media and AI technology to help our
beaches. We are building our futures around protecting the ocean. The ocean is
not just somewhere we spend our time is a part of who we are and where we see
our futures. We want future generations to be able to experience that same
connection with these beaches and waters we had growing up. And if we truly want
to create strong future leaders, young people need a voice in these
conversations now. We are not just the next generation waiting in the background we
are ready to contribute ideas, energy and solutions today. The ocean has shaped my
generation in so many ways. Now it's our responsibility to stand up and protect
it. Thank you. Next up we have Arshayan Desai, Teal Green and then Anjani Desai.
Morning. My name is Arshayan Desai. I'm a student at Brentwood High School and
founder of the Blue Gold Initiative that inspires sustainability through soccer,
surfing, and conservation. I'm also co-president of my school's Surf Rider
Club where we bring students together through surfing, ocean stewardship, and
positive well-being. I want to tell you all what we are seeing in the water.
Bacterial advisories now appear even on warm sunny days with no rain.
After the Palisades fire, hundreds of destroyed properties sat along the Malibu coast for months with ash and debris washing into the ocean.
Since then, we have had to check ocean health advisories like the weather just to go in.
Last March, we witnessed one of the worst toxic algae blooms devastate this coastline.
Tons of marine wildlife washed ashore on Santa Monica beaches.
we saw contamination warnings, beach closures, and marine ecosystems overwhelmed by ash, chemical, and debris.
We have been able to link these blooms to warming temperatures, pollution, and environmental imbalance,
and they're becoming more severe.
Excess nutrients from fertilizers and untreated wastewater fuel these outbreaks,
while concrete surfaces have replaced the wetlands and green spaces that once naturally filtered runoff before it reached the ocean.
Last year we asked Santa Monica City Council to partner with us on green
infrastructure near the beaches, including rain gardens, bioswales, and
permeable pavements to reduce runoff and filter pollution. But AB 1740 moves in
the opposite direction by allowing more development and more impermeable
surfaces without coastal act protections. The ocean is not just scenery and
recreation, it is our identity, our health, it is healing and connection, it is where
community goes to celebrate, to breathe, and to feel grounded. We ask this
Commission to oppose AB 1740 and stand for stronger environmental protections
and a healthier future for our coastlines, our communities, and the
generations that depend on them. Thank you. Next up we have Teal Green,
Anjini Desai, and Kelly Holcher. My name is Teal Green. I'm a student at Pacifica
Christian High School. Last July the three of us organized a group of
students and surfers and went before the Santa Monica City Council. We did not go
to complain, we offered solutions. We said we were willing to participate in
restoration, education, and advocacy. We asked for stronger protections, more
resources, and real environmental leadership. Stronger, not weaker. That is
why it is genuinely so hard to understand Santa Monica co-sponsoring AB
1740. This city has long prided itself on being one of the most environmentally
conscious in California. Leading the effort to undermine the Coastal Act is
not that legacy. If this bill moves forward that will be what the city of
Santa Monica is remembered for along this coastline. The Coastal Act turns 50
this year. That is not a ceremonial milestone. It represents a generation of
Californians who looked at what was happening to this coast and decided it
was worth protecting for.
Not just for private interest or short-term development.
That decision shaped the coastline we inherited.
It shaped the surf breaks we paddle out to.
And it is the reason we get to go to the water at all.
We are not experts in every provision of AB 1740.
But we understand enough to know that weakening this commission's
authority does not serve coastal communities, marine ecosystems,
or our generation.
The answer to a stress coastline is not fewer protections,
it is a stronger enforcement, real investment
in restoration, and accountability.
We grew up in this ocean.
We want our children to have the same opportunity.
Our ask before you here today is for the Coastal Commission
to put forth every effort in opposing AB 1740.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Anjini Desai, Kelly Holscher, and Ashley
Olson.
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
My name is Anjani Desai, and I'm here today
in strong opposition to AB 1740.
For my family, environmental stewardship
is not a slogan or a political talking point.
It is how we live our lives every single day.
My husband and I have raised our three children
to not only care deeply about the ocean and our coastline,
but to take action to protect them.
My son, Arshayan, founded the Blue Gold Initiative,
focused on action through soccer surfing and conservation,
leading the change toward sustainability.
He believes in providing opportunities to youth
and building a generation of young leaders
ready to protect our blue planet.
My daughter, Ayana, chose to study environmental science
in college and completed a fellowship in climate
resilience.
She's an environmental climate scientist
working in Conservation and Development Commission.
Our family spends countless hours volunteering,
organizing cleanups, advocating for marine protection,
and participating in our conservation efforts
throughout our community.
My daughter has spent time under waters
and avid scientific scuba diver and underwater videographer.
She has seen firsthand the beauty and the fragility
of our marine ecosystems.
She has watched habitats change, documenting biodiversity
that many people will never ever have the privilege
to see with their own eyes.
Our coast is not something we can afford to gamble with.
What concerns me most about AB 1740
is that it moves in the wrong direction.
At a time when California should be a leader,
strengthening coastal protections and not weakening them.
When these ecosystems are harmed,
communities are harmed with them.
Coast lack exists because past generations understood
that once our coast is damaged,
it's incredibly difficult, almost impossible to restore.
These protections were in place to safeguard public access,
marine ecosystems, water quality and wildlife habitat,
and the natural heritage that belongs to all Californians,
not just today, but for future generations.
This is about responsibility,
responsibility for future generations,
responsibility to frontline communities,
responsibility to the ecosystems
that cannot speak for themselves.
My family deeply believes in action over words.
We teach our children.
If you love something, you protect it.
If you benefit from nature, you become a steward of it
and leave a place better than you found it.
I urge you to strongly reject AB 1740
and continue upholding the strong coastal protections
that make California a global leader
in environmental preservation.
Thank you so much.
Next up, we have Kelly Holcher,
Ashley Olson, and Eric Johnson.
Good morning, my name is Kelly Holcher and I'm here today as a mother of five children
who have all grown up in along the Santa Monica Bay. My kids are surfers, paddle boarders, swimmers,
true water enthusiasts. The beaches of the Santa Monica are where my family has spent
so much of our lives together. From surf camps to junior guards to paddle boarding, surfing,
boogie boarding and watching the sunsets, these beaches have shaped our children's childhoods
and that some of our best family memories have been spent there.
I also want to be honest with you that I have not always been a huge fan
of the California Coastal Commission.
When we built our family home in 2016 in Pacific Palisades,
we experienced firsthand how frustrating
and time-consuming the process can be.
Even though our home was more than two and a half miles away from the coast,
we still had to navigate layers of approvals,
waivers, and felt that felt overly bureaucratic. But after watching the fires that destroyed
my hometown of Pacific Palisades, where most of our friends and our children's friends
have lost their homes, where our church and our grocery stores are gone, and where so
much of our community disappeared overnight, I've come to better understand why the Coastal
Act matters. Regulations can feel frustrating, but there are moments when protections matter
deeply, and this is one of those times. I believe there has to be balance. We have to
streamline the approval process so our families can rebuild their homes and their lives without
years of delay. But we also need legislation that protects our coastline so that our children,
and someday their children, can continue benefiting from the gift that is the Santa Monica Bay.
What I see now is a generation of young people deeply connected to nature. My son Joseph
and the students involved in surfers who serve are stepping up with solutions and ideas.
They want to organize beach cleanups and explore environmental technologies,
collect pollution data, and advocate for the health of the oceans and beaches.
They are becoming advocates and taking the time to show up and let their voices be heard.
So instead of telling young people what to do, we should also listen to their ideas,
especially when we are making decisions
about the environment they will inherit
long after we're all gone.
That's why I'm here today in support of the Coastal Act
and in great opposition to AB 1740.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Ashley Olson, followed by Eric Johnson
and then Scott Garvey.
Hi, good morning.
My name is Ashley Olson.
I am a commissioner for sustainability,
environmental justice and the environment,
and the former chair of Clean Oceans and Beaches
Measure V Committee for the City of Santa Monica.
I also founded the Coastal Alliance,
an organization that advocates for coastal protections.
I'm here today to also ask that the Coastal Commission
fight AB 1740 with all your resources.
I also wanna tell you that the community
in Santa Monica is very upset.
About 1740, the lack of public input,
the surprise of finding out that our city has co-sponsored
this bill and the nature and how we found out about it.
Many neighborhood organizations and community organizations
have held emergency meetings to take a position on 1740.
Northeast Neighbors, North of Montana Association,
Willmont, Friends of Sunset Park, Santa Monica Neighbors,
and even the Santa Monica Democratic Club legislative
committee had a hearing and all voted to oppose,
will overwhelmingly to oppose 1740.
It has become very controversial in our city
and right now we are trying to make sure
that our elected leaders hear us and hear our voices
because it hasn't seemed to matter thus far.
I understand that the city has re-engaged
with the Coastal Commission for their LCP,
which I'm very happy to hear,
but they're not being transparent
about what the hiccups were before
and why the application was pulled in 2020.
I am very curious to know where the disagreements lie
and I wanna point out that 1740
is a dangerous proposition for our city
as the resident sentiment overwhelmingly opposes it.
I understand amendments are on the table
and being discussed, but if 1740 passes,
local control is given to our council
who are endorsed by abundant housing and streets for all
and contribute to their campaigns.
Many in our community are extremely concerned
with our council having authority
and how it is transferred to them.
Santa Monica claims to be the pride of coastal stewardship
but as a co-sponsor the city will leave a legacy
by setting a precedent and weakening the Coastal Act.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Eric Johnson, Scott Garvey, Maura O'Neill.
Good morning, and welcome to San Pedro.
We're so proud to have you here, and my name's Eric Johnson.
I'm the senior project executive at West Harbor,
a retail 42-acre waterfront retail dining
and entertainment project that really delivers
on the Coastal Commission's mandates around public access.
We're all about bringing people to the water.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I want to particularly thank Ray Jackson for taking me up
on my offer to tour the commission and staff
around the project and show you how the coastal act in action
in creating an environment that connects us with the ocean,
with our precious coastline, and will serve to expose it
and preserve it, I know, for years to come.
I also appreciate Jamie Lee here who was on the Harbor Commission when we were selected
14 years ago, 14 years ago, let that ring out on a very complex but worthwhile project
and without the support and faith of the local community.
This project was created through a sustained public-private partnership between the city
in Port of Los Angeles, our private development entity, the Coastal Commission, state lands,
we're really a great success story that I think should be told around how the private
sector and public sector can team up and achieve great things.
And I also appreciate Ray wanting to show a little clip that we have about our project
and hopefully you'll enjoy it.
Cue the clip.
When my brother and I were kids, we used to ride our bikes down to the San Pedro, into
a place full of ships, cranes, noise, a real working port.
For decades, this waterfront was one of the most important in the world, it was hidden
from cyclo.
It powered the global economy, it moved goods across the planet.
But it wasn't a place you could truly experience.
And then appeared the old boats a call, a unique attraction whisking you off to far
far away land, lots of fun things to do, it felt like magic. There was energy, it was
movement. There was a sense that something important was happening, and even if we didn't
fully understand it yet. And you know what? That always stayed with us. Over time, magic
along with the paint faded and the energy dissipated. So when we had the opportunity
to help reimagine this waterfront, we didn't just see it as a development opportunity.
saw a chance to connect people to the water bringing back the old magic to this very special
place. Because West Harbor isn't just a project. It's a reconnection. It's a rebirth. It's about
bringing people back to the sea and bringing the sea back to people's lives. And that's why being
here didn't matter so much. Right here at Altus you are building the future. Blue technology,
in ocean science, workforce, pathways, and climate solutions.
But for that future to take hold, people need to see it.
They need to feel it.
They need to understand why it matters.
We're creating a place where the blue economy
is the longer abstract.
It's visible.
It's tangible.
It's part of everyday life.
That's where West argue comes in.
Where a family might come for a meal,
watch ships live down the channel.
See marine life off in the distance,
and walk away with a deeper connection to the ocean.
With thousands of people being gathered
by the water for a concert, a World Cup match,
or a shared moment, and realize that this waterfront
is more of an infrastructure.
It's identity, it's opportunity,
it's the future of Los Angeles.
If we're serious about building
the workforce ecosystems of tomorrow,
we also have to build the places
where these people connect to that future.
Places that inspire curiosity.
Places that inspire participation.
Places that make the ocean part of everyday life.
That's what we're building at West Harbor
and we're just getting started.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have Scott Garvey,
Maura O'Neill, Thelma Alvarez.
Protecting Bional Wetlands.
Good morning, commissioners.
I'm here today to sound the alarm
on a betrayal of the public trust
occurring at the Biono Wetlands Ecological Reserve.
For years, the freshwater marsh,
originally created as a drainage and flood control component
for the Playa Vista development,
has been used to systematically divert and throw away
Biono's life-giving freshwater.
Playa Vista's own correspondence acknowledges
that this system was built
to support their projects development.
However, current management is causing continuous detriment
to wetland hydrology.
Instead of nourishing the wetlands and underlying
aquifers, precious fresh water is
being diverted into the Bionna channel
and literally thrown away into the ocean or the sanitary sewer.
This is not just our opinion.
In 2014, this commission's own enforcement staff
stated that draining Bionna is a continuous detriment
to the habitat. In 2017 your lead of enforcement, Lisa Haig, stated clearly, quote, draining
a wetland is about the most amazing violation you could have. Putting a drain in a wetland
is exactly opposite of anything you do. Yet this violation continues every single year.
We're also seeing a dangerous lack of accountability. In ex-party communications, the Department
Fish and Wildlife claim they have no management authority over the spillway or runoff.
This directly contradicts Playa Vista's own statements that the system is governed by
a CDFW streambed alteration agreement.
This disjointed oversight allows Playa Vista to prioritize flood control for their build-out
at the direct expense of protecting the ecological reserve.
We're asking the commission to enforce your own stated position that draining this wetland
is a violation, support the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and BIONA as a groundwater-dependent
ecosystem, order that freshwater and remediated groundwater be conveyed into the BIONA Wetlands
Ecological Reserve, not wasted into the sea, and the conflicted oversight that allows private
development instead to gift themselves public water resources while the habitat
suffers. Bionis Freshwater is its heritage. Please stop the drain. Thank you.
Next up, Maura O'Neill. Filmi Alvarez. Lydia Ponce. Morning commissioners, my name
is Maura O'Neill. I work for Better Neighbors LA as a policy analyst. We're a
coalition of hosts, tenants, and housing activists who research the short-term
for mental industry seeking to preserve long-term housing.
And we believe true home sharing and hosted only rentals
is the best way to balance affordable access to the coast
for residents and for visitors.
Earlier this year, we released a report that provides data
backing up some of the major concerns we have
when balancing housing preservation
and access in Coastal California.
The data analyzed in the report demonstrates
that short-term rentals can increase rents
and affect the housing markets, particularly in areas
with a higher concentration of short-term rentals
like the coastal zone.
Compared to inland neighborhoods,
short-term rentals take up five to 11 times more
of the housing stock in the coastal zone
and in areas surrounding the coastal zone.
The report also finds that less than 10%
of unhosted coastal short-term rentals qualify as low cost
according to criteria that the Coastal Commission itself
has used in the past.
Hosted short-term rentals tend to be more affordable
than unhosted short-term rentals,
but about only 5% of short-term rentals
in the coastal zone are hosted.
These findings point to the fact
that short-term rentals impact housing costs
while providing little low cost lodging and return.
Regulations can bring down housing costs,
especially in areas with high concentration
of short-term rentals, like the coastal zone.
We urge the commission to keep this in mind
when making decisions regarding
short-term rental regulations in the future.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Thelma Alvarez, Lydia Ponce, Jim Holtz.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Thelma Alvarez.
I'm acting director of Better Neighbors Los Angeles,
a coalition of tenants, housing advocates, and community
members committed to protecting long-term housing
by curbing illegal short-term rental activity.
We're so pleased to be able to speak to you in person today.
Along the California coast, Better Neighbors
advocates advancing hosted-only short-term rental policies
as the most effective way to balance coastal access
and visitor-serving accommodations
for all Californians.
Your environmental justice policy clearly states
that equity is at the heart of the Coastal Act.
That principle matters here.
Unhosted short-term rentals accelerate the loss
of long-term housing, invite speculative conversion
of coastal homes, and destabilize the working-class
immigrant and multigenerational communities
who have historically been excluded
from coastal decision making
and who already face disproportionate housing pressures.
Hosted only short-term rentals by contrast,
preserve neighborhood stability
while still supporting responsible visitor access.
They keep the resident on site,
reduce nuisance impacts,
and prevent the unchecked conversion
of scarce coastal housing into de facto hotels.
I urge this commission to continue applying
its environmental justice lens, and to prioritize coastal equity, community stability, and
housing preservation by supporting hosted only short-term mental policies.
Thank you so much.
Next up, Lydia Ponce, Jim Holtz, and then we'll move to our Zoom participants.
Good morning, relatives, Lydia Ponce, Quechua and Mayo, Scottish.
And my history of the love of the ocean has to do with San Diego, La Jolla, San Pedro,
and definitely Venice Beach because that's where I spent a lot of my time.
I grew up in Pedro.
And I stand before you to say that I am so willing to defend, protect, and honor the
Coastal Act with every ounce of my being because I want the seven generations forward to know
the joy and the freedom and the beauty of the ocean and the medicine that that salt
air is in the sand between the toes because I can just say that I'm an indigenous salty
human.
Stand before you to say that we met with us on a Zoom with the national parks people and
it kind of fell upon our heads last minute.
It wasn't really a great notification to the community, Venice or otherwise.
it was basically SoCal, and much to my surprise,
there were no indigenous people there,
so I let them have it, because we are
the environmental justice policy
for the state of California.
I'm in no way pretending that I know
what the heck they're doing, because to me,
it sounds like a land grab, because they say
that they want the public land for the entire coast,
and I call BS, and I said so much as that.
So I would like to see us get on our feet,
and have a rally cry of seven generations forward.
I think I'm very qualified to speak on things
of how it once was where Grunian were running over my feet
and it was just everywhere and now it's just one
or two sparse when we have Grunian run.
So, with the joy in my heart as a grandma,
I'll be taking a hiatus from California.
I'll be in Texas, my third granddaughter
needs a second surgery, so prayers for Bonnie.
and my heart goes out to every single one of you
to put our collective consciousness
and put our love and our pride forward
to those seven generations,
everyone's seven generations.
Thank you.
Next up is Jim Holtz,
and then we'll be moving to our first three Zoom speakers
who are Adam Leverins, Bonnie Ernst, and Jennifer Kresten.
Mr. Holtz.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Jim Holtz.
I own a home in Homosa Beach Coastal Zone
for the past 29 years.
Last March, Superior Court ruling reinforced the coast,
okay, but you heard what I said so far, right?
Okay, good morning commissioners.
My name is Jim Holtz.
I own a home in Homosa Beach Coastal Zone
for the past 29 years.
Last March, Superior Court ruling reinforced
the Coastal Commission, Coastal Act Authority.
In 2016, Hamosoo Beach adopted and strictly enforced
a blanket residential SCR ban without a CBP
or coastal commission approval.
The city did so one day after the deputy director,
Steve Hudson warned in writing that the ban constituted
development, diminished visitor serving accommodations
and required commission review.
Last March, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge
ruled the band unenforceable for that very reason.
This matters because Hermosa has a very few
coastal zone hotels, only one on the Strand,
and almost none with family-style lodging with kitchens.
Whole-home SCR is commonly served families
visiting for volleyball and surf camps,
beach recreation and coastal access.
In my experience, families are by far
the most common guests for short-term rentals.
Having a hosted-only regulation as suggested
by the hotel unions that you just heard about our homes,
Los Angeles, will act as a de facto ban for families wanting
to stay at the coast together under one roof.
Please urge Hermosa Beach to proceed quickly for a CBP
that will have reasonable regulations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're gonna be moving to our Zoom participants.
We have 17 people to speak,
starting with Adam Leverins,
Bonnie Ernst, and Jennifer Creston.
Adam Leverins, please go ahead.
Good morning, is my audio coming in okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
I have a couple of slides
if you could call up as I get started, please.
I wanted to thank commissioners
for your thoughtful consideration
last month of the housing overlay LCP for Newport Beach.
I really appreciate the consistency and opinion among you
about affordability of both housing
and recreational access as well as environmental concerns.
A number of subjects were raised during the item
and one of those being housing on state owned property.
After I'd spoken about the manufactured home park
shown here, next slide please.
preceding the city's Marina Park, which replaced it on here and the conversion of about 40%
of a previously public beach into pre-access only, a lobbyist for the city, Don Schmitz,
said, quote, if you have the honor of representing the city of Newport Beach on Marina Park,
it's one of the proudest projects that I've ever represented. Yes, we took out a bunch
of mobile homes, any of which were on state lands, close quote.
For context, I'd like to add or note that 50 some odd manufactured homes,
a more affordable housing option in the coastal zone, historically located
on public property due to development standards back in the day, and they have to go.
Next slide, please.
But a number of multimillion dollar homes also developed on state property due
to development standards back in the day, and they get to stay. This is Beacon Bay,
the namesake for the Beacon Bay Bill. During proceedings before you in December, there
was a dock expansion permit. And the staff report noted that for 20 years, this homeowners
association has violated conditions of their permit by kind of hiding that that's a publicly
accessible beach and this is just another example of wealth and privilege in Newport
Beach and the variation in rights and privileges between those with and those without and again
going forward I just hope that you recognize these things.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next up Bonnie Ernst followed by Jennifer Creston and Herman Budd Coomans.
Can I get my phone and phone?
Should I?
Bonnie, are you there?
Yes, I am.
Good morning, Commissioner Utterson staff.
I'm Bonnie Ernst with the Oceano Beach Community Association.
And thank you again for the opportunity to speak about Oceano Beach and Dunes.
I do have a video if you want to play that sometime.
It's not super important.
As you may recall, the recent court ordered injunction,
barring OHV from the Oceano SVRA is now in effect.
For some in Oceano has been both a blessing and a curse.
We applaud the Center for Biological Diversity
for their tenacity in fighting on behalf of the endangered
and threatened species.
However, for us locals, this injunction only halted
driving south of the Royal Grande Creek.
The entrance at Pier Avenue remains open.
Our section of Oceano Beach, which you'll see soon,
can now function as a concession staging area,
a parking lot, and an area for frustrated OHV drivers.
I'll let that come up.
In 1982, state parks was given three years
to find a new entrance to their SVRA away from our community.
That is now 40 years overdue.
The long history of non-compliance should be addressed.
Today I ask that you request
to our SLO county board of supervisors
to bring their LCP into compliance with the Coastal Act
and the Endangered Species Act.
And for the commission to conduct a yearly review
state parks CDP. At the very least it should include a non-negotiable
stipulation. When the Arroyo Grande Creek crossing at the SVRA riding area is
closed, the pure Avenue entrance must also be closed to motorized vehicles,
ensuring just a bit of vehicle-free relief for Oceano Beach. The pure Avenue
entrance has long been abused as the entrance to the SVRA. If there is no SVRA,
there should be no entrance and thanks so much for allowing us to comment on
zoom I really appreciate that thank you miss Ernst next up Jennifer
Creston Herman bud Coomans and captain Patricia Coomans Jennifer Creston please
go ahead good morning everyone my name is Jennifer Creston and I'm speaking on
coastal access in Newport Beach and I believe I have a video it's going to be
starting any minute now I'm thinking give us a moment to pull that up please
okay great thank you I'm sorry we do not have a presentation for you okay is it I
have a video a SLC Newport moorings benchmark rates it may be under the name
of ad lever ends give us one moment to pull that up we have another lever thank
you sorry okay there is audio with that for decades different classes of
idland's users in Newport Harbor have been the subject of fundamentally different pricing
approaches by the city of Newport Beach. This has led to persistent inequity and high-level
scrutiny from state agencies. There is, however, a straightforward solution to this ongoing dilemma.
Adopt a single transparent benchmark rate expressed on a per-square-foot basis for both
moorings and private docks. Applying the state established area specific benchmark rate,
currently $0.45 a square foot, to private piers and moorings alike, would eliminate the current
two-tiered structure which is brought on a high level of concern from the state and has put every
tie lens user in Newport at risk. The result today is a system in which users of public tie
lens are treated differently without a clear consistent rationale. This raises legitimate
concerns about preferential treatment and about compliance with legal requirements for
non-discriminatory management of public trust assets. A unified benchmark approach would
correct this imbalance. It would ensure that all users pay proportionally for the public
resource they occupy based on the same underlying metric.
Just as importantly, it would align the city's methodology with the state's own definition
of fairness, reducing legal exposure and restoring and reinforcing public confidence.
Perhaps most significantly, adopting a consistent state benchmark would finally bring closure
to the decades-long cycle of disputes, questionable studies and incremental adjustments that have
failed to resolve the core issue. By grounding all fees in a single objective standard, the
city can replace contention with clarity and the perception of favoritism with demonstrably
equitable rates.
Thank you, Ms. Creston. Next up, we have Herman Bud Coomans, followed by Captain Patricia
humans followed by Kaylee, pardon me, Shailie Hilkema.
Hi, can you hear me?
We can hear you, yes.
Okay, my husband Herman's here with me.
I'd like to go first if that's okay.
That's okay, please go ahead.
Good morning everyone.
I'm Captain Pat Coomans.
In Newport Beach, the medium home price
now over 3.2 million dollars. I think we can all agree that we face a severe housing crisis,
particularly affordable, moderate, and low-income housing in the coastal zone. The state requirements
numbers of units needed are not materializing at anything even close to that is what is needed,
making reductions in levels of affordable housing options counter to logic. Yet the
city of Newport Beach desires to end their highly regulated and monitored liveaboard program. This
doesn't confide the spirit of no net loss. Next slide please. There are survey questions the city
is circulating right now asking how familiar people are with the liveaboard program and should
this city end it. It's been made evident that even the liveaboard program in the city's favorite
eliminating it as a favorite option. People just don't understand the rules and what's going on
down here. Next slide please. This is one of the emails sent to the city from the owner on a 29
and three-quarter million dollar home. He seeks to eliminate all of the boards from the harbor
and he has access to via an exclusive dock even though others renting the same state property
pay many multiples more in tide land fees than he does. Next slide please. There are innumerable
instances of liveaboard saving and aiding people in distress and offering a level of security for
others simply by their presence. State Lands has noted marinas where 10% is the optimum
number of liveabords to service these functions. I urge the Coastal Commission to not stand by
The city looks for limited to a small number of live awards currently available in Newport Beach.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Coomans.
Next up, Herman Bud Coomans, followed by Chely Hilkema and George Hilkema.
Mr. Coomans, go ahead.
Good morning.
Well, you just met my wife.
I'm Herman Coomans.
We, my wife and I, hold a mooring and a liveaboard permit in Newport Beach, each acquired under
government-imposed policies that we had to comply with.
They're all good, we don't mind.
We pay permit fees and rent as required by code.
We have our vessel annually inspected as required by code.
In fact, a lot of the non-liver boards don't have to get their vessel annually inspected.
There is absolutely no pumping out the toilet in the bay.
We pay for an authorized pump out service or verify our pump out at the pump out dock.
The boats registered and insured as required by code were required to add the city as additional
insureds at our own expense.
But the city desires a number of drastic changes to these programs and has not applied for
coastal development permits for plans that'll push people like us out of the harbor, take
away our beloved coastal access and our homes through price manipulation and socioeconomic
engineering.
I know that the commission can stop these things from happening.
I plead that you not wait until it's too late and gentrification takes another big bite
out of the access of Newport.
Thank you very much for listening.
Thank you, Mr. Coomans.
Next up, we have Shalee Hilkama,
followed by George Hilkama and Lucia Casa-LaNuevo.
Good morning, commissioners.
I'm a Newport morning permit holder
who would prefer that the dealings of our policymakers
were fair and transparent.
The city of Newport Beach has threatened us
with a three to 500% fee increase,
and it wants to end our permit transferability.
so it can charge much higher fees
for its city-owned mooring license product.
This active license program
currently includes 17 moorings, but no CDP.
Later today at the nonprofit Newport Harbor Foundation's
quote, state of the bay luncheon,
where tickets start at 500 a plate
and one can be a platinum supporter
of this nonprofit organization for $25,000,
presentations will be made
by past and current city policy makers
on Harbor-related matters.
Past Harbor Commissioner Skip Kenny
will give a mooring permit fees update
and Council Member Joe Stapleton,
who is also a past Harbor Commissioner,
a past Mayor and a current member
of a two-person ad hoc committee
that has been tasked to, in his words,
do a complete review of everything
regarding harbor management, will MC.
At the foundation's website, Mr. Kenny writes
that in the opinion of the Newport Harbor Foundation,
the mooring permit fees proposed by the Harbor Commission
are very reasonable.
To clarify, he's talking about three to 500% increase
in offshore mooring fees and 1,000% increase
in onshore mooring fees.
He declares that the Newport Mooring Association
aggressively fought any increase in the mooring permit fees
but doesn't mention that we already pay much higher fees
than like user groups,
including those that are commercial and for profit.
He also didn't mention that the NMA advocates for fair fees
for all harbor users.
Mr. Kenny, oh, Mr. Kenny doesn't mention the facts
that those with residential peer permits
pay nothing to store their boats at their private docks.
They pay a fraction of the fees.
We pay for much larger footprints.
They enjoy exclusive use rights.
The city allows them to rent dock space for private gain,
which can amount to many thousands of dollars per year.
And the city hasn't threatened to revoke
their residential peer permits,
which can add a million dollars of value
to their harbor front homes.
One sentence, I don't know what will be served
at that pricey luncheon today,
but the unfair dealings of the policymakers at the table
really sticks in my throat.
Thank you for that two seconds.
Thank you for your good work.
Thank you.
Next up, George Hilkama,
followed by Lucia Casalenoobo and Kasmali Lopez.
Mr. Hilkama, please go ahead.
Good morning.
My name is George Hilkama.
I'm 90 years old and I've had my sailboat
on a mooring in Newport Harbor for 40 years.
I've been a board member
of the Newport Mooring Association for 35 years.
And frankly, I'd much rather be sailing
than speaking to you about how the city of Newport Beach
wants to raise our mooring fees 300 to 500%
and end mooring permit transferability again.
I spent more hours of my life on these same issues
during my 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s
and I care to remember, though I'm glad I still can.
But it's getting harder to think of something new
to say to you since I'm telling the same old story.
I have no doubt that you are all aware
that the recreational boating is protected
by the common law doctrine of the public trust,
that this doctrine protects sovereign lands,
including the tide lands of Newport Harbor
for the, quote, benefit use and enjoyment of the public,
Unquote our coastal tactics section three zero two two four states vote increased recreational
voting use of coastal waters can be encouraged and section three zero two three four calls
for the protection of recreational boating harbor space which is not to be reduced boat
unless demand for those facilities no longer exists or adequate substitute space has been
provided." In its staff report 105, the State Lands Commission suggests that the
transferability of mooring permits may, quote unquote, violate state law, but I say it also
may not violate state law. There are voters in other parts of California like those in
nearby Catalina who transfer mooring permits, and since State Lands Commission has had
oversight authority over the managerial duties of New Board Beach, I'm wondering why after 40
years in the armor I'm just hearing about this possible violation. The fact
is that boring permit holders followed city policy and regulation and we
certainly shouldn't be penalized for doing what we were told to do to obtain
maintain and pay for a place to store our votes in Newport Harbor. Thank you.
On behalf of Newport Harbor boring permit. Thank you so much. Thank you Mr.
Helkama. Next up is Lucia Casa Lenuobo followed by Casamali Lopez and then Nathan Brenner.
Ms. Casa Lenuobo, please go ahead. Good morning. Good morning, Lucia Casa Lenuobo Oceana Beach
Community Association. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Good morning. I'm here to
you respectfully request that you hold a review of the Oceano Dunes SVRA. According to the
original permit, you are supposed to hold one every year. It has been five years since
you held the last review in 2021, when unanimously you banned driving on Oceano Beach and Dunes.
Thank you, that was an extraordinary determination.
Unfortunately, the court struck it down,
but there is more than one way to skin a cat.
For one, you can submit a recommendations
to San Luis Obispo County
to amend its local coastal plan,
which is in violation of the coastal act
and the other act, which I forgot the name right now.
the Endangered Species Act.
Two, you can hold the review and lower the number
of traffic on the beach and dunes and down
to almost nothing.
You don't need to ban traffic completely.
The courts say you don't have the authority,
but you definitely can still significantly reduce
the number of vehicles allowed.
Or, even better, let them drive on the 800 acres,
put aside for them by the legislation,
but withhold the permit to drive on Oceano Beach
in order to access them.
Five years ago, you determined that the driving
on Oceano Beach in Dunes destroys them.
But since then, the destruction has continued
and you have done nothing.
We requested that you at least schedule a review,
which is your duty and is five years overdue.
The quiet title suit filed by the off-roaders
a few years ago has been dismissed.
They do not have the historical right
to drive on our beach in Dunza.
Therefore, you can still stop them.
Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Casa-Lenoovo.
Next up, Casamali Lopez, followed by Nathan Brenner
and then Nikki Kohlhoff.
Casamali Lopez, please go ahead.
How cool.
Hello, everyone.
My name is Casamali Lopez.
I come from old Indian town of the Creek
from the village of Shalawa.
And I'm honored to be an enrolled member
of the Barbeneer Chumash Tribal Council.
And I'm here today because, you know,
really it was a story that came from my work.
I work as the tribal liaison
for the Southern Steelhead Coalition.
And through that, I had this issue raised to my attention
by the friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh,
that there was this development going on.
And this is a place that has, you know,
thousands and thousands of years of tribal history on it.
And in my lifetime has always been a place that I know
the basket weavers have gone to gather. And the Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh
approached me in a very honest way, where like we want to bring this development to
your attention, this development on Sandpoint Road that's adjacent to these Carpinteria
Salt Marshes. And the question they asked was fairly simple. If I had heard anything
about the tribal consultation for this project and so I reached out to my tribal government,
the Bata Bata Nino Chumash Tribal Council, and what I heard back was that there hadn't
been tribal consultation, and of course that's limited to one tribal government of many in
this area, and so I would encourage other Chumash groups, you know, to report what they've,
you know, if there's been proper consultation, but I just think that, you know, these areas
are really important, especially where they have thousands of years of history, and you
know, making sure that there's the proper monitoring going on with the development of
projects I think is something that's important. And so I'm just here to speak up about that and
kind of report what, you know, those findings I had found from just talking to my tribal government.
And I just want to conclude by giving my deepest gratitude to the commissioners and to this process,
you know, I think it's a beautiful thing that we get to come and engage in this democratic process.
And so, yeah, thank you so much for your time. And thank you for everyone, all the different
work that made this meeting possible. Thank you very much Mr. Lopez. Next up we'll have Nathan
Brenner followed by Nikki Kohoff and then Heather Thomason. Mr. Brenner please go ahead.
Greetings commissioners. We have a presentation. Thank you for putting that up.
I'm Nathan Brenner with the Sierra Club Seal Society. Next slide please.
Pregnant sea lions have hauled out at Point La Jolla in the La Jolla Cove and we are expecting
the first viable sea lion pup birth any day now. In preparation for this year's puppy season,
the CR Club has engaged in ongoing collaboration with the City of San Diego. On May 7th,
we conducted the third formal meeting with the City. Our shared goal was to finalize a
sea lion puppy season management protocol. Next slide please. In addition to City Ranger
management practices already in place. The following management protocols have been agreed
upon. Cones. The Rangers will place cones on the beach to protect Sea Lion moms and their pups.
A-frame signs with safe distance viewing guidelines will be deployed by Rangers on
the beach. Stairwell management. Rangers will redirect crowds away from the western stairs
when Sea Lions are on or below the lower levels. Viewing areas. Rangers will urge the public to
to view the sea lions from upper levels
and redirect visitors to use the Eastern stairwell
to access the beach when appropriate.
Tour buses, the Sierra Club and the city
are also working together to develop
sea lion viewing guidelines to distribute to tour buses.
Next slide, please.
The Sierra Club will continue to provide updates
to this commission regarding the agreed-upon
sea lion protocols and will provide feedback
on the successes of the city's implementation.
Sierra Club extends an invitation to the commissioners
and staff to join us on a guided tour
of the Point La Jolla Sea Lion Rookery
when you are in San Diego at your meeting next month.
We are grateful for the commissioner's support
over the past year.
With your continued commitment,
we are optimistic that together,
we can attain our goal of zero pup deaths
caused by human interference in 2026.
Next slide, please.
Thank you from the Sierra Club
on behalf of all the Hoyas, Sea Lion moms, and moms-to-be. See you in June.
Thank you, Mr. Brenner. Next up we have Nikki Kohlhoff, followed by Heather
Thomason and then Karen Kroener. Nikki Kohlhoff, please go ahead.
Hi, my name is Nikki Kohlhoff and I'm a lifelong coastal Californian,
a Santa Monica resident of nearly 30 years and a neighborhood council board member speaking in my
individual capacity. The people of Santa Monica did not ask for AP-1740. It was created behind
closed doors by certain City Council members and staff with Assemblymember Zabur for the
benefit of developers. Public records show city staff was working with Zabur's office as early as
June of 2025, but residents didn't learn about the bill until the city were the city's co-sponsorship
until a press release in February. I contacted Zabur's office asking for basic information about
how this sponsorship came about and was told the bill was brought to them by our city's
paid lobbyist.
I submitted five specific questions to Zabur and staff in writing and have followed up
eight times with no response.
How does a state law that applies only to Santa Monica co-sponsored by Santa Monica
move forward with no discussion, no public vote, and no one able to produce written evidence
of that sponsorship?
Multiple neighborhood organizations and the legislative committee of the Santa Monica Democratic
Club oppose AB 1740. That tells you where residents actually stand. So don't let your
guard down as Santa Monica re-engages with you on their LCP. Last night our city council
held a special meeting and what they revealed should concern this commission. They consider
coastal access to be multi-modal, a frame that ignores that most people still arrive
to the beach in a car and need affordable parking. Their view of coastal authority appears
There's limited to sensitive habitat and endangered species pushing a narrative that our coastal
zone isn't sensitive enough to warrant serious protection.
They want to expand ministerial approvals and use state law to limit public input after
an LCP is adopted, and they appear poised to use the LCP process to shrink the coastal
zone boundary itself, and they want this all done before the end of this legislative session
in an election year.
Do not let their election year urgency rush you into a bad agreement.
that urgency as leverage to strengthen protection for our coast, not to weaken them. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Kohlhof. Next up we have Heather Thomason, Karen Kroener, followed by
Harry Saussier. Heather Thomason, please go ahead. Hi. My name is Heather Thomason from Santa Monica.
And first, I just wanted to say that I appreciate for this commission that
Commissioner Jackson has brought his expertise to recent Santa Monica conversations on AB 1740.
I'm here to express my opposition to AB 1740, both the process by which this bill came about
and the substance which undermines the Coastal Commission's authority. These are deeply
concerning. Because of the fierce opposition to this bill among Santa Monica residents,
the city is now talking about reengaging on an LCP and I'd ask the commission to be cautious about
agreeing to anything that adds ministerial approval or expedited time frames for
large market rate housing projects or hotels. Those tend to minimize resident voices for
identifying actual legitimate concerns about projects. I also understand that the Coastal
Commission does a very good job of quickly approving affordable housing projects and I
support that and want to see those kinds of approvals continue with minimal delays.
I'd also ask the Commission to be careful about not reducing oversight over transit and roadway
changes within the coastal zone. This state has not issued a definitive answer on whether upgrades
to existing bus stops or bus lanes can trigger new sp79 transit qualifying hubs and until that's
settled the Commission's oversight over route stops and roadways along the coast must not be
reduced because changes to bus stops could lead to inadvertent up zoning of our sensitive coastal
area. To the extent that Santa Monica is asking to minimize the borders of this
Commission's authority, I also hope that you will not agree to that lightly. We
depend on you to protect these sensitive coastal areas, especially from over
development. Thank you so much. Thank you, Miss Thomason. Next up we have Karen
Croner followed by Terri Saussier and then Diane Wolke. Miss Croner, please go
ahead. Hi there, can you hear me? We can hear you, yes. Great, thank you so much
for making this Zoom possible. I want to express my opposition to AB 1740 as well.
Please know the Santa Monica residents were not included in Santa Monica's
sponsorship of this bill in any way and the bill does not reflect our desires to
protect our iconic and sacred coast. There were no public sessions and we
were shocked to learn, the Dan Hall went to Sacramento to sponsor this bill. They kept
it secret to avoid the enormous opposition they're now seeing from Santa Monica's who
are truly rising to oppose AB 1740. We saw last night at Santa Monica City Council how
voraciously they want to develop housing at the beach without any concern for environmental
issues or public access. These are the same folks who try to keep the F water rating at
the peer secret from the tourist, which breaks my heart every time I see people swimming
there.
As you engage with Santa Monica on an LCP, please, please, please don't agree to anything
that adds ministerial approval.
They openly want to limit public access to make profit over development.
Please don't allow expedited time frames for approval or anything that minimizes the borders
of the Coastal Commission's authority.
depend on you to help protect these sensitive coastal areas from over
development and over development is openly what their plan is and you have
an incredible opportunity as Heather said right now to work with the LCP but
not under the pressure of getting it done in this legislative period. Thank
you so much for your support of Santa Monica Bay. It means everything. Thank you
very much, Ms. Croner. Next up, we have Terry Saas here, followed by Diane Wolkie, and then
Terry Welsh. Terry Saas here, please go ahead. Good morning commissioners and
Chair Harmon. I'm here to call attention to two artificial, artificial turf projects
that are being proposed inside and directly adjacent to Coastal Commission
permit zones by Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District in the LA
Rec and Parks in Pacific Palisades Park, and to ask you to formally notify them
artificial turf is not permitted in the CDP and to take action to stop these projects and hold them
accountable. The synthetic multi-sport athletic field being proposed in Palisade Park was recently
approved by the Park Advisory Board and is directly adjacent to the ocean. The stormwater
runoff will flow directly into Patero Canyon in the ocean. This field caused from more than 140,000
square feet of impermeable plastic which will prevent stormwater recharge and increase toxic
runoff with chemicals and microplastics. The amount of rainfall this past year alone would have resulted
in more than 1 million gallons of toxic runoff. As recently as 2023 there was a landslide in
Patero Canyon that had to be filled. A regulation-sized field can shed more than 2,000-3,000 pounds of
plastic grass blades per year per field and 12 to 15 percent of microplastics in our waterways are
from artificial turf. The product being proposed in this park has 16 times the plastic blades therefore
16 times the microplastic blades that could be lost. The Santa Monica Malibu USD violated your
policy of the artificial turf installations at Ocean Park and Western Schools, please
find them and hold them accountable. If the Commission does not act now, school districts
and rec and parks will see its permission to move full steam ahead, it will be difficult
to reverse. Therefore, I ask you to please consider formally notifying Santa Monica Malibu
USD and LA Rec and Parks the artificial turf is not permitted in the CDP, develop a strong
explicit artificial turf policy that could leave states artificial turf is never allowed,
and establish a robust enforcement program to proactively identify, stop and remediate
unauthorized installations in the permit zone. Our communities, children and future generations
are counting on you to protect our ocean, coast and the fragile marine ecosystems.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Ashear. Next up, we have Diane Wolkke, followed by Terri Welsh and then Eileen
Bochen. Please go ahead, Ms. Wolkke.
This is Diane Wolke.
Thank you.
Good morning, chair and
commissioner.
It is Diane Wolke, safe healthy
playing field zinc.
Published in January 2026, 600
quadrillion.
That is a six followed by 17
zeros.
Microplastic particles are
released from land sources
annually.
In addition to the estimated 26
quadrillion particles
contributed to the atmosphere
from ocean microplastics.
in the ocean. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is determined that plastics release
four times the greenhouse gases when compared to the aviation industry.
Overheating of the ocean and land from fossil fuel-based plastic is
altering ecosystems, causing habitat loss, disrupting breeding cycles,
and migration patterns, decreasing oxygen, acidified and warming the ocean, resulting
in deaths of seabirds, sea lions, and more along our coast. A major point source of
in microplastics is synthetic turf,
in schools, parks, residential and commercial landscapes.
As previously mentioned,
an 80,000 square foot playing field
contributes two to 3,000 pounds of microplastic blades
and 600 pounds from the backing annually.
The industry is rolling out 1100 acres
of plastic carpet each year in California alone.
The chemical leachate from these plastics
can also harm both humans and the environment,
Healthcare expenses from the use and exposure to plastics
are estimated at $250 billion per year in the US
and PFAS related expenses alone at 22.5 billion per year.
Socioeconomic costs of plastic in the US
are between 436 billion and 1.1 trillion
when looking at plastics from cradle to grave.
Please do your part to stop the proliferation
of plastic turf in the CDP and LCP zones.
Go back to Santa Monica Malibu Board of Ed,
find them for the installation in Ocean Park
and Webster schools demand removal.
Both the school district and the city of Los Angeles
must be held to account for
homey people and planet.
Please keep the plastic turf out of the surf.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Wolkie.
Next up we have Terry Walsh.
Mr. Walsh, please go ahead.
Hi, can you hear me?
We can hear you, yes.
Hi, commissioners.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
My name is Terry Welch and I'm president
of the Coastal Corridor Alliance.
This is an organization that was previously known
as the Banning Ranch Conservancy
or Executive Director as Melanie Schlotterbeck.
And I wanna take a moment to talk about
Randall Preserve, a property formally known
as Banning Ranch.
And as you can see, it's located in Orange County
between the cities of Huntington Beach,
Newport Beach and Costa Mesa.
And it sits at the mouth of the Santa Ana River.
Next slide, please.
In this beautiful aerial photograph
we're looking out towards the ocean in Newport Harbor.
Now for 80 years, Banning Ranch was an oil field,
and in 2022, it became permanently protected,
publicly owned coastal open space.
And the fact that this happened
is nothing short of a miracle.
It involved decades of hard work by our group
and many other groups and the tribal community.
And most of all, an extremely generous donation
from Frank and Joanne Randall,
hence the name Randall Preserve.
Now, as we speak, they are remediating the oil field
and they're working on a resource management plan,
a public access plan, a coastal resiliency strategy,
and they've already completed a tribal access
and engagement plan.
The tribes will have a large role in this property
moving forward.
Next slide.
Now, when the 387 acres of Randall Preserve
was purchased in 2022,
it did not include a smaller 11 acre parcel
that is currently owned by the local school district,
the Newport Mesa Unified School District.
And I have a lot to say about these 11 acres
and I'm gonna have to come back at another time,
but I do wanna thank you for at least allowing me
to give you an orientation to Randall Preserve
and I will please get back to your hearing.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you, Mr. Welsh.
We have one speaker that we have not been able to find
in the webinar, Eileen Bochen.
Ms. Bochen, if you are watching the video,
please raise your hand by dialing star nine.
Looks like we have no response, Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much, Galen.
And thank you to the public for your testimony.
So I will return to the commission for comments, questions.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
I just wanted to acknowledge the young people
that were here today and reflect on
how powerful young people can be.
If it wasn't for young people in this state,
as well as older people and everyone in between
for that matter, but really young people,
there would be no coastal act.
And what that says is the power in the intelligence
and the passion they exhibited today
has the potential to really make a change going forward.
It just was incredibly uplifting
and I'm sure my colleagues share this
to see this group of people and their moms
who I admire so much for the way they've raised
those young people.
I just have to say what I see when I see folks like that
is a resurgence of the environmental values
that saved the coast of California
and created this amazing act
that we've been celebrating this year after 50 years.
It helps us care for our wild places
and our wildlife in this state.
I also wanted to just say that I was able
to go to Sacramento and it is related to this
to celebrate 50 years of the Coastal Act
and I just want to publicly thank the legislators,
so many of who stood up and talked about
how important the Coastal Act is
and what the coast of California would look like
if there had not been a Coastal Act.
It was an absolutely incredible
and amazingly uplifting day.
So again, I just wanted to thank those young people
for being here before they have to go to school
and taking the time.
And I know they're listening.
They were on the road, they had to leave,
but just wanted to express my extreme gratitude
for everything they're doing.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, I couldn't agree more.
Any other, Commissioner Nada?
Yeah, I was gonna lift up the mothers too,
I thought they did quite a good job,
and I maybe encourage them to take a longer field trip
to Sacramento, because hearing those voices
really, I think, will help move the dialogue
in a more positive direction.
I did wanna ask about, you know,
I know that staff has been encouraging San Luis Obispo County
to update their LCP.
That hasn't been happening,
but if there is an opportunity to have a review
that would have some type of prompting effect,
I think that I'd certainly be interested
in seeing if that's something we could move forward with.
I don't know if staff wants to respond to that.
Just briefly to say that we haven't
directly engaged on a timeline with the county.
It's something we've definitely been
in conversation with them about.
There are a lot of other things in the works
related to Oceano Dunes.
There was a recent lawsuit that was settled,
or not settled, but there was a decision.
There's some work moving towards getting
a habitat conservation, I think it's HCP,
a conservation plan in place for Oceano.
So we've been sort of paying attention to those things
and trying to decide what the next step moving forward
would be given all these other things.
So just to say, I thank you for the comment.
We'll take that into consideration
and in our discussions with the county.
And we'll be back to you with other updates as we have them.
Thanks, just kind of whatever we could do
to help move the ball forward there.
Thank you, Commissioner Escalante.
Thank you Madam Chair.
And first I wanted to acknowledge and thank
Ms. Lydia Ponce for her leadership.
It's always nice to come down to LA and see her in person.
And, you know, that kind of community activism
and leadership, you know, that stems from the heart
and love for your family and your traditions
and so much respect and I just appreciate it so much.
So I just wanted to wish you the best of luck with that baby girl in your family.
And a question about one of the members of the public, Mr. Lopez was talking about the
Prince of Carpinteria in the South Marsh.
Does the staff have anything to respond to that or are we going to be seeing that in
depth in the near future?
Thank you.
just briefly so that this was a the project in question I think was brought
before you over a year ago so the Commission has already acted it was a
single-family residence project it's on the end of the sand spit it's a legal
lot I believe it was it takings if I remember correctly takings analysis and
approval by the Commission so the Commission has already taken action on
that project. But this is another public there's there's
definitely a segment of the public that is unhappy with
development moving forward in this place, it is right on the
edge of the marsh. So, and we have heard public comment over
the last year and a half probably related to that
project. So it's also been litigated as huh, it's being
litigated. Thank you. So that's just provides a little bit of
context to that comment, but definitely appreciated. Hearing
from the public on this.
There wasn't actually a lot of public comment
at the time when the commission acted,
and that's unfortunate.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to everybody for speaking today.
Appreciate the community in Santa Monica
showing up and voicing their concerns about 1740.
It was a very powerful testimony,
obviously from the young people, the moms,
and everybody else that participated.
So thank you for lending your voice
is such an important issue. I just want to talk about Gaylord Pacific Resort and Convention
Center down in Chula Vista. So I had the pleasure of attending a conference down there a couple
weeks ago and I had several board members say, man, this place is huge. How the heck
did this get approved by the Coastal Commission? So it was a simple answer. I talked about
balance you know I said look out there look you see the massive project but you
see the public access trails you see the park space you see the shoreline access
and the overall investment and the future planned amenities in the public
space so it really helped to explain the balance of development and coastal access
so I basically spent three days bragging about all the great work the staff does
and as I sit here sort of celebrating my one-year anniversary on this commission,
you know, made me proud to represent alongside you thoughtful wonderful folks.
So it's been a pleasure and happy anniversary to us one-year-olds.
Happy anniversary. Okay with that we will close public comment and I'm going to suggest we
take a break and if we could come back at 1040 please. Thank you. All right thank
you everybody. We're good. Yeah. All right awesome. So we will get back to it and I
will turn to Dr. Hucklebridge for her ED report and she's ready. Yes thank you. Let
me just pull my notes up. Okay thank you Madam Chair. Good morning
commissioners good morning members of the public as always my published
executive director report can be found on the Commission's website but I'll
spend a few minutes going over several of the items so first up on April 14th
in Santa Cruz Commission staff Noah point blue Caltrans San Mateo resources
conservation district and the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
jointly hosted a sea level rise coastal adaptation engineering workshop the
The purpose of the workshop was to advance knowledge of the opportunities and challenges
of applying nature-based solutions to coastal engineering problems, and to increase the
understanding of nature-based solutions among transportation engineers and planners.
Jeremy Smith of the Commission's Geoengineering Unit presented on the benefits of nature-based
solutions versus hard armoring, and Peter Allen, Manager of the Transportation Access
and Mobility Unit, presented on case studies of successful or ongoing nature-based adaptation
efforts including the Gleason Beach Highway realignment and the Scott Creek
Coastal Resilience Study. In the afternoon, the workshop continued
with the site visit to Scott Creek to further discuss Highway 1 adaptation
planning there. Next, in conjunction with Commissioned Staff and numerous local
partners, Caltrans recently launched a multi-year effort to update the Big Sur
Coast Highway Management Plan or CHMP. The CHMP is focused on preserving the
natural environment, enhancing public access and ensuring highway safety for
the roughly 100 mile stretch of State Highway 1 through Big Sur. The
Commission played an instrumental role in the development of the CHMP in the
early 2000s and the updated CHMP will address emerging issues including
climate resiliency, increased public visitation and equity. The Commission
Central Coast District and Transportation Access and Mobility Unit
actively collaborating with Caltrans and the Big Sur community on the CHMP update. Caltrans
has launched a public engagement portal website available online at the link included in my written
report and includes a survey on the participate tab of that tab of that website that is available
to gather public feedback until June 2026. It was another busy month for commission staff that
that included participation in several events
and workshops, trainings, that I would like to share.
So first, staff from the Commission's
North Coast District Office were invited
by the Bear River Band of Roneville Rancheria
to participate in their annual Earth Day event
at the Tribe's Rancheria in Lolita.
Staff engaged with over 300 local students who attended,
sharing information on the Coastal Commission's work
and the importance of keeping beaches clean
and accessible for all users.
On April 22nd through 24th,
staff from the commission's legislative
and transportation access and mobility units
participated in the California Bicycle Summit
in Sacramento, along with the networking
and learning more about complete streets
and bike lane designs.
Commissioned staff, together with Caltrans staff,
led a session on complete streets on coastal facilities,
highlighting recent and ongoing work
to increase active transportation in the coastal zone.
My written report includes some great pictures
of each of these events,
so I highly recommend you take a look.
Next up, a few announcements
from our public education program.
The Boating Clean and Green Program
with the California State Parks
Boating Safety and Education Unit
released a new Dockside podcast episode
with senior environmental scientist Emily Wang
from CalRecycle to explore how used oil
can become a valuable resource,
so please check it out.
The Boating Clean and Green program also partnered
with Cleaner California Coast Leave No Trace Initiative
and local partners including Point Reyes Adventure Company,
Inverness Yacht Club, Tamales Bay Resort,
Blue Water Kayaks and oyster operators
such as Hog Island and Tamales Bay Oyster Company,
as well as with the county and federal land managers
to conduct two on-water cleanups in Tamales Bay.
64 people and 35 vessels participated in these cleanups
collecting almost 2,200 pounds of trash
and 27 pounds of recyclables.
The California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways,
the Coastal Commission,
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
California State Lands Commission,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
will host a salt and freshwater
invasive species prevention workshop.
This is virtual and will be held on May 14th,
which is tomorrow.
This free online workshop will help the public learn
how they can recognize aquatic invasive species
in their region, including golden mussels, green crab,
wakami and others, and how to take action
to prevent them from spreading.
And finally, I'll conclude my executive director's report
highlighting a few items related to the 50th anniversary
of the Coastal Act.
So first, a reminder to everyone that we were asking
the public to share some of their personal experiences
with the coast as a way to celebrate 50 years of public
access and illustrate the many connections
we have to our coast.
This can be brief or more involved.
And pictures and short videos will
help paint a vivid picture, if you're willing to share.
But also, memories can be submitted anonymously.
So please visit our 50th anniversary web page
to upload your story and help us understand
how the coastal act has impacted you.
So today, I would like to share two memories
that we recently highlighted, and so the first
is from Barb Cool, and there is, in my written report,
there's a beautiful picture that goes along
with this memory, so please check that out.
This is the central coast of Cali is magical
and virtually undeveloped on many stretches of this region.
I spent two months from October to December camping,
hiking, and enjoying miles of accessible beaches
and hiking trails, many of which were dog friendly.
for Monterey to Morro Bay, pretty spectacular indeed.
Thank you to all who have fought
to protect our beautiful coast, forever grateful.
So the second memory is from our very own
Commissioner Nodoff, and she says,
one of my very favorite coastal memories
is a photo of my mom standing on a rock
in Stillwater Cove, pregnant with me.
31 years later, I stood on that same rock,
pregnant with my daughter.
Coastal access abides.
Perfect example of a beautiful memory
and just what we're looking for
to just highlight how public access is important to you
and what it means to your family.
So thank you, Commissioner Nodoff
and to Ms. Cool for those memories.
And finally for this month's act to action,
the first 50 years of coastal protection,
we have a few highlights to share with you today.
So the first for, we'll do a program spotlight
on the commission's energy, ocean resources
and federal consistency program.
And so now I'm going to turn it over to Joe Street uh, for that spotlight.
Thanks Kate.
Good morning, chair Harmon and commissioners as part of our ongoing
celebration of the 50th anniversary of the coastal act.
I'm pleased to be here today to highlight the commission's energy, ocean
resources, and federal consistency program.
And it's important and unique role in the commission's work.
I have the privilege of managing the program in partnership with Holly
wire, who is joining us via zoom today.
As I will touch on, the history and origins of this program are intertwined with that of the Commission itself.
And the issues the program has grappled with over the last 50 years
kind of reflect the evolution of California's coastal economy and our changing relationship with the coast and ocean.
I actually have a presentation which I'd love to show during this talk.
I could just do the monologue, but it'll be more interesting.
Thank you.
And next slide, please.
Over the years, the work of this program has helped ensure that the resources and uses
protected by the Coastal Act—public access, sensitive coastal habitats and species, and
scenic views, to name just a few—can persist alongside vital economic uses of the coast
and ocean.
In celebrating the accomplishments of this commission, in preserving these resources,
at times through the rejection of poorly cited, conceived, or harmful projects, it can be
overlooked the Coastal Act policies seldom fully prohibit development from
occurring even when it has potential impacts. The importance of coastal
dependent development in particular is recognized in the Coastal Act and in
general the Coastal Act seeks a precautionary balance and coexistence
between environmental and economic uses of the coast. This is the space that our
program finds itself in a lot and I think it's fair to say that striking
that balance can sometimes be challenging.
Next slide, please.
In the early days of the Commission
and the Energy Ocean Resources Program,
the emphasis was often on the energy side of the docket.
Our docket was heavy with oil and gas development
and coastal power plants.
Federal consistency at that time operated as a separate unit,
though often in close coordination with energy.
This collaboration was natural because many
of the Commission's early project reviews were of oil
and gas development in federal waters outside the coastal zone.
Over time the program has evolved to include other types of marine and coastal uses such
as desalination, aquaculture, and sediment management, as well as marine and estuarine
habitat restoration and federal activities.
More recently our program has also expanded to include offshore wind, wave power, and
other emerging issues.
Unlike the commission's districts focused on specific regions and cities, our program
covers projects from across the state that are located in the marine environment or involve
certain industries or categories of use.
This approach was developed many years ago to foster consistency and allow our permitting
staff to develop expertise on certain project types.
The idea was that this would facilitate more efficient technical and comprehensive reviews.
Next slide please.
The commission is California's designated coastal management program for the outer coast
under the Coastal Zone Management Act or CZMA.
As such, it has a unique review authority over, on one hand, activities carried out
by federal agencies, and on the other, projects that need federal permits or licenses.
These two types of federal consistency review provide the commission with the authority
to determine whether a project or activity is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies
of the Coastal Act, and to work with federal agencies using tools like project mods and
conditions of concurrence to help achieve consistency.
Our staff reviews a wide variety of activities and projects, both inside and outside the
coastal zone.
Because the Commission's review authority under the CZMA is determined not by location,
but whether a project or activity would have effects on the coastal resources and uses,
federal consistency can expand the Commission's jurisdiction into federal waters and inland
of the coastal zone.
Next slide, please.
So don't worry, I'm not going to belabor the many details of federal consistency today.
That's a whole other presentation, which we should probably do at some point.
But I do want to highlight a really key concept, and that is spillover effects.
Put simply, if a federal activity or permitted project would affect the coastal zone and
its resources, it's subject to the Commission's consistency review.
For example, these spillover effects could stem from inland projects that affect coastal
watersheds in salmonids or from sonar or ship strikes affecting whales outside state waters,
from oil spills and discharges from platforms in federal waters, or from activities like
rocket launches originating on certain military installations.
For more than a century, the California coast has been the site of extensive oil and gas
development.
And though this industry has gradually waned as reservoirs
have been drawn down, various federal administrations
over the years have called for expansion.
The shadow of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill,
which occurred from Union Oil Platform A in federal waters
about five miles offshore of Santa Barbara County remains.
This bill helped galvanize a national coastal protection
movement and was one of a handful of events
leading directly to Prop 20
and the creation of the Coastal Commission.
Not surprisingly, oil and gas was a major focus
in the Commission's early days.
In the 1970s and 80s, Commission actions on projects
analyzed by its energy and federal consistency units
helped establish safeguards,
increased public input and transparency,
and allow for balanced consideration
of oil and gas development on the outer continental shelf.
Key outcomes included the careful siting
and consolidation of facilities and infrastructure
to limit industrial development in coastal areas,
the adoption of improved spill prevention
and response capabilities and techniques,
and phasing out of the use of spill-prone tanker ships
for transporting oil and gas to market.
Next slide, please.
Interesting. Next slide, please.
In the 1990s and 2000s,
the Commission played a key role in oil spill remediation,
cleanup and habitat restoration projects.
These efforts included the removal of over 400,000 gallons of leaked diesel and petroleum
products from UNICOW's Avila Beach facility, along with the restoration of the beach and
the downtown commercial area.
The commission also worked on the massive ongoing remediation and restoration of hundreds
of acres of sensitive dune habitat at the Guadalupe oil field in northern Santa Barbara
County. In 2007, a major focus of the energy space was on the importation of natural gas,
leading to several proposals for floating industrial complexes. The Commission joined
several other state agencies in resisting these projects, including by objecting to a large
floating natural gas terminal proposed for federal waters offshore of Oxnard. Among many policy
inconsistencies, the Commission found that this project's NOx and ozone emissions were
inconsistent with the Coastal Act air quality policy, and that its greenhouse gas emissions
would contribute to climate change, sea level rise and coastal hazards.
This objection was a key factor in halting the establishment of a new and damaging industrial
use offshore of Southern California.
I also want to note here an important and recent rebalancing of the Coastal Act in favor
of Resource Protection, which occurred in 2023 with the passage of SB 704.
This bill limited the industrial override provision of Section 30260 and requires new
or expanded oil and gas projects to be fully consistent with Chapter 3 policies in order
to receive a CDP.
Next slide, please.
Coastal areas have long been preferred sites for nuclear and conventional power plants,
mostly because of easy access to ocean cooling water.
Once through cooling systems, withdraw and discharge vast amounts of seawater, and training
a significant share of coastal biological productivity.
For many years, our program's research and analysis has helped the Commission explore
ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for these impacts.
For example, the Commission's mitigation requirements for the San Onofre Nuclear Plant included
creation of the world's largest artificial rocky reef, the Wheeler Reef North off of San Clemente,
and extensive wetland restoration. The resulting mitigation program set a new standard by
establishing that substantial intake impacts can and should be offset through compensatory
mitigation, supported by rigorous scientific monitoring. It also gave our current executive
director something to do when she first started. More recently, just last December,
the Commission's approval of the relicensing and continued operation of Diablo Canyon power plant
included another novel and significant mitigation requirement for the plant's entrainment impacts.
This time for the conservation and provision of public access to a large area of PG&E's Diablo
Canyon lands. Next slide please. Since the 1990s, coastal communities have increasingly considered
desalination as a drought proof water source. Desal plants can have entrainment and discharge
impacts and our program has applied lessons from once through cooling to their review.
When designed well, without open ocean intakes, desal plants can minimize these impacts or avoid
them completely. Building on this work, the commission has supported sustainably cited
and designed facilities such as the Doheny Desalination Project in Dana Point, which uses
subsurface intakes and blends its brine with a nearby wastewater outfall to reduce coastal
effects.
Conversely, the Commission has also denied projects in hazardous locations or with marine
impacts that could not be adequately mitigated.
Next slide, please.
Another increasingly important economic use of the coast is aquaculture.
As this industry has expanded over the past 30 years, program staff have worked with growers
and other agencies to bring aquaculture operations into compliance with the Coastal Act and
to develop a permitting approach that balances protection of resources, such as eelgrass,
with sustainable seafood production.
In the past several years, Commissioned staff have collaborated with partner agencies to
help shape the state's forthcoming aquaculture action plan, an initiative led by the Ocean
Protection Council to strengthen California's aquaculture governance framework.
11. Next slide. As you know, the Commission has invested significant resources over the
past five years in planning for offshore wind development, including the addition of expert
staff in our program to carry out advanced coordination and impacts analysis. In 2022,
the Commission reviewed consistency determinations for BOM's leasing of two wind energy areas off
the central and north coasts and included condition 7C that required the creation of
a working group to devise a strategy to address potential impacts to commercial and recreational
fishing. This intensive effort by our program staff culminated just last month at the Gonzales
meeting with the Commission's unanimous approval of the statewide strategy for the coexistence
of California fishing communities and offshore wind. Next slide, please. As I close out this
This presentation, I wanted to touch on several notable commission decisions stemming from
other projects reviewed by our program.
These are examples of how the expanded effects-based geographic reach of federal consistency review
has allowed the commission to more effectively protect coastal resources and uses.
A 2008 objection to the consistency certification for a toll freeway extension through a state
Park campground, endangered species habitat, and a critical watershed for the trestle
surf break prevented the destruction of Esha, the loss of treasured cultural and recreational
resources, including a competition site for the 2028 Olympics.
Next slide, please.
Over the past 13 years, our program, with commission support, has also successfully
collaborated with the NOAA Restoration Center to implement a programmatic consistency determination
This has fast-tracked nearly 50 stream and riparian restoration projects in Central and
Northern California.
These projects include many that benefit threatened salmonids, such as the removal of fish passage
barriers, riparian restoration, off-channel habitat creation, large woody debris placement,
and other methods to improve spawning, rearing, and migration habitat for endangered species.
Next slide, please.
This quick tour has covered just a fraction of the many highlights and accomplishments
of the Commission's Energy Ocean Resources and Federal Consistency Program over the past
50 years.
I could spend another two hours exploring the complexities of just the handful of projects
that we've touched on today, but I'm going to let you get back to your important work.
Before I end, though, I would like to acknowledge and appreciate my outstanding co-workers.
The photo on this slide is from our recent All Staff Retreat in Monterey, and though you
can't see them here, all of us are standing on the shoulders of multiple generations of
exceptional staff who came before us. Thanks a lot.
Thank you, Joe. And now to move on to our this month's access spotlight, we'd like to
highlight the Taronea Resort Project and Rancho Palos Verdes in LA County. And so I'd like
to turn it over to Rosie and Linda to talk about the public access amenities associated
with this project.
Kate. Good morning commissioners and members of the public. As you know from
last month's meeting in Gonzales, I'm Rosie, the climate equity and sea level
rise intern. I'm proud to be presenting our monthly videos on public access ways
in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act. We are spotlighting
locations near our meetings so that everyone attending the public hearing has
the option to visit for themselves. People can watch these videos on our
social media accounts including YouTube and Instagram. They're also available on
the Commission's website. Just click on the 50th anniversary banner on the home
page and scroll down to find the coastal access spotlight videos. Before I turn
the microphone over to Linda I want to take a minute and talk about my
experience filming today's video. Having not traveled much of California, this was
my first visit to Rancho Palos Verdes. When I arrived at the Taranea discovery
trail I was awestruck by the beautiful sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean. It
was truly inspiring to hike next to all the native vegetation as I listened to
the birds and the crashing waves. While on the beach I even spotted a dolphin.
This was my first time seeing one in person. I'm so grateful for the Coastal
Act and the Coastal Commission because they make moments of connecting with
nature like this possible for everyone. Thanks for that great introduction Rosie.
So I'm pleased to be bringing you this month, as you know, we just heard
Taranea Discovery Trail and Beach. This is located in Rancho Palos Verdes, and it's
only about 20 minutes west of where we are today here in San Pedro. The
Commission approved the Taranea Resort in 2003 on a 100 acre blufftop parcel.
Fun fact, that is this location was once home to the marine land of the Pacific,
California's first major theme park opened in 1954, the marine land boasted
the world's largest oceanarium until it closed in 1987. Several orcas and other
animals were then relocated to SeaWorld in San Diego. The
Commission's approval of this 540-room resort required extensive public access
amenities, including miles of hiking trails, over 200 public parking spaces, restrooms,
viewpoints, benches, and a beach access ramp. In addition, the commission required restoration
of the coastal sage scrub habitat, which is what Rosie just referred to as when she walked
on the trails. This habitat was lost during the time when the marine land was located at
this site. The resort opened in 2009, and the public access amenities have been very popular
with the public. So now we'll move to the videos. It's one in English and one in Spanish. Thank you.
Looking to kayak, snorkel, or just take a bluff-topped stroll in the Los Angeles area?
Check out the Terra Nea Discovery Trail and Beach in Rancho Palos Verdes. Located at the Terra Nea
Resort, this more than 2 mile long trail, known locally as the Bluff Top Trail, offers benches
and viewing areas perfect for spotting dolphins and whales. Plan to spend around 45 minutes on
the path to get down to Taranea Beach. Once on the sand, you can rent kayaks and find Hudson's Bluff
Sea Cape, also known as the Lost Boys' Lair. To start your journey, take Palos Verdes Drive
south to a public parking lot on the west side of the resort near Pelican Cove Park.
There you'll find public restrooms and picnic tables.
There's a bike lane along the road and a bike rack close to the trailhead.
If you're hauling in your own kayak or just want to short a trip down to the beach, you
can use another public parking lot located off Palos Verdes Drive south, on the east
side of the resort down Taranay away.
There's also a bus stop within walking distance, and a valet often stationed along the road
can point you in the right direction. From this lot, there's a paved service road that meets up with
the Terranella Discovery Trail at a picnic area overlooking the bluff. Here you'll find public
restrooms, tables, and an outdoor shower just a quick jaunt away from Terranella Beach. Thanks
to the California Coastal Act and California Coastal Commission, the public can enjoy this
seaside adventure free of charge. Check it out next time you're visiting Rancho Palos Verdes.
Marina de la Cantilla de Huerta,
amico no ceda cómo la varida de los ningos predidos.
para comenzar soventura,
tome em paulos verdes drive hacia el sur,
hasto un esta cenamento publico,
alo estel complexo touristico,
cerca del parque pelican coe.
Age en contralan panos publicos y mesas para picnic.
A y un carril de vicicleta alo largo a la cagé,
y un nugar para estás cenardas,
cerca del initial de cenerdo.
Sí tranz, propíse cajecs,
o sí implemente quiero en un tragécto más porto,
hasta la plaja,
This is the first public public which is in Palos Verdes Drive South, in the area of the Terrani.
I'm not going to talk about the whole situation, I'm going to have a ballad in the car that I can't see in the car.
This is the last time I'm going to be able to connect with the Terrani Discovery, in an area of picnic with the country.
Here, it's the public's place, but it's a huge area of the city, the place of Terrani.
Crazas a la costera de california y la comitia de costera de california, el publico puedes
de estrudar de esta ventura, un tolmar de forma gratuita.
As I go inside the door, la praxima vez customizitando Rancho Palos Vargas.
Thanks very much.
Great videos.
So we'll be up on social media and ask if you want to share them, get them out to the
public so people can know about this amazing amenity right nearby that's absolutely free
of charge.
So with that I will conclude my Executive Director's report and I'm happy to answer
any questions.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Are there any public comments?
There are no public comments.
We do have we have two available for questions, if any.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
So I'll return to the Commission.
Any comments, questions for Dr. Hucklebridge or the staff?
I just wanted to emphasize the crucial role that the Coastal Act plays is giving California
authority under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act for reviewing activities for consistency.
It's really been a voice that California has used responsibly and very effectively over
the years, from offshore oil drilling to mining and other proposals that would affect our
coastal zone.
So, and I think it's fair to say that California really set the stage.
We had one of the first federally certified coastal zone management plans with the, we
We have the three departments, Coastal Commission, Coastal Conservancy, and BCDC up in the San
Francisco Bay Area and a lot because of California's successful cooperation and review.
We have lots of other states that have joined and now the Coastal States Organization is
a very robust and potent organization.
California has a lot to have be proud of. Commissioner Pressiata. I just wanted
to comment on the last time we were here or near here we were in a neighboring
city and after the Commission's meetings we had an opportunity to go to
Taranee and have dinner there. I wasn't aware of the public asset that had been
put together beyond the parking there is free parking at the resort and so it's
just really remarkable that that space was recovered that it became accessible
and free and I think it it bodes well for all of us see that kind of recovery
occur and that it's available to the public thank you thank you commissioner
Jackson. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Dr. Kate. When we first moved to
California in 2014 I remember taking a family trip up to Teronea as we were
trying to figure things out and I was like man this fancy resorts got all this
free parking they've got this trail that goes down to the beach and you know what
else they got a golf cart that'll take you from the parking lot all the way
down to the restaurant that's open to everybody and this is you know before I
I knew anything about the California Coastal Commission,
so it was pretty cool to later learn the history
of how that came to be.
And it is a special place there in Ranchas Palos Verdes,
and it's great that everyone can actually go there
and enjoy it, so happy Coastal Act anniversary.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, with that, we will move on to the next item,
and I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Drake.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
Good morning, commissioners.
This is the legislative report for May.
Staff is bringing an analysis of one bill to you today,
but first let me begin with an update
on the legislative session.
So May 1st was the deadline for bills
to make it out of their policy committees in the first house.
Most of the bills staff is tracking
in the written legislative report and made that deadline,
and so they're now waiting to be heard
in the appropriations committee.
In the run-up to that May 1st deadline,
several of the commission's priority bills were amended.
First, AB1740 by Assemblymember Rick Zabur,
which the commission took an opposed
unless amended position on last month,
took a minor cleanup amendment in late April,
but it remains in substantially the same form
that staff described to the commission last month.
That is a list of coastal act exemptions
that would apply to the city of Santa Monica
for the next 10 years.
Over the past few weeks,
staff have had multiple meetings with the author
explore potential alternative approaches the bill could take to achieve the
author's infill development goals without resorting to significant
exemptions. Staff will continue trying to move that conversation forward and we
hope to have more to report next month. Separately, since several speakers this
morning brought up the city's LCP, I just want to note that staff remain in
discussion with the City of Santa Monica about making additional progress toward
completing the city's LCP. As Deputy Director Hudson recounted last month
there is a years-long history of coordination between the Commission and
the city on the LCP and although this coordination on the LCP predates the
bill and is important to continue moving forward irrespective of the bill you
know we appreciate in a practical sense how the bill is generated renewed
attention and focus on completing the LCP and staff remains committed to working
working with the city in a way that is intentional but deliberative to get to the finish line.
As for the bill, AB 1740 is slated to be heard in the Appropriations Committee tomorrow,
and should it pass, it would move to the assembly floor.
Next, AB 2410 by Assemblymember Stan Ellis is also in Assembly Appropriations.
That bill would create coastal act and CEQA exemptions for specific types of vegetation
removal projects until 2030.
The bill would also require the commission to submit a report to the legislature with
information about past approvals for fire prevention projects.
The commission along with several other departments in the state have provided information to
the appropriations committee about the fiscal impacts of implementing the bill in its current
form.
In its published analysis, the committee observes that creating permit exemptions that are themselves
quite technical to implement will require state staff time across departments that's
not dissimilar to going through the permit process. That bill will be heard
also in the Appropriations Committee tomorrow. Next AB 2433 by Assemblymember
Alvarez, which relates to density bonus projects, took a small amendment in the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee last month. The amendment clarifies that
the bill maintains the current statutory approach for harmonizing density bonus
law in the Coastal Act. Following this amendment, staff have no concerns with
bill. Next is SB 1318 by Senator Ben Allen which would create a Coastal Act
exemption related to short-term rental regulations. This is the bill that would
require the Commission to approve any CDP or LCP amendment that restricts
unhosted STRs. The author amended the bill at the end of April to specify that
the Commission would be required to approve restrictions on unhosted STRs
only if, one, the local government made a finding that the
Restriction is necessary to address local housing needs and to the Commission determines that the restriction strikes a reasonable balance between housing and public coastal access
Staff was pleased to see this amendment to the extent that it limits the scope of the proposed Coastal Act exemption slightly
But the Commission's previously identified concern about exempting restrictions on unhosted STR's remains that said
We're working productively with the author and with his staff and based on recent conversations
We expect this bill to continue to change and so for that reason, we're not recommending that the commission take an official position at this time
That said depending on the trajectory of the bill over the next few weeks. We may bring a full analysis of this one to you in June
There were a few bills in the legislative report that didn't meet that May 1st deadline for passing out of policy committees
And so those bills are no longer going to be moving and I'll just mention them briefly
One is AB 1536 by Assemblymember Addis, that's the bill that would have tightened up several
code sections related to oil pipeline safety.
It also included a provision authorizing the Commission to adopt regulations for pipeline
leak detection.
So that bill is no longer moving.
Another bill that didn't meet the policy committee deadline is AB 2356 by Assemblymember Ramos,
which would have directed California State Parks to transfer the entirety of Tallahaw Dunes
State Park and Del Norque County to the Tallahassee Nation.
And last is AB 1953 by Assemblymember Lowenthal, which relates to short-term rentals as well.
That bill would have made it so that any time there's either a special event or a state
of emergency declared by the state, STRs would be exempt from all state and local regulation.
That bill didn't meet that May 1st deadline, so it's not moving this year.
ahead as I mentioned already tomorrow is the appropriations committee hearing
where the committee will decide which bills will move forward to the floor in
each house and which will be held in committee. The bills that move to the
floor will have until May 29th to pass a floor vote and then they'd move over to
the second house. Staff will report out next month on which of the commission's
priority bills made it into the second house. With that chair Harmon I'll pause
in case there any questions about the legislative report before we move into
to the bill analysis staff has prepared today.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Turn to my colleagues.
All right.
No questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, as I mentioned, this month we've brought one analysis to the Commission today, and
that's of SB 963.
The written analysis can be found in staff's written report beginning on page 15.
SB 963, which is authored by Senator John Laird, would establish deadlines by which
the Commission must review and take final action on coastal development permit appeals
that raise a substantial issue.
The bill would also codify a few basic requirements for appellants to properly file an appeal
of a local CDP.
Now, I know the Commission is certainly well aware of the mechanics of the CDP appeal process,
but for the members of the public who may be less familiar, I'll just briefly summarize
that in cities and counties with a certified local coastal program, the local government
is responsible for permitting most new development in its coastal zone using the policies of
its LCP.
In certain areas of the coastal zone, primarily near the shoreline and other sensitive resources,
as well as for certain types of projects like major public works, CDP decisions by local
governments may be appealed to the Commission.
When an appeal is filed, the Commission must hold a public hearing within 49 days to determine
whether the appeal raises a substantial issue with respect to the LCP or the
public access policies of the Coastal Act. If the Commission finds no
substantial issue then the appeal is dismissed and the local decision stands.
If the Commission does find a substantial issue the Commission takes
jurisdiction over the permit and holds a de novo hearing on the project. Importantly
for this bill there is no statutory deadline for how quickly the Commission
must hold a de novo hearing on an appeal after it finds that the appeal raises a
a substantial issue.
Just to level set, the universe of projects we're talking about today, Commission data
shows that less than 4% of local CDPs are appealed, and of that 4%, the Commission dismisses
more than half of those appeals within the 49-day deadline.
So when we're talking about local CDPs that actually get to the de novo portion of the
appeal process, we're talking just 1-2% of projects.
of those de novo appeals are processed quickly. That said, there are some that take an extended
amount of time to resolve, either because the issues are complex, or the applicant may
not be interested in exploring project modifications to resolve LCP inconsistencies, or the applicant
and the commission may have limited capacity at that time. While such longstanding appeals
are rare, they've led to the perception that CDP appeals are common and that they routinely
take years to resolve. This perception and its root cause, which is that lack of a deadline
for the de novo hearing, risks having a chilling effect on development in appealable areas
of the coastal zone. In particular, the commission may recall that during its December 2023 informational
briefing on housing, the commission heard feedback from affordable housing developers
that uncertainty around the timeline of resolving appeals can discourage development of affordable
housing projects given the unique challenges of financing such projects.
SB 963 seeks to eliminate uncertainty around the timing of CDP appeals by establishing
a clear and reasonable set of deadlines by which the Commission must review and take
final action on appeals after finding a substantial issue.
Under the language of the bill, upon finding that an appeal raises a substantial issue,
the Commission would have 30 days to review the permit record and to provide the applicant
with a complete list of what additional information, if any, is needed in order to hold a de novo
hearing.
Once all the requested information is received, the Commission would be required to hold that
de novo hearing within 180 days.
These timelines are similar to how the Commission processes CDP applications for most types
of projects.
It also largely resembles the Commission's informal practice for processing de novo appeals.
This bill seeks to provide greater regulatory certainty by standardizing this project in
statute.
To be clear, the bill doesn't change any of the rules regarding what projects can or can't
be appealed.
It simply guarantees that if a local permit does get appealed and the Commission goes
SI, then the de novo phase of the appeal will happen in a timely and predictable manner.
The bill would achieve this with deadlines that staff believes would be workable under
current Commission staffing levels.
I should note too briefly that SB 963 would also codify a few basic requirements for how
to properly file an appeal of a local CDP.
Things like requiring the appellant to use the commission's written appeal form and to
identify the specific features of the project that are allegedly inconsistent with the LCP.
Putting these basic directions into the Coastal Act would help make sure that the appeal filing
process is clearly laid out in statute for the collective benefit of appellants, applicants,
and the commission all around.
So just to recap, SB 963 would establish deadlines by which the commission must take action on
local CDP appeals that raise a substantial issue, and it would codify basic requirements
for how to properly file an appeal.
Although appeals of local CDPs are relatively uncommon, this bill would increase regulatory
certainty for these projects with deadlines that are workable under current staffing conditions.
This thoughtful update to the Coastal Act's regulatory process would help avoid any perceived
uncertainty about the timing of appeals from having a chilling effect on development on
the coastal zone.
So for these reasons, Chair Harmon, staff is recommending that the Commission support SB
963.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Any expertise?
Okay.
Seeing none.
Any public comments?
Yes.
We have one person signed up, Robin Rudicill.
Robin, let us move you in.
All right.
You're in as a panelist.
You should be able to go ahead, and we have your presentation.
OK, beautiful.
Venice already easily complies with the AB1740 criteria
to qualify as multimodal.
They call the criteria rigorous, but it is not.
In Venice, nearly 100 establishments
took advantage of the temporary Covid-area alfresco program.
Yet as of May 13, only eight have
filed for their permanent program CDP,
as you can see in the chart on the screen.
Applicants are either waiting until just
before the July 1st deadline or hoping that AB 1740 will
ultimately allow them to bypass CDP review entirely
if LA can get added back into the bill.
The city ordinance allows parking lots to be converted
into outdoor dining areas without replacing the parking
and new outdoor dining areas in the public rights of way
are exempted from parking requirements.
The chart on the screen shows
that just the first eight applications consume
nearly 500 parking spaces of coastal access capacity
With 85 existing parking spaces removed
and 412 additional spaces worth of parking demand
generated by the new proposed outdoor dining.
It's clear that as more applications come in,
the impact will be in the thousands.
LA Alfresco Dining is a major parking waiver program
in one of the most parking constrained coastal zones.
The city said they would study cumulative
coastal access impacts and proposed mitigations
and any needed adjustments to the program.
But so far there's no study
and al fresco CDPs are being processed and approved
without the cumulative impact review of public access
required by the Coastal Act.
If al fresco dining is exempted from CDP review
through AB 1740, Coastal Act protection would disappear
for one of the largest parking reduction programs
Venice has ever seen.
So two requests, I urge everyone opposing AB 1740
to push for al fresco dining to be removed from the bill.
And I ask staff to work closely with LA
to require compliance with the July 1st CDP deadline
and to require completion and serious consideration
of the coastal acts of study
before any additional approvals occur.
Thank you.
Thank you, no other speakers.
Hey, thank you very much.
I'll return to the commission, Commissioner Nada.
Well, thank you for the report.
I think I'm gonna take a screenshot here
because I don't think I've ever seen
the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Surfrider Foundation
on the same side of an issue.
There's a very diverse and strange bedfellows here
that are supporting SB 963, but it's really great to see
that everyone who engages in the coastal development procedures
understands that having some more clarity
is going to benefit all of us.
So I'm very pleased to and it's great that Senator Laird who is understands the program
so well is taking the leadership to help move this forward.
So when it's time, if any, I'll be happy to make a motion.
Great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks.
I'm just going back to the appeal process.
And that's a free process from our end, anyway, right?
In terms of when there is an appeal made,
our work is done without charging.
Am I correct in on that?
Yes.
Yeah.
And so for these fairly large and complicated projects,
that's a pretty substantial investment.
And I just want to say, I know it sounds like a burden,
but especially now that there's a time frame associated
with it, I would reframe that in some ways as value added because what now is happening
is when there's an appeal of a local decision that comes through this body and through our
staff and the staff of the AG's office, the Attorney General's office review, means that
that project has been reviewed through the Attorney General's office for its compliance
with the Coastal Act, which is something you would not get to such detail and robustness
at the local level.
So in many ways, it offers a layer of protection to the developer when they come out the other
end of that process that they just wouldn't have, and we're not charging for that.
I'm just putting it out there.
I think it's an interesting, just a perspective.
And again, I know it sounds like a burden and in some ways I'm not gonna deny that perspective,
but also I just wanna point out that that layer of review is something that is also
of can be a value in moving forward.
what can happen if if for example we exempt that from occurring then the then
the appellant would then be taking that up with the local jurisdiction which may
or may not have as much Coastal Act experience and Coastal Act you know
review expertise in that process so I I do really appreciate this bill because
Because it's taking away what is one of the most burdensome issues for many of these developments
is which is just the timeline perspective, but still offers that review of the Coastal
Act and that ability to move a project forward with a bit more certainty.
So that's just my perspective on it and I'm happy to second the motion.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
First, I want to just express my appreciation for the work of Senator Laird in both last
session and now in this session continuing to work with us and using his significant
experience and knowledge of the coast and the Coastal Act to really focus in on things
that can move some of these challenges forward, whether it's the challenge of finding locations
on the coast for affordable housing that we can streamline or this bill which I'm very
supportive of as well and it sounds like staff is. Likewise, I know that assembly members
of Burr has been supportive of coastal protection and supportive of environmental protection
And I think it's great that we are now seeing real work going into AB 1740,
as we heard this morning from the folks that spoke, as well as from our staff,
that this is a bill that really requires serious engagement and work
to determine what can be done or what really needs to be done
to get at the concerns of Assemblymember Ziber.
And I really appreciate his work and his staff's work,
the work of the City of Santa Monica and their staff,
and of course, all of you, in finding a way forward
that really addresses some of the concerns he has,
but protects the coast and protects the Coastal Act.
And I don't think anyone, after my experience in Sacramento,
anyone really wants to undermine the protections
of the Coastal Act.
So I wanted to express my appreciation for staff,
our continued opposition, strong opposition
for the bill as it exists today.
And very hopeful that by our next meeting,
we'll see common ground on this.
So thank you very much on that.
Thank you, Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.
At this point, I'm happy to move staff recommendation to support SB 963 layered.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson, did you want a second?
I'll let Annie jump to get the second.
Okay second.
Okay.
We have a motion by Commissioner Lopez, a second by Commissioner Notoff.
They're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Drake.
Okay.
Dr. Hucklebridge.
Thank you.
Thank you. The next item is item 6D which is an informational briefing to solicit public
feedback on the draft guidance on processing local coastal program amendments for accessory
dwelling units in the coastal zone. A very long and a little bit tongue twisting title.
So I'd like to invite Erin and Shahar up to provide the staff presentation.
In morning commissioners. I'm here to present on the draft guidance on processing LCP amendments
for accessory dwelling units in the Coastal Zone.
This is an informational item only.
Next slide, please.
Senate Bill 1077 requires the California Coastal Commission in coordination
with the California Department of Housing and Community Development, also known as HCD,
to, quote, develop and provide guidance for local governments to facilitate the preparation
of amendments to a local coastal program to clarify and simplify the permitting process
for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units within the coastal zone."
The legislation further requires that a draft of the guidance be made publicly available
for 30 days prior to a public workshop to receive public comment on the draft.
The draft guidance was posted on our SB 1077 webpage on April 13 and is attached as exhibit
one to the staff report on this item.
Commission and HCD staff solicited feedback from members of the public and local governments
starting in late September 2025 and feedback related to processing LCP
amendments was incorporated in this draft guidance.
Comments received at today's workshop will also be used to inform the final
guidance which will be published no later than July 1st,
2026 as required by the legislation. Next slide please.
The widening income gap and unmet demand for housing throughout the nation
continues to exacerbate housing inequity in California,
especially in coastal areas where housing and rental costs are consistently above the state
and national average. To address this critical issue, the state legislature has enacted a number
of laws over the last decade that are designed to encourage construction of additional housing
units in appropriate locations. In particular, state housing laws have been changed to facilitate
development of accessory dwelling units or ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units or JADUs,
which can be more affordable to build and to rent than other forms of market rate housing.
Likewise, many local governments have embraced ADUs as an important part of their overall
housing policies, and they have amended their LCPs to include innovative strategies
to expedite the permitting and construction process for ADUs and JADUs.
Nevertheless, because state ADU law has changed frequently in recent years,
but not all LCPs have been updated as frequently, it is important that local governments update
their LCPs to harmonize them with current state ADU law.
The focus of this draft guidance is to clarify the LCP amendment process for ADU policies
or ordinances and to explain where there are opportunities to further streamline such LCP
amendments or updates.
The guidance also contains an overview of the authority that the Coastal Act grants,
the Commission, and local governments over ADUs and JDUs in the Coastal Zone and provides
examples of past ADU-related LCP amendments certified by the Commission.
The draft guidance urges local governments in the Coastal Zone to review, update, or
add ADU regulations within their LCPs so they align with state ADU law while still upholding
Coastal Act protections.
The guidance explains that local governments should use any flexibility allowed by LCPs
to modify standards that conflict with state ADU law or make construction of ADUs more
difficult, so long as doing so does not lessen the effect of the Coastal Act by causing
impacts to sensitive coastal resources or public coastal access or putting residents
or structure at risk of coastal hazards.
The guidance also addresses the use of external references in LCPs.
Local governments can reduce frequent LCP updates by structuring their AD ordinances
to stay adaptable as state ADU law evolves, for example by incorporating the current version
of state ADU law into the LCP or by including only coastal-specific ADU provisions in the
LCP and relying on state ADU law for the rest.
Such approaches can help keep LCP's current while ensuring protection of coastal resources
consistent with the Coastal Act.
The draft guidance describes the three types of LCP amendments that the Commission can
consider minor, de minimis, and major.
These are shown on the screen.
and uncertified jurisdictions may also pursue categorical exclusion orders to
exempt ADUs from requiring a CDP in areas or circumstances where they will
pose no threat of having a significant adverse effect on coastal resources.
Finally, the draft guidance stresses the importance of local government
coordination with HCD staff before adopting LCP elements at the local level
or submitting them to the Commission. They should also coordinate early and
often with commissioned staff when preparing an LCP amendment to reduce delays at the end of the
process. Next slide please. The Coastal Act and State ADU law are complementary, serving to
encourage housing in the coastal zone while protecting coastal resources. Because of the
inherent challenges that come with harmonizing various state laws, many public comments received
thus far, including those from local government staff, were concerned with the specifics of the
the interaction of the Coastal Act and State ADU law, such as the contents of AD ordinances
and policies, including coastal resource protection issues, procedural aspects of coastal development
permits, and the harmonization of seemingly different standards.
These public comments are summarized in Section 2 of the staff report on this item.
Because the focus of this draft guidance is specific to the facilitation of ADU LCP amendments,
As directed by SB 1077, comments related to these other issues are not addressed in this
document.
However, Commission staff intends to prepare a future and separate guidance document on
the permitting aspect of ADU projects.
The next steps for this guidance document include collecting public feedback on the
draft at today's meeting to inform revisions to this guidance document.
Staff will then publish this final version of this document by July 1, 2026, as is required
by Senate Bill 1077 and will then circulate the final document to all local governments
in the Coastal Zone.
This concludes the staff presentation.
Commission staff is available for questions and David Barboza from HCD is here today to
provide additional remarks on this guidance during public comment.
Thank you.
Okay.
Wonderful.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Now we will open public comment, please.
All right.
We have three speakers.
have David Barbosa in the room and then we have on Zoom Megan Durbin and Amy
Wynn. David Barbosa, go ahead, make sure the mic is on before you
speak. Thank you. All right, looks like it's on. Thank you. Good morning,
commissioners. I'm David Barbosa. I'm a senior housing policy specialist with
HCD's ADU team and so our team's work involves providing technical assistance
on state ADU law, reviewing ADU ordinances
for compliance with the statute,
and collaborating on special projects like SB 1077.
So first off, I just wanted to thank Shahar and Aaron
for their partnership and all of their work on this project.
We appreciate their willingness to talk through,
you know, tricky ADU issues, listen to our feedback,
and incorporate that into the guidance.
Also, just wanted to encourage the public
to keep communicating with us about ADU issues,
whether it's in this meeting here,
to provide public comment or just letting us know
about their coastal ADU questions as they come up.
It's very important for us to hear from folks
who are grappling with these issues on the ground.
We support the idea of a further guidance document
continuing to collaborate on providing guidance about some of the additional ADU permitting
issues that folks are dealing with, and thinking about how we can make all of that more predictable,
fair, and cost-effective.
And just wanted to also remind local agencies to submit their ADU ordinances.
So when those ordinances are affecting the coastal zone, they should submit those draft
ordinances to HCD for preliminary review, and we'll be happy to take a look at those
and provide comments.
And, yeah, and just in general, thank you for your time.
You know, it can be tricky, ADU law is trying to, you know, deal with the housing shortage
and affordability crisis and kind of facilitate ADU development.
The Coastal Act is trying to protect coastal access and ensure that coastal resources are
are protected and development is protected
from coastal hazards.
So it's really important for us to continue to collaborate
on thinking about how to harmonize those goals.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Now moving to Zoom, we have Megan Durbin and then Amy Wynn.
You're both in as panelists.
Megan Durbin, go ahead.
Hello, thank you commissioners and staff.
My name is Megan Durbin.
I am a land use consultant and planner
in Northern California, the coastal Mendocino area.
comments are germane to the April 27th memo which was also referenced by the presenter where much
of the public comment that has been coming forth on this topic has actually been in related to the
project specific process and seeking approval for ADUs. So just wanted to put that out but I think
it's still worthwhile to make these comments briefly of course and I do appreciate the guidance
that was provided on the amendments. It was straightforward, and the inclusion of example
jurisdiction regulations was really helpful and informative. To what the presenter was just
talking about, with the potential for when a jurisdiction like ours, Mendocino County,
already has a certified categorical exclusion order, as I understand it, it has been problematic
for our planning and building staff to work with Coastal Commission staff on how to potentially
revise that categorical exclusion order. So any support that the commission can provide to staff
in navigating that in areas such as ours where that isn't something that Coastal Commission staff
has to do very often, that would be really helpful because as I understand it, it's a bit of a
a sticking point. I submitted written comments as well to this effect, so I'll keep it brief
in this moment as my time winds down. I had a challenging experience with attempting
to get an ADU approved for clients of ours, and at the bottom line is just that I would
love to see CCC staff using the time and the funding to help applicants rather than make
to get more challenging.
Not penalizing property owners for preexisting conditions
from previous owners, not use the ADU application
as an opportunity to undermine previous permits.
That means not use it as an opportunity
or an excuse to question the precedence
of environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
What is considered ISHA in our area.
Thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you.
Next, Amy Winn.
Thank you very much commissioners and staff.
This is Amy Wynn with Wynn Coastal Planning
and Biology in Fort Bragg.
We are grateful for the protections of the Coastal Act
and this is why Mendocino County is so remarkable.
We appreciate the legislature's desire
to facilitate accessory dwelling units in the coastal zone
and the guidance that staff is giving local jurisdictions
for updating their LCPs.
We do believe that the legislature's efforts
could perhaps more effectively have more effective result
if they focus on some specific language in the Coastal Act
that would allow for some working
with accessory dwelling units
that protects our coastal resources,
but I think some of our biggest issues are bumping up
against the language that the Coastal Act itself,
as opposed to the language customized in our LCPs.
And then also thank you, my second point and last point
is thank you for the exhibits that were included with this
and specifically former Executive Director Ainsworth's memo
from January 21st of 2022,
specifically when staff is guiding local jurisdictions
on efficiency efforts and LCP updates for the ADUs.
Keep in mind that the Ainsworth memo
specifically stated that if you are converting a dwelling that is single
family residence to an accessory dwelling unit you're not making any
physical changes that is not considered a change in intensity of use and
therefore it is exempt from a CDP. I would like for that to be very clear in
this guidance for LCP updates. That is the way where we can have a legally
non-conforming residence be converted to an accessory dwelling unit on a property
and we can take care of our housing needs and keep people employed to take care of our
visitors on the coast. Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you no more speakers. Thank you very much. Okay. This is an informational
item but I'll return to my colleagues for comments or questions. Do you have any? Commissioner
Lopez. Just a brief couple comments I know that this phase is sort of looking at the
initial groundwork so appreciate the work that's gone into this point.
Looking at the category exemptions, I'm more worried about the 12 jurisdictions that don't
currently have an LCPE.
As we move forward providing them examples I think smoothing the path as much as possible
which I heard a little bit of that has been done.
But continuing to do that I think would be really important.
I'm specifically thinking of Monterey and some of the jurisdictions that are closer
to home for us wanting to see more of these come online.
And then I know it's not part of what we're doing today, but as you look at the next phase,
looking at ways to incentivize, whether it's a deed restriction or some other effort, low
income housing, making sure that we're smoothing the path, removing additional barriers if
possible in this process for folks who are doing the infill component and giving certain
benefits as we've seen state law do recently to those that are willing to go that extra
mile to make sure that it's workforce serving, I think, would be a great thing to include
at this time. Again, not today, but in the future. I just want to plant that seed early
so that when it comes back, hopefully that's a component. Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. With that, we will move on
to the administrative calendar.
Okay. Thank you. And that is item seven, the administrative calendar for today, which includes
There's only one item.
As item 7B was postponed, there is an addendum with corrections to the staff report for the
remaining item.
And we're not aware of any opposition to the administrative permit being reported.
And we are asking whether four or more commissioners object to the issuance of the administrative
items today.
Great.
Thank you.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
No comment?
There's just one available for questions.
Great.
Thank you.
Commissioners object.
Okay.
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Thank you.
And I'm thinking we'll get through the consent calendar.
So if we could move on to the items that are on the regular consent.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That next item is item 8, the consent calendar for all districts on the agenda today.
There are three items on the consent calendar.
There is an addendum with a minor correction on the Tran Family Trust application.
There is also an addendum for the UCSB Notice of Impending Development for Concrete Pad
Removal and Habitat Restoration Project on the University's Lagoon Island.
And that addendum responds to a letter which has been included under the correspondence
tab for this on the commission's website.
And that letter is from a member of the public expressing opposition to the use of herbicide
within the restoration project area.
I would just note that, as discussed in more detail in the addendum, removal of non-native
and invasive vegetation would be removed through the use of prescribed burns.
And herbicide use would only be implemented on a limited basis as part of an integrative
pest management plan, which provides guidance for herbicide use in order to protect human
health and the surrounding environment, and would only be used on a short-term basis to
to exhaust the invasive grass seed bank
and allow for native annuals to establish.
Additionally, the comment letter questioned
whether the Chumash tribe in the area
has been consulted for guidance.
And I would just like to note that commission staff
did undergo formal consultation with the Sante Inez
Band of Chumash Indians.
And the staff continues to recommend that this item
be approved as part of the commission's
consent calendar today.
We're not aware of any opposition to any
of the other items being reported today.
And all applicants are in agreement
with the staff recommendations.
The staff is recommending the commission vote
and approve the consent calendar.
Great, thank you.
Are there any ex partes?
OK, any public comments?
No, we have no speakers.
We just have one person available for questions on item 8B.
Great, thank you.
OK, I'll entertain a motion.
Move to approve.
Love that.
Thank you.
So motion by Commissioner Kelly, a second by Commissioner Notoff.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Oh, excuse me, Commissioner Lohmenberg seconded.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the consent calendar is approved and now we'll move on to those items removed
from the regular calendar to consent.
Mr. Addison.
Thank you.
And that is item 9, the all applications to be moved from regular to consent for all the
districts on the agenda today.
As mentioned during the agenda changes this morning, there are five items that were recommending
be moved to consent and those are item 11A and item 12A, the two related UCSB long range
development plan amendment and notice of impending development for the university's east campus
housing project.
14A and 14B, the two related City of Ventura applications for stairway repair and revetment
repair.
And item 18A, the Bircher CDP application out of Newport Beach.
I would note that there is an addendum for the two related City of Ventura CDP applications
that responds to concerns raised by Surf Rider, including a request that the replacement
public beach access stairway should be relocated further landward and the
special condition one which limits the term of authorization for the repair
work to the existing riprap on site to 10 years with the requirement that the
city return with a new CDP application for a long-term hazards management plan
for the promenade be revised to require additional public participation. In
response staff agrees to the request to change to that special condition
requiring additional public participation during the city's
development of that long-term hazards management plan and special condition
one has been revised accordingly in the addendum. As discussed in more detail on
the addendum staff does not recommend any additional changes in the stairway
design or location. I would note that as proposed originally proposed by the city
The replacement stairway would have extended further seaward than the existing rock revetment,
and it would have utilized a very large concrete wall to support its L-shaped design, and that
wall would have acted much like a seawall.
Commissioned staff has coordinated at great depth with the city staff and asked for revisions,
and those revisions to the project are reflected in Special Condition 2, which requires the
submittal of revised plans.
The revised plans condition eliminates that large concrete wall and requires that the
stairway use a concrete case pile supported design that will be incorporated into the
existing rip rep.
It also requires that the stairway be pulled back landward of the existing rock revetment
so that no portion of that could extend further seaward than the existing revetment on site.
The request from Surf Rider was that the stairway be pulled back even further, but our staff
does not believe that that would result in any further reduction in adverse impacts,
and it would create additional complications if the stairway ended further landward than
the toe of the revetment as it would make access for pedestrians to the Sandy Beach
more complex.
So we're not recommending any additional changes, but I would like to note that the changes
that are included in our revised plan were the result of lengthy negotiations and discussions
with the city.
I would like to thank the city for agreeing to those changes and being in agreement with
the staff recommendation.
And for those reasons, we continue to recommend this item be approved as part of the consent
calendar today.
In closing, staff is not aware of any opposition
to any of the other items being moved to consent.
And we're recommending the commission vote.
And to approve this item, I am available for questions.
Great, thank you.
Any ex partes?
Seeing none, any public comments, please?
We have a few speakers signed up.
For item 11A, we have Jean Lucas and then Sherry Hammond.
But we are unable to see them on Zoom.
If either of them are there, could you raise your hand?
Again, Gene Lucas and Sherry Hammond.
I'm not seeing any hands raised,
so we'll move on to item 14A and B.
We have two speakers.
We'll start with Mitch Silverstein in the room,
and then we also have Karen Smith on Zoom.
Mitch Silverstein.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein, California Policy Senior Coordinator
with Surf Fighter Foundation.
So this is a permit for 600 feet of riprap revetment
on the public beach to protect the Ventura promenade.
It's just steps away from the Surfers Point Managed Retreat
Project that we all worked so hard to achieve.
It also includes a replacement access staircase,
as Deputy Director Hudson said.
So Surfriders raised concerns about riprap
on the beach at the Promenade since 2001.
We opposed it then, and we continue
to oppose armoring that degrades the public beach.
That said, we appreciate that staff engaged seriously
with our concerns.
The revision to special condition one
requiring public participation in the long-term hazards
management plan is a meaningful improvement,
and we thank staff for making it.
On the staircase we asked staff to require
landward relocation, but appreciate the extensive
coordination that went into improving,
I guess the original design which was bad.
We do want to remain on the record that holding the line
at the existing footprint is a missed opportunity
for even modest adaptation at a site
where the beach is actively eroding.
On mitigation we'd ask the commission to ensure
that any long-term hazards management plans
submitted under Special Condition 1 includes
clear and quantified accounting of cumulative beach loss, not just a general alternatives
analysis.
We also want to flag that the city's consultants identified 900 feet of revetment needing attention
and these CDPs cover 600.
Any future armoring request along this promenade should be held to the same 10-year limited
authorization established today and not treated as a fresh start.
Finally, we're heading into a winter with a potential mega El Nino.
damage here is not unforeseen. It is predicted by the city's own engineers and previous emergency
armoring CDPs are being formalized today. Emergency permits should not become a routine
workaround that bypasses the planning standards this commission has worked so hard to establish
today. So please, if they request additional emergencies after this winter, we're going
to fight that and we hope you join us. Thank you. Thank you. Karen Smith.
Hello, my name is Karen Smith and I am a resident of the Ventura coast. I agree that we need a new
staircase on the promenade and I just want to make a comment that 10 to 15 years ago an attempt was
made to put in a new staircase in the same L design but they had to stop due to not being able
to drill through the bedrock. They almost crashed in the promenade but that was they just stopped it
and they couldn't do it back then. So my request is that your staff consider not taking out the
existing staircase until the new one can be installed, until they know that the new one
can be installed. I hear things about pile support design. I think that the reason it was
cancelled last time was because they couldn't drill for a pile. So my basic request is that
that your staff look into what happened last time
and not take out the existing stairs
until they know they can put this new staircase in wherever.
So thank you very much.
Thank you.
And then for item 18A move to consent,
we have one person available for questions.
There are no other speakers.
Great, thank you.
I'll return to the commission.
Or Mr. Hudson, if you'd like to make a comment.
Thank you, just very briefly.
So in response to the last speaker,
the permit is for the replacement
of the existing staircase.
So it's in the same location.
So the removal and reconstruction
would occur at the same time.
We have discussed the use of piles.
They are feasible.
And so that design would be, and we've
seen many other stairways where pile supports are incorporated
into a design that is located within a riprap structure.
And just very briefly, again, we appreciate
all the comments by surf rider and our staff agreed with all
those same points, which is why we've worked with the city to
make some revisions. We do believe that the special
condition one does require the accounting that surf rider
requested in terms of assessing the impacts and evaluating how
this stairway and the rip rap will affect beach access. I
would also just note that this permits not for a new rip rap,
per se, it's for repair, so addition of rock
to an existing rock revetment.
It is continuing that existing protection
for the public walk known as the Promenade Inventura.
But there is questions about, well,
what will be the long-term plan?
How do they maintain this?
And that's the purpose of this 10-year authorization period
with the requirement that the city return
at the end of that 10 years with a long-term,
more of a long-term adaptation plan,
that we can evaluate how we will address sea level rise going forward in the
future while maintaining this important public infrastructure. So with that I'll
just note that we're available for any questions and close staff comments. Thank
you very much. Okay, Commissioner Presiado. I just wanted a comment as we heard
from surf riders today the unusual El Nino weather event is predicted and so
unrelated to this issue but for future issues it may require us to do a lot of
emergency permitting. I remember the 8384 one in the particular part of the
beach I lived in there were homes that just went and so I'm just wondering as
As we project forward, what is the likelihood of being offering some sort of workshop or
some preparation for a major event as it is being predicted?
And so a little unrelated to the topic, I support the item on the Ventura as presented,
but I was just interested for future how that will be managed.
It seems, at least from the modeling, it seems to be a significant event.
Through the chair, I'd love to just respond really quickly.
I think what's been interesting is, I totally agree, the modeling is scary for this particular
season, but we've seen also a lot of those in the last several years for different reasons.
And so we are, I think it's, we have actually worked pretty hard over the last several years
with local governments to understand what this might look like.
We went through this a couple years ago in prep for what we thought, again, turned out
to be a very big storm season over the winter, and so we kind of proactively reached out
to local governments or our district offices to, hey, are you ready?
You know, hey, local governments, are you ready?
Is there something that we need to be talking about now?
So a similar idea to the workshop, but more focused through the district staff, but I
I think it's a great reminder that we may be in the same situation again this year and
we should be thinking about how we need to be doing outreach to local government.
So I will definitely think about that whether a workshop or do it through district staff
will talk amongst ourselves about what the most effective way is.
And then just one overarching comment is I think we all understand that these types of
storm conditions are going to be happening more frequently.
And so we also need to know that going forward so that we're not doing everything by emergency
permit.
This is something that local governments and homeowners and folks, you know, property owners
on the coast should, we need to know this is coming.
And the best way to think about how to adapt to those conditions is to go through, you
know, anticipate, you know, this is going to happen, come to us early so that we can
work through the regular process.
That's always our preference.
And while this season is particularly difficult, and we always have emergencies that come up
and we will deal with those as they come up, we really want to encourage, again, local
governments and property owners to be thinking ahead so that we don't have to deal with everything
as an emergency when we know these things are going to happen more and more.
So just wanted to put that out there as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
This is on the server's point.
point I have a couple just comments and questions so first of all I know a lot
of effort and money and heart and soul went into the surfers point managed
retreat and this is just my own ignorance so what you have is you have
that large area which will be very interesting to see if there is El Nino
events that impact that coast what happens there versus what happens over
on the other area that has the seawall, et cetera.
So is the goal, because my understanding is that that managed retreat project was supposed
to be continued to be extended.
Could you just review, I know, and also when is the 10 year plan, when is that going to
be discussed and what is the timeline, and you may have covered this already, but if
you have, sorry.
Absolutely.
the chair. I'll note that Surfers Point of course is a wildly important project to us.
It's located a little ways up coast. It has two phases. Phase one has been completed,
and this just for background, Surfers Point was an area that did not have a rock revetment
historically in the 1980s. It was subject to severe erosion. The public walkway, which
was a continuation of this promenade,
but an area where the promenade itself,
this really large beefy public walkway along the water,
is not located.
Instead, it's a more narrow walkway with a bike path,
and that was eroded away.
So later in the 90s, the commission,
after much work with the city, arrived in that agreement
for the managed retreat project.
And phase one has occurred, and so that
included dune restoration, managed retreat,
and reconfiguration of a parking lot.
Phase 2 is still underway and that includes a second phase located between the first phase
of Surfer's Point and where really this formalized promenade is located.
So this area doesn't include any of the project areas that were encapsulated by the Surfer's
Point project.
It's the area just down coast of Surfer's Point where we have this more formal promenade,
concrete promenade walkway.
Going to the 10-year plan of course that would date from the issue from the data Commission action
requirement that the city
Has these temporary what we consider to be temporary repairs to the existing rock preventment existing promenade
but given that it is
It's past time to start planning for sea level rise and what we expect to happen
we expect that this 10-year window is
The appropriate period of time for the city to conduct that planning effort and
Evaluate how the promenade and surfer's point would work in conjunction and how that could be potentially reconfigured or reevaluated
given future
circumstances
Just through the chair. Yeah, I just want to say that given the success of the managed retreat and I guess we'll see
you know in the storm season coming up, but
and the
Opportunity there to to continue that I just want to express my strong support
For what's happened and what could happen because I don't see the promenade as having a bright future in the current
as things exist today the beach is essentially gone in front of the promenade looks like and
So it's just going to be subject to all the wave action. So thanks so much for your work on this. Thanks, chair
Okay, I'll entertain a motion there are no other questions or comments
I'll move approval of items move to consent
I'll second that some motion by Commissioner Wilson. I've seconded any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion carries great. Thank you
So I'm gonna suggest that we break for lunch now, and I think we're going out for lunch correct director
I'm just on your own today. Okay, great
So if everyone could be back right at 130 to get started, please don't be late. Thank you so much. I
Just had to do that
Okay
Hey everyone. All right, we're calling the session the afternoon
Of the Coastal Commission meeting. I'm going to be cheering as our chair is
Got some appointments this afternoon that she couldn't avoid we start with item 10 the DDR South Central Coast mr. Hudson
Thank you and item 10 is the deputy directors report for the South Central Coast district
which this month includes two permit waivers,
two permit extensions, and one emergency waiver.
In regard to that emergency waiver,
it was for the city of Santa Barbara Airport
for dredging of approximately 9,000 cubic yards of sediment
from Carneiro's Creek and the Firestone Ditch
Covert and temporary stockpiling.
And that was in order to prevent flooding of the airport
and runway areas.
Staff is not aware of any opposition
to any of the items being reported today.
and we are asking whether three or more commissioners object to any of the items and the deputy directors report staff is available for questions
Return to the Commission to three or more commissioners object to any of the items and the deputy directors report
All right, seeing none. Is there any public comment on this? No commenters. Okay in that case the
DDR is adopted so 11 a has been approved on consent and so we are moving I believe
To item 13 a okay 11 e and 12 a were both adopted on consent. So we're on item 13 a the peaches appeal
Yes, and item 13 a will be presented by Gabriella Gabriella goth a coastal program analyst and our south Central Coast district
We do have a PowerPoint presentation for this. Please if we could cue that up and Gabriella, please take it away
Thank you, Steve. Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. The next item, 13A, is an appeal
of a coastal development permit approved by the City of Malibu for the construction of
a new 3,977.5 square foot, two-story, 28-foot-high single-family residence with a basement, pool,
spa, retaining walls, new on-site wastewater treatment system, and associated development.
Next slide please. The project site is located adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway on a bluff
top parcel near the Pacific Ocean and adjacent to existing single family residential development.
Our standard of review in this case is the city of Malibu's certified LCP. The city's
permit action was appealed by the neighboring property owner Matthew Mark who contends
that the approved project is inconsistent with the visual resource policies and provisions
of the Malibu LCP. The appellant primarily asserts that the approved project does not
adequately protect private views for the provisions of the Malibu municipal code.
However, the Malibu municipal code is not the standard overview for coastal development
permits. The standard overview in this case is the city of Malibu's certified LCP. The LCP
contains no policies or provisions that protect private views. Therefore, the assertions related
to private views are not valid grounds for appeal and are not evaluated here. The appellant also
alleges that the approved project is not consistent with Malibu LUP policies that require development
that the city and the city
were yet to be recognized by
the city's city development to
be decided and designed to
protect public views by
minimizing visual impacts
through height limits, view
corridors and overall
compatibility with the
surrounding landscape. The
appellant states that the
approved project is
inconsistent with LIP section
6.5 requiring protection of
ocean views from scenic public
roads, claiming that the city
did not adequately analyze
whether the proposed 28-foot
two-story structure could be
project's 5.8-foot, 6.8-foot, 7-inch corridor,
that only addresses part of the public blue water view requirement.
LIP Section 6.5e requires that new development on parcels seaward of public roads protect ocean views,
and where the topography of a site does not permit the siting or design of a structure that is located below road grade,
new development shall provide an ocean view corridor on the project site in which buildings shall not occupy
with an average of 80% of the
lineal frontage on the site.
And the remaining 20% of lineal
frontage shall be maintained as
one contiguous view corridor
except on lots with a width of
50 feet or less in which the
corridor can be split.
Next slide, please.
In this case, commission staff
concurs with the city's
findings that the proposed
project would not have
significant adverse impacts on
scenic views to the ocean from
PCH and other public viewing
on this slide, the further reduction of the height of the structure would not serve to
further reduce public view impacts from PCH, as even a one-story structure would still
impede views. Regardless, the project is in conformance with the view corridor requirement
of the certified LCP and commission staff concurs with the city's findings that the
project has been designed in a manner to minimize impacts to public views to the extent feasible
consistent with all requirements of the city's certified LCP. Next slide please. The city's
This determination was based on a site visit, visual impact analysis, and evaluating the
project for conformance with city codes.
Next slide, please.
The city determined that the approved two-story residents at a maximum height of 28 feet with
a pitched roof will not significantly impact public ocean views from PCH and nearby public
beaches.
The applicant proposed a 16-foot, 7-inch view corridor seen here on this slide in pink,
which is more than double the LCP required width of at least 20% of lineal frontage and
the city conditioned the CDP to ensure the view corridor is provided.
In closing, the project, as approved by the city of Malibu, conforms with the relevant
policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP related to the protection of scenic and visual
resources.
The city's record includes extensive factual evidence and legal support for their findings
that the project is consistent with the relevant policies of the certified LCP.
such staff recommends the Commission find that the appellant's contentions
raise no substantial issue with regard to consistency with the policies and
provisions of the certified LCP. This concludes the staff presentation staff
is available for any questions. Thanks so much Ms. Goff. Alright I'll first ask if
there's any expertise on this. Alright seeing none I'll go to public comment do
we have any we have the appellant? We do not have anyone representing the
appellant or we don't have the appellant either we only have Justin Block here in
person with the applicant and representative from the city of Malibu
okay so I'm assuming I should proceed although the appellant is not here so
we'll hear first from the applicant and then we'll hear from the city all right
Justin Block how much time do you need mr. block sounds that's perfect that's
It's consistent with my approach here.
No, I just.
Could you please turn, yeah, turn the mic on?
Just kidding.
There we go.
I guess I need more than five seconds
to figure out the button, but good afternoon.
We agree with staff.
I had a presentation, but staff covered everything.
They showed all the visuals I was going to show.
Fully agree with the recommendation,
and respectfully request that you follow the recommendation.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
All right, we'll turn to, is it the city of Malibu?
Yes, he's just available for questions.
OK, great.
In that case, we'll bring it back to staff, Ms. Goff,
or Mr. Hudson, anything else?
No additional comments available for questions.
Great.
All right, commissioners, is there
any questions or comments or a motion?
I move to approve staff's recommendation.
Second.
OK, do we need to read that?
Yeah, we're going to need to read the motion, which
is a motion for finding of no substantial issue,
And that is on page somewhere.
It's on page seven if you want to attempt to read it.
Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Nodoff will make the motion.
For the voice of I move that the commission determine that
The appeal number A-4-MAL-26-0010 raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds
on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act and request a yes
vote.
Thank you.
And just to clarify that Commissioner Kelly has laryngitis, so that's why we're kidding
around.
But would you like to second, Commissioner?
Second.
that was fantastic all right we have a motion a second is there any objection
to unanimous yes vote on this all right seeing none no substantial issue is
found and we will move on to our next item thank you to the applicant for not
talking us out of it thank you and that that brings us to item 15 which is the
deputy directors report for the South Coast District it includes 13 permit
waivers and three permit extensions. In addition, staff received five objections from members
of the public in regard to two separate but related immaterial permit extensions being
reported this month. Those were the CDP application numbers, 5-21-0139E3 for the Miramar Hotel
Project and 5-21-0785-E3. That's for the Community Corporation of Santa Monica Affordable
housing project. And those are two related projects both within the city of Santa Monica.
Because the objections were received within our 10-day period for public comment after
the deputy director's report was published, these two items will be brought back at a
future hearing, likely next month in June, for action by the commission on this time
extension with additional information to address the issues raised in the objections. We're
not aware of any opposition to any of the other items being reported today. And we are
asking whether three or more commissioners object to any of the
items for which action is needed today in the deputy director's report staff is
available for questions. Thanks Mr. Hudson is any ex partes any public
comment? We just have that applicants representative available for questions.
On which which item just to be clear? 15. 15. 15 correct. But is there a
particular it I mean just for the record is there any specific waiver or
item that they're here to respond to it was not indicated to us now okay thank
you return it to the Commission and ask if three or more commissioners object to
the adoption of the DDR with the exception of the items that mr. Hudson
have indicated will be coming back to the Commission any objection seeing none
the deputy directors report for Los Angeles is adopted and we will move on
Now to 17 a I believe the rain up. Okay. Thank you and we'll do a quick staff shuffling of staff
Alright, so that does take us to item 16, which is the deputy directors report for South Coast District Orange County
The report contains two waivers for projects in Laguna Beach in San Clemente and one CDB time extension
We're also reporting on an emergency action by the city of Laguna Beach to remove
several trees along Lower Forest Avenue in the city's downtown area
That the city deemed to be hazardous to public safety
That action was reported under section 306 11 of the Coastal Act as an emergency action by the city
That is allowed without a CDP
The city will be determining next steps for tree replacement in the near future
And with that we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to any of the waivers
or the time extension in the report.
Thanks, Mr. Schwing.
All right, is there any ex partes?
Any public comment?
Yes, we have five individuals who
would like to speak on Zoom.
The first three are George Weiss, Ann Kritzman,
and Carly Andrews.
OK, so let's call the first speaker.
They'll each have two minutes.
and if they could indicate which item they are speaking on,
would be helpful, which item within the DDR.
Got it.
First up, we have George Weiss.
Yes, yes, that's George Weiss.
Thank you.
We can hear you OK.
And could you indicate which item you're speaking on, please?
The Laguna Beach removal, tree removals.
Please go ahead.
OK, thank you.
I urge the commission to deny retroactive approval
for the tree removals and alterations executed
by the city of Laguna Beach
along Forest Avenue promenade.
As a former Laguna Beach City Council member,
I've witnessed firsthand the procedural missteps
and lack of transparency that led to this.
The actions taken by the current council
and the city staff demonstrated concerning disregard
for both the health of our urban canopy
and the established rights of our residents
to participate in local government.
Over the last five years, resident participation
regarding the Promenade project
has been systematically marginalized.
The city's reliance on retroactive approval
is not merely a bureaucratic shortcut,
it's a fundamental breach of public trust.
By acting first and seeking permission later,
the city deliberately bypassed
the standard environmental review and public comment periods
designed to protect our community's natural assets.
The public outrage has been palpable.
I've sent several recent articles
to the Coastal Commission,
including one of my own,
which illustrate the depth of the community's anger
over the opaque process used to justify the destruction.
Furthermore, the City's proposed mitigation
is entirely inadequate.
Replacing the mature trees
with significantly smaller trees
placed them in entirely different locations,
fails to restore the shade, aesthetic value,
and environmental benefits of a lost canopy.
Therefore, I respectfully request the following actions.
Deny the retroactive free approval
of the tree remools on Forest Avenue
and remand this item back to the city of Laguna Beach
with instructions to the planning commission
to hold hearings regarding the mitigation plan.
Residents must be afforded their rightful opportunity
to weigh in on the selection
of appropriate replacement tree species
and their exact placement.
Our urban canopy is a shared resource.
And I thank you for your time and service
to our commitment to the proper oversight.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Weiss.
Next up, we have Anne Kritzman followed by Carly Andrews.
Ms. Kritzman.
Kritzman, we're gonna allow you to speak as an attendee.
We're having a little bit of difficulty
moving you in as a panelist.
Please go ahead and please do state
which item you're speaking on.
All right, we're gonna move on to Carly Andrews
and then we'll try Ms. Chrisman again.
Ms. Andrews, are you available to speak?
And please do state which item you're speaking on.
Ms. Chrisman, are you available?
Pardon me, Ms. Andrews, are you available?
Oh, here she is.
Please go ahead, Ms. Andrews,
and please do state which item you're speaking on.
Okay, I'd like to speak about item 16W.
And I would like to ask the Coastal Commission
not to grant the city of Laguna Beach a waiver request
for the unapproved removal of the nine trees
on Forest Avenue.
Many of us are really concerned
that this was a fabricated emergency stage
so that the public wouldn't be involved
and a legal protocol wouldn't have to be followed.
In 2019, we started petition to save the downtown trees
we're on Forest Avenue, precisely the trees that were cut down a couple weeks ago. The
picture we used had the trees with big red X's on them. We got 6,000 signatures on that
petition. The trees were temporarily saved. I believe that saving these trees was never
a priority for the city. In fact, I would argue that it's been a plan to remove them
for years. The timeline to me and to many others doesn't make sense. On March 21st,
the first tree fell because it was compromised by construction. A couple of weeks later,
the Dudek report was obtained. Then a week later, the Waypoint report. Then two and a
half weeks later, the Monarch Environmental Report was supposed to be received on April
20th. They said at first at 3pm and then changed that to a voice, a phone call that happened
earlier that day. And I think the problem is that the public and everyone else saw these
trucks and shippers parked in the world bank parking lot since 11 o'clock that morning.
If you look at the image that was submitted by the city to the Coastal Commission, the
images titled Existing Trees, dated April 16th, 2026.
And the legend says, Removable or Preserve and Monitor.
And a lot of us believe that this image was actually
created on April 16th, not afterwards.
And we would like the code to make sure.
OK.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we're going to try Anne Kritzman again,
followed by Mary Locatelli.
Ms. Chrisman, please go ahead
and please state which item you're speaking on.
Ms. Chrisman, are you available?
Okay, we're gonna move on to Mary Locatelli.
Ms. Locatelli, please go ahead
and please state which item you're going to be speaking on.
Yes, I'm also speaking on item 16W.
The city would have you put the hours
up giving confirming arborist report on April 20th
that recommended the trees on forest be removed.
In the interest of public safety,
the city had no choice other than to order the immediate,
meaning that evening, removal of the trees.
It had no time to follow its own tree removal policy
and no time to obtain a permit from this commission.
Allow me to offer a different interpretation.
On April 3rd, the city received its first arborist report
on the trees, which recommended the removal
of nine trees on forest.
Apparently in anticipation of the second arborist report,
to confirm that recommendation,
the city began ordering new trees
and had silver cells that are designed
to support planting new trees delivered to the work site.
However, while it began planning for life
after tree removal on April 3rd,
in the 17 days between then and the removal of the trees,
it chose not to initiate procedures
to follow its own tree removal policy for public trees.
That policy would have included
posting the arborist report,
notifying the public of the removal recommendation,
identifying the trees in question with a visible ribbon,
accepting public comment for seven days
and posting a summary of responses
and a final recommendation to the website.
And perhaps it also could have requested
a coastal commission permit before the trees were removed
rather than a waiver the day after.
A tangential question surrounds who made the decision.
Was the city manager with no consultation with the council?
Post council comments indicated that was not likely the case
or was it the city manager in consultation with the council?
as if this was the case was there a Brown Act violation.
So at this point, what can be done,
unfortunately we can't bring the trees back,
but we can't address the process going forward.
The new planting scheme should not be dictated by council
before any new planting occurs.
The plan should be returned to the planning commission
and then to the city council for review and resident input
regarding both tree selection and placement.
Specific care should be directed not only to aesthetics
and tree compatibility with environmental considerations,
but also to public safety and emergency evacuations.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Locatelli.
We're going to try Anne Crisman one last time.
Yes.
Ms. Crisman, are you there?
Yes.
OK.
And could you please state?
We can hear you.
And can you please state which item
you're going to be speaking on?
I'm speaking on item 16.
Thank you.
Please go ahead.
Yes.
Yes.
I just want to go over what happened at 5.25.
Just one second.
I just want to go back.
The DDR is item 15, isn't it?
It's item 16.
Oh, it is 16.
Okay.
Are you speaking on the Laguna Beach item?
Yes.
Okay.
Fine.
Sorry about that.
Okay.
So I get a text at 5.25 on April 20th saying that there's an emergency tree meeting at
six o'clock that night. It's sort of a last minute thing. We all got on. There was about
80 of us. This has been a very contentious project from day one. They start talking about
the trees and talking about how one fell in the middle of the night. And that this is
safety, safety. Everything was safety, safety. And that they had to take these trees down.
And we're all talking, coming up, brainstorming ideas. Well, why can't you steel cable them
until we figure it out, pour some more concrete over what was there, you know, there's, there's,
we all were brainstorming. Never one time did they say we are actually taking these trees down
two nights right after the meeting. So because of safety, however, that tree fell on March 21.
They didn't, so we leave that meeting unbeknownst to us, it was never mentioned, they took all the
trees down all through the middle of the night so they there was no safety concern for a month
and they tell us oh we're sorry we didn't handle it right oh we're sorry oh we're sorry and now
they're telling the coastal commission oh we're sorry we need a waiver we're sorry we didn't do
this right until there's some sort of consequences the city is going to continue to do this if they
really did do this for safety these are the same trees they originally slated to go away
I would ask the Coastal Commission maybe have them then if this was for safety and not for what
their original plan was, how about you put then in the same place where you took these trees out,
the same specimen trees and very large, is already somebody that is going to donate $10,000 for one
tree or was this really their plan all along and the only way to get these trees out was to cite
these safety concerns and then do them in the middle of the night when now there's no evidence,
Now none nobody in the public got to see it. So I would say make them put the same trees back in the same
Thank you, Miss Chrisman
We had one speaker available from the city of Laguna Beach to answer questions, but we're not able to find them in the zoom webinar
Okay, so the city is not represented currently and online
No, they are not. All right. Um, can I bring it back to staff? Mr. Fung do you have any comments? Thank you, Vice-chair Hart
So, yeah, we do want to acknowledge
The situation here in the city. We certainly
Understand that a lot of people have very strong feelings about these trees and the process that was
carried out locally
and
You know just want to recognize that
But I also want to make clear that as part of the deputy directors report this particular item is just a reporting item
It's not something that the Commission is taking formal action on under
306 11 of the Coastal Act
The city has to notify us that they've taken this action and that's what they've done here
there's an opportunity for the executive director to
Review whether the city's action conformed with 306 11 in terms of its provisions and we have no
Evidence that they did not comply that we believe they comply. So
At this point, it's just a reporting item. This is a local locally certified area and
Next steps will be carried out by the city itself through their coastal permit process
Okay. Thank you very much turn to the Commission. Are there any comments?
and if not, does anyone of the three or more commissioners object to the adoption of the
Deputy directors report itself
All right, seeing none the DDR is adopted when we'll on to the next item
Thank you. So that does take us now to item 17a. That is the Raina appeal and Vince Lee
Lead analyst on the project is going to do the staff presentation. Go ahead Vince
All right. Good afternoon commissioners item
You have the slide queued up, please
Item 17A is an appeal filed by South Laguna City Association and Christopher Moore over coastal development permit
granted by the City of Laguna Beach to Tony Reyna. Next slide, please.
The subject site is a currently vacant bluff top parcel of varying elevations that totals approximately
24,000 square feet in the City of Laguna Beach. The project site is designated as Village Low Density
per the certified LUP, and residential low density per the certified IP.
The city approved development involves the construction of a new 7,231 square feet, three
storey single-family residential structure with an attached three-car garage, elevated
decks, retaining walls, pool, spa, and landscaping on this vacant oceanfront laptop lot.
The Commission's standard of review for the proposed development is the city of Laguna
Beach certified LCP and the Chapter 3 public access and recreational policies of the close
left.
Next slide.
The opponents contend that the city approved project raises three issues as to consistency
with the city's LCP, which are that the city's bluff edge determination is inconsistent with
the LCP's definition and thus all requirements relating to bluff top development have not
been properly assessed.
The proposed three-story residents would impact public views and the project did not consider
the protection of archaeological and paleontological resources.
Next slide, please.
The commission's staff geologist, Philip Johnson,
has reviewed the applicant proposed and Syria-approved
geotechnical analyses, bluff edge determination,
topographic surveys, cross-sections, coastal hazard
analysis, historic aerial photographs,
and the proposed architectural plans.
Based on his analysis, Mr. Johnson
estimates the bluff edge on the subject site
as the 115 feet elevation contour,
shown in green dotted line in this slide,
which is mostly landward of the proposed residents,
which is shown in blue solid line in the slide.
Based on the bluff edge determination for the subject site,
most of the proposed single family residents
and associated development, including the pool,
spa, elevated decks, and retaining walls
would occur on the bluff face.
Therefore, strict application
of the bluff edge setback policies
would render the project non-approvable
and staff believes that the appellant's contention
as to the city's bluff edge determination
does raise a substantial issue.
Next slide, please.
The appellant's claim that the project site
is located in an area of unique scenic quality
and the proposed three-story residential structure
would obstruct public views
both from the state scenic highway and from the beach,
inconsistent with the LCP.
Despite the city's record finding that the project
is designed to protect views to and along the ocean
and scenic coastal areas along coast highway.
Policy 2.10 of the LUP requires new development
to maximize the preservation of coastal views
and minimize blockage of existing views.
Policy 7M of the city's certified open space
conservation element also requires new development
along Pacific Coast Highway.
To preserve existing views where feasible
and where topography allows new development
to be terse below the grade of Pacific Coast Highway.
As will be further described in the de Novo staff presentation,
there is a viable project alternative that further minimizes
blockage of existing coastal views taken from the coast
highway by further lowering the elevation
of the proposed structure.
Therefore, staff believes that the city did not adequately
consider the project's consistency
with the visual resource protection policies of the LCP.
And the appliance contention with regard
to visual resource impact does raise a substantial issue.
Next slide.
The appliance contend that, even though the project site contains a well-developed prehistoric
showmitten deposit, the city's approval did not require a map that shows where construction
and construction-related activities, including staging, will take place in relation to the
showmitten and did not require a full paleontological assessment of the project area.
Consequently, the appellants argue that the city inadequately found the project will not
adversely affect archaeological or paleontological resources.
The city's findings state that a cultural resource assessment
was completed for the project by evaluating project impacts
to historic and archeological resources.
The results of the assessment have revealed
that there are known archeological resources on site.
The applicant has proposed to avoid development
of the proposed residential structure
on the portion of the known resource
identified as significant.
Nonetheless, given the presence of archeological resources
within the project site and the identification
of several prehistory archeological resources
in the immediate project vicinity,
the city found that there is a potential
to encounter previously unknown archeological resources
during construction of the project.
Based on these results,
the applicant proposed mitigation measures
for archeological and Native American
construction monitoring to occur
during project-related ground-deserving activities,
conduct training sessions for construction personnel,
and require best management practices
for inadvertent discovery of resources and human remains,
and prepare a monitoring report within 14 days
of concluding the archaeological monitoring.
With regard to the paleontological resource impacts,
the city council requested information
from the CEQA consultant on paleontological resources.
The city council considered, as reflected in the CEQA document,
that a vertebrate paleontology records check
was conducted by the LA County Natural History
Museum for paleontological resources on the project site
and in the vicinity.
and the research did not find any recorded paleontological resources within the project site boundaries.
The city found that the CEQA document reflected
that the mitigation measure would ensure protection of
paleontological resources encountered during excavation on site.
Therefore, staff believes that the city had adequately found the project will not adversely affect paleontological or paleontological resources
based on the proposed mitigation measures and the appellant's contention with regard to
These resource impacts do do not raise a substantial issue
excite
And some staff recommends that the Commission determine that a substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed
Because the project as a proof of the city has not been adequately reviewed for consistency with chapter 3 of the Coast Guard and the certified LCP
Unless three or more commissioners wish to hold a hearing on the substantial issue determination
Substantial issue will be deemed to exist and we will move on to the Commission's de novo action on this item. Okay
Thank you. Mr. Lee. All right. I'm going to turn to the Commission ask if there are any ex partes first of all
All right, seeing none
I'm going to ask if three or more
Commissioners want to have a hearing on substantial issue if that's if we three or more do not want to have a hearing
Substantial issue would be found and we will move to the de novo hearing seeing no one
Do we need to have the motion on the no vote or we'll just receive a note?
»» Okay.
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Lee.
Sorry.
Substantial issue is found and we will proceed with the hearing.
Danovo, thank you.
»» Thank you.
We can have the PowerPoint up again.
So we will now move on to the Danovo CDP application for the project.
After commission staff has shared this bluff edge determination of the site, the applicant
submitted an analysis showing the remaining buildable area on the project parcel after
After applying the Commission's determination of the Bluff Edge setback on the site, the
resulting allowable buildable area was approximately 1,168 square feet within the project site,
which is an overall site area of 24,000 square feet.
As described in detail in the potential taking section of the published staff report for
this item, staff believes that the strict application of the Bluff Edge setback policies
could potentially result in an unconstitutional taking
of private property without payment of just compensation,
as staff believes that it is infeasible for the project
to fully conform to the 25 feet minimum
bluffage development setback
and still provide a reasonable economic use of the property.
Therefore, in this case,
even though staff believes that the project as proposed
is inconsistent with the bluff top setback policies,
in light of the evidence that denying the proposed project
could constitute unlawful taking of the applicant's property,
SAP recommends that the Commission determine
that the applicant is entitled to a reasonable
economic use of the property.
Accordingly, allowing some such development
in order to avoid the potential taking
is consistent with Section 30010 of the Coast Select,
provided that the impacts to the coastal bluff
and visual resources are avoided
to the maximum extent feasible.
In doing so, staff notes that the Commission must assess
whether there is a superior project alternative
in terms of minimizing impacts
and bringing the project into greater conformity
with the goals of the LCP.
And that would still provide
a viable economy use of the property.
Next slide please.
In this case, staff determined
that there is no project alternative
that would avoid all impact on the bluff slope
that would not result in a potential take
and strict application of the 25 minimum setback
from the bluff edge is not possible on the site.
In addition, even though the proposed structure
would mostly be located seaward
of the 25 minimum bluff edge setback,
Commissioned Staff Geologists, Philip Johnson,
confirmed that there is no non-bluff stability
or erosion concern on the site
when accounting for future sea level rise
or when accounting for future sea level rise.
Additionally, Commissioned Staff Ecologists,
Dr. Corey Clutterbuck, also conducted a site visit
and confirmed that there's no environmental
desensitive habitat area on the site,
thus requiring a material change
in the proposed home size and design
does not appear in this particular case
to be necessary to provide
for any significant coastal resource benefits.
Staff believes that applying the string line
for development setback would be the most feasible method
to ensure consistency with your certified LCP
while avoiding a taking of the property.
although usually the deck string line is more seaward
than the building string line.
In this case, the house and the construction
on the immediate property to the south of the project site
does not have a deck at the lowest level
and has a deck further landward on the site
at the next level up,
resulting in the building string line
situated more seaward than the deck string line.
So in this case, staff leaves that applying
the building string line for both the primary structure
and the accessory structure is consistent
with the intent of the certified LCP.
As proposed, the principal structure is already landward
of the identified building streamline setback,
but the proposed accessory structure
included a pull, spa, and elevated text RC word
of the building streamline.
And therefore, staff recommends special condition one,
which requires the applicant to submit revised final plans
that fully conform to the identified building
streamlines setback.
Next slide, please.
Policy 2.10 of the LUP requires new development
to maximize preservation of coastal views
and minimize blockage of existing views.
Policy 7, eminently certified
open space conservation element,
also requires new development along Coast Highway
to preserve existing views who are feasible
and where the topography allows new development
to be terse below the grade of Coast Highway.
Commission staff requested further information
the applicant to evaluate how the proposed project could be made consistent with these policies. And
in response, the applicant proposed a project alternative to lower the entire structure by an
additional four feet to maximize visual resource gains while meeting the city's maximum allowable
driveway slope requirement. This alternative would result in a roof height of two feet and 11 inches
above the elevation of the existing curb, fronting coast highway, and maintain the existing
approximately 180 feet of largely unobstructed blue water views along Coast Highway.
Staff believes that the limitations on the site's building area and the project's
need to conform with the city's driveway slope requirement makes strict compliance
with policy 7M not feasible in this case.
However, staff believes that the proposed project alternative would satisfy policy 7M
by minimizing the obstruction of public views, by lowering the proposed project to the extent
feasible and is allowed by the topography of the project site.
The proposed project would cascade down the bluff face and would not significantly disturb
the view shed from Coast Highway while also allowing the applicant a reasonable opportunity
to develop their property and improve it with a new home.
Therefore, staff recommends Special Condition 1, requiring the applicant to submit revised
final plans that would lower the elevation of the proposed structure, not to exceed two
feet 11 inches above the existing curve Fronting Coast Highway. Next slide please.
Staff further notes that since the publication of the staff report the Commission received
one comment from the applicant's representative in support of the staff recommendation and
five public comments in opposition to staff recommendation which are included in the correspondence
tab of this item and staff would also note that a staff report addendum is published
to respond to the concerns, raised in the comments.
In closing, staff recommends the commission
approve the de novo permit as revised
with 15 special conditions.
And the motion can be found on page 16 of the staff report.
Thank you, Mr. Lee.
I appreciate it.
All right, I'm going to open the public hearing on this.
And I am going to start by just asking the applicant briefly
how much time they'd like so that I can judge
how much time to give.
How much time do you think?
10, between 10 to 12 minutes.
All right, I'm gonna grant this in.
Okay, good to know.
All right, in that case,
I'm going to give an equal amount of time to the appellant
and I would ask the appellants to come forward
if they're here or on Zoom
or even if they're participating here.
All right, we have the applicant.
The applicant goes first because we're on de novo.
Oh, excuse me, that's absolutely right.
So we'll go ahead with your 10 to 12 minutes.
Right, so the situation, I can clarify.
Thank you very much, council.
The situation here is that we've already
found substantial issue.
So we're now holding a de novo hearing.
So this is kind of like a coastal development permit hearing.
So we'll start with you.
You can do whatever you'd like.
I'll give you the 10 to 12 minutes you've asked.
And if you'd like time for rebuttal, we'll reserve that.
All right, so let's put 12 minutes on the clock
and see how it goes.
And if you could state your name, please, sir,
that'll be great.
And thank you so much, Ms. Warren.
Sorry about that.
The microphone button, please, sir.
The PowerPoint for figuring it out, okay.
Do I have a click, or do I say change?
Just say next slide.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, honorable commissioners.
My name is Fred Gaines with the Law Offices
of Rand, Pastor, and Nelson.
Here today representing the applicant, Tony Reyna,
who is here also with us today
as the project architect, Horst Knopgenberger.
We urge you to adopt the staff recommendation
and approve the project with conditions.
The applicant accepts all 15 of the conditions
without reservation.
This includes lowering the structure four feet,
relocating all of the development landward
of the building string line and recording a deed restriction
for a 16-foot public view corridor.
These reflect genuine mitigation
for protecting coastal resources.
The takings issue here comes to be because
of three different independent constraints applied together,
eliminate any viable residential use on the property.
When you take the staff's Bluff Edge determination,
plus the LCP Bluff Edge setback,
You take the shell midden,
staying away from the shell midden deposit
on the north side,
and then the visual resource cap that we've agreed to,
to get the project down to only being two feet 11
above the curb so that people walking by, driving by
have a beautiful blue water view.
That limits us to that trapezoid you saw
of 1168 square feet.
And if you continue to have the height cap
That's going to be underground, or mostly underground, and allows about 700 square feet
of habitable space.
This situation satisfies the takings criteria of denial of all economic use, severe economic
impact, frustrated investment-backed expectations, and disproportionate burden of these regulations
on this particular client.
So what does the staff do in this situation?
they turn to Coastal Act Section 30010,
which does not require a final taking adjudication,
only a record-based finding,
that strict enforcement would affect a taking,
and that threshold is clearly met here.
The building string line
is an existing certified LCP mechanism.
So you can't use the bluff setback because it causes this,
but you go to the next mechanism, which is the string line.
It's not a new ad hoc standard,
you're not making anything up, this is in the LCP,
And it's the minimum departure from the one standard
to the other.
Staff's own ecologist confirmed there's
no ash on the property.
Staff correctly found that further reducing the home size
would yield no meaningful additional coastal resource
benefit.
If you could go to slide number two.
All of this needs to be looked at in context of what I want
to show you the development in the area.
And it's hard to read here, but we've
gone through the FARs of the most recent projects.
This one would be 29%.
The others that are listed on the left side of the slide
there, 27%, 31%, 31%, 26%, 27%.
Looking north from the property, there's
a substantial condominium project,
which occupies all of the area from coast highway
to the beach.
Looking south from the property, the house under construction
next door at 31461 with a lawful CDP approved by the city
and not appealed to Coastal Commission.
On that property, they used the 57-foot bluff.
We're now applying the 115-foot bluff
on the exact same bluff.
And that construction extends over the entire slope
of what under this case would not be allowed
to have any construction.
Further south is Bluff Drive, which
has two rows of houses between South Coast Highway and the beach, houses on the ocean
side of Bluff Drive, all extend down the face of the bluff as the commission interprets
it, Bluff Drive occupying all of the land at the end, it terminates in Table Rock Point
where another large multi-story condominium project.
A reasonable person would expect that the applicant would be able to build a significant
like residents, like those that surround the subject property.
The effect of strict enforcement in this case would frustrate that core residential expectation
associated with ownership of the property, supporting the taking determination, as described
by staff.
If you could quickly go to slide three, again showing the project under construction currently
immediately next to us on the right, a rendering of the project here, which would then be,
It shows the string line of which everything to the left of string line would be removed
and shows the large condominium on one side that multiple homes on the other.
The next slide, please.
Again an aerial view of the string line going across from the existing construction immediately
next to us to the home on the other side.
Excuse me, sir.
I have a couple of commissioners asking for you to just pause a minute if we could go
back one slide.
Could you pause the time, please?
Is that the slide you'd like to take a look at?
Yes, please.
And do you want to just look at it longer?
Yeah, I just want to look at it, and I want them to explain which is which.
Oh.
Okay.
The one that's sort of mocked up, it's not an actual structure, it's a mock up or a drawing.
It's a mock up.
I got it.
Okay.
All right.
Adjacent is under construction. Oh, I'm sorry. I was trying to go fast, but yeah, that's okay. I does everyone
All right in that case. Can we move to the next slide?
The pretty color one is ours and the gray one under construction is
Now is the construction going on as we speak. All right, so let's continue and yes
You can go to them if you go to the next slide
I do want to show the Commission what we what we did and what we worked on with staff here
on opening up the blue water view.
This is the stretch of coast highway to the north of us,
showing the houses.
The houses on the far right were both the coast CDP approved,
the very large condo project, and then two houses next to us.
And then we're at the end.
And you could see with lowering it down so it's only 2 feet
11 above the curb, starts to open up the ocean water view.
Next slide.
This next slide shows the last two CDPs issued in the area.
Next slide, please.
That are on the north side.
They had 10-foot, 12-foot view corridors,
but the house is right up without blocking the ocean
view from the highway.
The next slide, of course, the large condominium complex.
And the next slide, you can see what we've done here
is not only lowered the project so that you have blue water
view here, but we have a 20-foot with our 16 feet and the 4 feet next to us, which is
the largest view corridor along this entire stretch. Next slide, please. This is a rendering
of what it will look like from across the street, across PCH. Next slide. And here's
the actual one before that. You can see the flag. So this is standing at the curb. You
can see where the flag would be, which would be the building,
and the blue water view that would exist beyond that.
So we've worked to try to go after the largest public view
benefit that we could provide.
Let me, if I can, give a response
to some of the appellant's arguments.
I didn't hear them today yet, but they
were included in their correspondence.
The appellant believes that limiting the development
to 700 feet in a subterranean structure
is reasonable and legal.
And the appellant now even once is
asking for the neighbor's construction
to be stopped in that permit to root vote.
These extreme outcomes are not supported
by law or the Coastal Act.
First, appellant's no-taking argument misstates the inquiry.
The relevant inquiry is whether the application
of the regulation presents facts which
support a reasonable conclusion that a taking
under established constitutional standards would arise.
Staff appropriately applies the correct standard.
staff identifies substantial evidence in the record
demonstrating that strict application
of the bluff edge setback,
particularly when combined with other development restrictions
would leave the property
with a severely constrained development envelope,
limiting the buildable area to 4.7% of the entire lot
and the size, configuration, and habitable area
of any structure inside of that buildable area
to being less than 700 square feet.
That factual showing is sufficient
to justify evaluation of the project
under Coastal Act 30010.
The appellant next contends that any alleged hardship
is self-created because the applicant previously pursued
a lot line adjustment.
This argument is completely unsupported by the law.
The lot line adjustment at issue was lawfully approved
by the city over a decade ago, resulting
in two legal residential parcels.
There is no authority holding that a property owner forfeits
constitutional protections by engaging in lawful agency
approved land use actions, particularly where
the regulatory constrained issue, in this case,
the bluff edge setback applies independently
of the parcel configuration.
The appellant contends that the takings analysis
is flawed because it miscalculates buildable area.
But as discussed in the staff report
and as shown on our PowerPoint, the apples to apples comparison
proves that the project is recommended for approval
as consistent in floor area ratio to the surrounding
properties.
In any event, takings law does not turn on zoning definitions
or numerical percentages.
The inquiry focuses on economic impact
and functional feasibility, evaluating
in light of the property's fiscal characteristics
and regulatory context.
The opponent argues that staff improperly relied
on the residents next door, the one under construction,
in evaluating reasonable investment back expectations.
This argument, again, mischaracterizes the staff's
position.
Staff does not treat surrounding development
as a vested entitlement or baseline right.
Rather, otherwise, we'd be out to the same bluff edge
that they're out to.
Rather, surrounding development patterns
are considered contextually consistent with takings law
to assess whether the expectation of constructing
a viable single family residence on a legally created
residential parcel was reasonable.
And finally, here, the string line
is an existing certified siting mechanism.
As conditioned, all principal and accessory structures
will be located landward of the string line,
thereby reducing bluff face impacts
and limiting future encroachment.
Staff recommended approval of the revised project
will avoid constitutional infirmity
while minimizing inconsistency with the certified LCP
and continuing to protect coastal resources
to the maximum extent feasible,
exactly what Coastal Act Section 30010 calls for.
In closing, the record is clear.
The staff analysis is well-founded
And the proposed conditions are appropriately tailored.
We respectfully urge the commission
to adopt staff's findings and approve
the project as conditioned.
It's been seven years through the process, over two years,
with this appeal pending.
Mr. Raina and his project architect are here
and are available for any questions that you may have.
I want to thank the commission for their time.
And if you would allow me a couple of minutes of rebuttal,
if necessary, after the other comments.
I appreciate it very much.
Thank you so much.
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Gaines.
All right, now I'll ask how many folks
are here as opponents, I guess.
At this time, I'm assuming the former appellants
of council have just now become public commenters.
They're just members of the public, correct.
All right, so how many people are speaking about this?
So we have two, one in Zoom, one in person.
Okay, my sense is to give them four minutes each,
and that's how we're gonna proceed.
So let's start with the first person.
Understood.
First up, we have Scott Sebastian, the Appellant.
We're having a little bit of trouble
finding them on the webinar.
So Mr. Sebastian, if you're there,
please go ahead and raise your hand
if you're on the phone by hitting star nine.
Did you say there's someone in the room?
Yes, we've got-
Why don't we begin with that?
Absolutely.
Mitch Silverstein, have you available?
No, pardon me, not as a representative.
No, this is a de novo.
It's a de novo hearing at this time.
It's good to know that I'm not the only confused person.
Yeah.
Makes me feel a bit better.
I'm not trying to cut this off.
Okay, Mitch, I'm gonna give you four minutes.
Four minutes?
I know, it's hard to believe.
Oh my gosh.
I know you won't take it, though.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein with Surffighter Foundation.
We appreciate staff's extensive work on this difficult case.
And we don't dispute that some development
needs to be allowed here.
Our concern is with how much.
Section 30010 instructs the commission
to approve enough development to avoid
a constitutional taking.
Not as much development as the applicant desires.
Staff's own addendum acknowledges that only a court
can ultimately determine whether a taking has occurred.
Given that uncertainty and at least kind of our read
of the Supreme Court cases around takings is we believe the Commission has more discretion
to pull this development further from the bluff face.
The Coastal Act and the Laguna Beach LCP were firmly in place when this property was purchased.
Any investor in a coastal bluff top lot at that time took on the responsibility of understanding
the development restrictions already in place.
At least that's what we think a reasonable person would expect.
And the size of the neighboring properties relative to this one are I guess immaterial
in our opinion because some are pre-coastal act and then the neighboring one which is
further landward than this one, that was never properly reviewed.
It wasn't appealed so it wasn't reviewed by the commission.
So that's not the same as being consistent with the LCP.
We also note that the self-created hardship argument raised by other commenters and the
appellants does deserve additional attention.
The applicant voluntarily reconfigured lot lines and sold the neighboring property.
Those are decisions that directly shape the constrained conditions now being used to justify
approving a 7,200-square-foot home on a bluff face that the LCP clearly protects.
We do want to acknowledge that the no future armoring requirement, the view corridor deed
restriction and the lowered structure elevation are meaningful protections that we support.
But we urge the commission to explore whether a meaningfully smaller project can provide
reasonable economic use while doing less harm to the coastal bluff and ultimately the beach
below.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next speaker.
We're still not able to find Scott Sebastian on Zoom.
There are no more speakers.
Okay.
So the former appellant is not available to speak.
Not on Zoom.
Correct.
Okay.
All right.
In that case, I'll bring it back to staff.
Or actually, do you have any rebuttal?
Because they're...
I'll give you a minute, given.
Fred Gaines on behalf of the appellant.
Mr. Gaines, if I could interrupt you, I think it might be worthwhile addressing the
issue about the sale of the other property and I mean to me if you
wouldn't mind addressing the sale of the adjacent property that Mr. Silverstein
referred to that created the hardship and resulted in the takings well that
did not create the hardship the there were there were two lots to begin with
there was a lot line adjustment done to make the lots more even one was smaller
and one was this one was actually smaller was made a little larger and
And then that was done over 10 years ago, and then one of the lots was sold, and the one that was sold went on to be developed, as you saw the construction that's going forward.
You've been told that it was reasonable at the time to think that you couldn't have this kind of a house, or you couldn't have this kind of a bluff determination.
But that's exactly what the neighbor got. He got that bluff determination, because that is the city's bluff determination, done by an independent review.
The city went through determined that 57 feet was the bluff and he got approved
Same thing the city did with us they treated us the same but when it got to Commission Chris said no
We think the buff is up here
And that's why we've been working with them to to deal with the impacts and how we deal with this in this particular case
so
Would it be reasonable for this owner to believe they're gonna be treated exactly like the one next door
I think a lot of people would think yes, that's reasonable. This is not ten years ago 20 years ago
They're construction house right now, but we're not fighting that at this point.
We're agreeing with staff that here's the situation and here's the mitigations that
go to the actual resource impacts here.
It's nowhere.
If I can have 30 more seconds.
Go ahead.
You can have one more minute to...
Yeah.
No, nowhere in this analysis does it talk about how big the house is.
It talks about what regulation do you apply and whether you, and in this case, we can't
apply the bluff setback regulation because that results in the taking. So we take the
next mid-regulation, which is the string line, which is a very common regulation included
in the LCP, and we apply that. And then we look to see, does that mitigate the impacts?
And what we've done here in lowering the building, in giving the view corridor, has mitigated
the impacts that have been identified. And in fact, the staff report talks about there's
There's no ESHA on the site, so having it be smaller doesn't affect the ESHA determination,
and making the building smaller doesn't go to mitigating any of the specific impacts
that are directed here.
That's the analysis that was done, I think, correctly by the staff, and that's why we
ask that you support the staff recommendation.
Thank you very much.
Thanks so much, Mr. Gaines.
Appreciate it.
All right.
I'll bring it back to staff.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart.
We've just received indication that Scott Sebastian is available, that he would be calling
in for this item.
So I think we could check and see if that's occurred yet.
We're looking out for him, no sign of him yet in the Zoom webinar.
Who are you hearing that he's available from?
We understand they called our district office and said that they were having trouble getting
through.
I'm just a little concerned because of the prior hearing.
I wonder if it's worth taking a break and we can try to contact them.
Why don't we take a five-minute break and see if we can contact the appellant that's
having problems.
And if we can't, then we'll continue the hearing.
If that's acceptable to everyone?
Yeah.
Okay.
Let's do that, then.
We'll take five minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Good news.
is has been able to connect and I'm going to give him four minutes once we
get him on the zoom all right mr. Sebastian you've been promoted to a
panelist you should be able to go ahead and unmute yourself and go ahead and
speak okay yes we can hear you please go ahead and mute the speaker that you have
in the background there?
That was actually me.
I'm not sure why it's replaying what I just said.
Oh, he's delayed the streaming.
I got it.
Okay.
Okay.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you.
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay.
Okay.
Well, I want to thank your staff for being helpful.
They called me.
And please go ahead and unmute the speaker that you have in the background there.
Sir, if you have the mating running in the background, could you please mute it or turn
that off and just speak to us through the Zoom.
Is that better?
Yes, thank you.
That was my fault again.
Technical difficulties.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Steve, for getting me on.
And I represent the South Movement Civic Association.
We have a letter in the file.
We had basically two objections to the project and we wanted for two of the items on the
appeal.
First, we do believe that the applicant has a vested interest in having an appropriately
developable project site.
We don't think that the project he has submitted is in scale with the appropriate development
that we see as correct here.
And we have laid out all of our arguments that back up to appeal and we also cite that
find that the site does have a buildable area and that the standard that has been applied
here with maybe being unconstitutional thinking is not the only standard that could be applied.
Our second objection is that we found that the staking of the property does not stake
the actual line where the view would be cut off from the street but actually stakes the
line of the roof at the street.
So in fact what you saw in the photographs earlier is more ocean dew than you get which
We calculate that would be about one and a half degrees
of ocean dew, just a very tiny sliver of what's there now.
The city's land use element and the city's coastal,
civic coast highway conservation element,
open space conservation element, talk very much
about how we want to preserve existing dew.
There's an existing dew out over the blocks
that has been there forever.
Many of the things that were shown in the residence,
like the adjacent buildings, were there
not only before the city's current general plan and LCP,
but also before the Coastal Commission
called into existence.
For those, in our opinion, are not appropriate presidents.
This was an existing view that we believe should be heard.
And if you do not agree with us about the issue of the square
footage of the project and the reported taking, we would like you at least to
consider further lowering the house to the level of the very large house that's
on the adjacent block so that we do preserve a significant amount of the
ocean view that the bullets had. That would require approximately five and a half to six feet of
lowering in addition to the four feet that the staff have already recommended.
Thank you for your attention.
Thanks Mr. Sebastian appreciate it.
All right.
Are you feeling that you need another minute?
I know it's been an awkward situation.
All right go ahead please because I wanted to give you time to Mr. Sebastian's completed
his comments.
I'm going to give the applicant one more minute given the again Fred Gaines on behalf of the
The only point I wanted to make was how did we come up with 2 feet 11 to as the lowering that was
to get a driveway in it was the
Maximum slope driveway to get into the site
That that is how much we lowered it so that it was it was a reverse engineering
Staff asks how much can you lower it and we went and did the driveway at the maximum allowed?
Slope and to get the get it into the garage
This is how much we could lower it and and that's how we came up with this and then we've shown you the renderings
But I just want you to know that that there was a reason to the number and that was the reason
Thank you very much. Thanks. Mr. Gaines. All right at this time. I'm gonna close the public hearing and return to staff
Thank you vice-chair hard, I just wanted to
Speak to the size of the structure. I mean staff certainly struggled with that very thing
you know in our analysis of this project and
what we
Focused on are the coastal resource impacts that are associated with it and and you heard that in our initial presentation and we did
outline that in our staff report addendum, but
With the conditions that we're imposing it complies with the string line
You get the maximum view over the site
and you also have the the view corridor, so
All of those things together
And also just considering
The cultural resources that we needed to be mindful of
We felt that this design met all those requirements
Thanks anything else from staff? I'll turn to the Commission in one second
And it looks like if you've completed your staff response commissioner press the auto do you have questions or comments?
I appreciate the process that was used to take another look at this project and I appreciate
the applicant's willingness to participate in this new approach to developing your own
property.
One of the things I'm trying to understand is I realize that there are view corridors
associated with the blue ocean.
What I'm trying to determine is whose view corridor are we advocating for?
Is it the member of the public standing on the street that can see?
or is it the person across in another property
that has a view corridor now
and maybe they didn't anticipate
somebody would build in front of them.
So I'm just trying to make sense of this
because ultimately while we must follow
what the code allows us to do without doing,
and my friend about a year ago,
you talk to me about using the word taking.
It's been about a year.
It's my anniversary to Mr. Jackson.
I used the word taking and I was advised.
That's not a taking.
But it's very similar because it goes back
to this height associated with view corridor for whom.
And so if you could speak to that,
it'd be interesting to see, have the public here,
we how we determine whose public interest is it for that view corridor
because if it's not for members of the public or on the street or a car
driving by I think it's very challenging to be thinking about a view corridor for
the property owner across the street so I'm just trying to make sense of that
without going out out of bounds sure if I may through the chair so what we're
essentially talking about here are the difference between public views, views
from public vantage points versus views from private property, and our focus here
is on views from public vantage points, the road, the sidewalk, etc., etc.
This particular LCP does have some interesting language in it about private
views. That's not something we have generally enforced. That is something that the local
government tackles in terms of private views.
The second question that is counterintuitive is that since one property or this property
was reviewed, but the property adjacent was not reviewed, there's this completely different
How we say outcome of maybe how it's situated on the lot and et cetera, is ultimately our
interest is to protect the natural resource, right, that includes the block or is the block.
So, given the changes that were made in consultation with staff and the accommodations to meet
To create a better project, I'm very supportive, I don't know where my colleagues are going
to be, but I'm going to be supportive of supporting that this project move forward in its current
scale if it continues to meet what you have outlined as the new requirements for this
development, which is to allow that view corridor to have the set-back, and it's really interesting
to follow how you were able to use the driveway
and reverse engineer where it was going to be,
given that the setback wasn't possible.
Anyways, I just wanted to remark on that.
What an interesting world we live in.
Thank you, Commissioner.
All right, Commissioner Wilson.
I just have a couple of questions.
First of all, the discussion that we had
seemed to still pin on the appeal, at least
But we blew past that right at the beginning, as far as I can tell.
So I want to also not talk about the appeal, and that's just a couple questions of staff.
And that is just really directly, do you feel like that the design as it is, I mean, if
you didn't have any understanding of what the expectation of development might be, did
Did it cross any lines?
Are there going to be any impacts that we are compromising on, coastal impacts that
we're going to be compromising on based on our analysis of what the expectation of development
is?
And I just want to start with that.
I just want to answer that real specific.
And again, I know the appellant had feelings about that.
They had lines and thresholds, but what were our lines and thresholds for or staff's lines and thresholds on that?
So here that the main compromise has to do with the bluff edge setback requirement. That was that is in the LCP
that's something that
could not be met in this circumstance as far as
The coastal view impacts
We think that's fully addressed through this project both
from
You know the public vantage points along the road and sidewalk and with regard to
The you know any views that might be available from the beach itself, which I think are pretty limited
You know the other issue that we would look at is our coastal hazards and
Here we have a
fairly stable bluff. We don't have the same kinds of bluff stability and erosion concerns
that we often do with development located on bluff top lots. So we felt that was fully
addressed with the location that's being proposed and conditioned.
Just hold on. So what you're saying is that you believe that the setback issue is mitigated
by the stability of the slope?
Correct.
Proceed. Thank you. I just want to clarify
And then we've mentioned that there's a cultural resources issue and I don't want to get too specific about that
But we believe that is also fully addressed with this proposal
So those are those are the main coastal resource issues that we were looking at again
We did look at the habitat issue early on
Concluded there wasn't a habitat issue to address
Had there been one that would have been another very significant constraint on this site
But we determined that wasn't that issue so then why were we then even discussing the potential for takings
If we are if these are all fully mitigated impacts
Because the home is still being built on the bluff face
Which is inconsistent with the LCP so it all has to do with where the edge of the bluff is and that a
significant proportion of the development is actually on the face of the bluff, which
is not allowed under the LCP.
And the expectation is that, or what we're saying is there is an expectation of a certain
square foot size of structure based on just kind of its proximity to other structures
that are similarly sized?
In this instance, I wouldn't sometimes, if you look at square footage in this instance,
I don't think that was because this is significantly larger
than the surrounding development.
It was more what Mr. Schwing was just going through,
that once you recognize you need to approve something
to avoid a take, we looked at the other coastal resources
potentially impacted by this development
and believed that with the exception of the building
on the bluff face, we were able to address those other coastal
resource impacts.
so there was no compromise between what the LCP says
and what was being proposed other than we think it's okay
because the slope is stable.
So I think there were, so if,
and please correct me if I get this wrong,
the LCP does include a policy that requires development
to be below the curb line,
but we looked at the impacts associated with that
and agreed with a compromise that was slightly above,
but it still maintains the view, the view corridor.
So we felt that that was appropriate.
And so there were, you know, I think that's an example
of where there was a compromise here
with the applicant that addressed the resource concerns,
the view concerns, but isn't, you know,
is a little bit different than what the LCP would require.
The only thing I would add to that
is that the policy does allow for feasibility determination
in terms of your ability to cite the home
Below curb height essentially and that's where the driveway
Aspect came into our analysis. Okay. There's one last clarification. So if there were no other
Residences within half a mile that were greater than 2,500 square feet
Just none that says this would just this would be an anomaly
Would that?
Bluff face determination be different
The location of the bluff edge would not be different. That's based on the geology of the area
full stop right, but our
Accommodation to the fact that it doesn't necessarily meet the LCP like would we be in if would we be enforcing the LCP?
Criteria more or more stringent stringently if if the other houses are
around there were smaller?
I don't believe so.
I mean, we did look at the string line.
That was one of the main focuses.
And that does depend on where the development
on the surrounding properties exists.
But I don't think that we were not focused on square footage,
as Ms. Warren said earlier.
And so I think given this, if we would look at the string line
and look at some of the same things,
but if the houses on either side were much smaller,
I don't think that would have affected what we approved here.
We were looking focused on the resource.
I appreciate that.
I'm just basing that on previous decisions we've made and discussions we've had around
these issues.
So thank you for that clarification.
Can I add one thing, just as there are cases when we have done takings where we do look
at the size of the structure, and that often is when we are looking at impacts to particular
resources.
for example, has been an issue in other cases.
And so we are trying to minimize the impact to that resource.
And so we would base our recommendation on the size of other structures.
We didn't have that issue here because we felt we dealt with the resource issues in
the structure that was that we had worked on with the applicant.
Does that make sense?
It's sort of a different.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Because I was reading through this report and I was like, it was just wasn't totally
It seems opaque to me a little bit but only because I was looking for something that maybe wasn't there
So I appreciate this discussion. Thank you
mr. Lee I
just wanted to commend staff and the landowner on working through this process in such a
comprehensive common-sense and good faith approach to reaching a place where
This home can be built where the Commission is satisfied
It is not often that a takings conclusion is found and to have an elegant solution like moving to the string line as opposed to
Strictly enforcing the LCP
was fascinating to me to read in the report, but also I
Don't know it was heartening in a way as well particularly off also obviously because all the resource issues
Were covered in taking care of which allowed it to proceed in a way that just said how do we get to yes?
And how do we move forward altogether, and how do we do this in a non non contentious way?
And so I'm fully supportive of staff's recommendation as
Condition and just wanted to commend both sides for getting to a place of yes on both sides
Thank You Commissioner any other commissioners mm-hmm Mr. Lopez
So just a question. I I typically don't look at
projects through a size
There's more of a lot coverage question.
So as we look at this when I think about impact to resource, I think about runoff off of hardscape,
whether it's a roof, a driveway.
So in that, was that analyzed in terms of impact of resource potentially from that water
moving towards the water flow and what is the impact to everything around it?
In terms of water quality effects, is that what you're concerned with?
Yes.
In terms of surface coverage, right, so you're not going to have as much water actually percolating
or staying on site with this new impervious surface,
whether it's the rooftop or the concrete,
on the property, on the swimming pavers and deck.
Yeah, that is all fully addressed
in the conditions of approval.
I would just point out, in this circumstance,
we have to be careful about how much infiltration we
allow in a blufftop situation, because that can contribute
to geologic problems.
So all of that is addressed in the plan.
Thank you.
I just want to make sure that was on the record.
And I associate myself with comments of Commissioner Lee
in appreciating the approach in finding a pragmatic way forward
in a very tough situation.
Thank you.
Any other commissioner comments?
All right.
In that case, there is a motion, and it's on page 16
at the top of page 16.
Would anyone like to move forward with the motion?
Give a minute to find it.
All right.
Commissioner Lopez.
I'll do that so we're looking at it.
It's at the top of page.
I move that the commission approve coastal development
permit number A5LGB24-0018 pursuant to the staff
recommendation.
Second.
All right, with a motion by Commissioner Lopez,
second by Commissioner Lee.
All right, do I need to take a roll call vote on this?
Commissioner Wilson?
No?
All right, so is there any objection unanimous approval?
All right, in that case, the motion
is approved, the project is approved.
And thank you very much.
That concludes the hearing on this item.
So that brings us now to 18, no, that 18A went on to consent.
So we're at 19ADR.
You need time to shift around a little.
Did I miss something?
Getting settled in here.
Yeah, we're on 19, I believe.
Item 19, the deputy director's report for the San Diego Coast
District, we're reporting three waivers for projects in Solana
Beach, in San Diego, and one permit amendment in San Diego
and a permit extension in Encinitas known on opposition.
We're also reporting on an emergency action
by State Parks and the Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation
for the removal of sand obstructing the lagoon outlet,
which needed to be opened to avoid biological resource
impacts in the lagoon.
The work proposed was consistent with prior commission actions and will be covered by
the extension of the companion CDP amendment that is included in the deputy director's
report.
And with that, we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to the waivers
of the amendment or the extension.
Thank you.
Any ex partes?
Do three or more commissioners object to the adoption of the San Diego DDR?
DDR excuse me all right seeing none the deputy director's report is adopted and
we'll move on to item 20 a the appeal on quail meadows thank you and there is a
staff PowerPoint on this and Stephanie leech with our San Diego Coast District
office is doing our presentation today go ahead and stuff thank you Carl good
afternoon commissioners item 20 a is an appeal by two appellants of a city events
needest permit for construction of a new multi-family residential development
upon review of the appellant's allegations and the city's action under
the requirements of the certified LCP staff is recommending that the
Commission find that the appeal rates is no substantial issue next slide please
the city's authorization is for construction of a new 448 unit
multifamily residential development comprised of two four-story residential
buildings, repairs to an existing storm drain, and construction of a new roundabout.
The project includes 90 affordable units restricted to the low income level.
Next slide, please.
The project also includes preservation and restoration of native habitat in the northern
portion of the site.
As can be seen on this slide, the development is concentrated on the southern side of the
site, while the northern portion will be restored to coastal sage scrub and existing sensitive
vegetation will be preserved in place.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows the northern portion of the site, including the restoration of Coastal
Stage Scrub, which will occur in order to mitigate for impacts to sensitive vegetation
associated with the apartment construction to the south.
Next slide, please.
The original design of the project is shown on the left side of the slide and included
buildings across the entire site.
Commission staff worked with the applicant to identify on-site resources and in response
the applicant redesigned the project to concentrate development on the southern half of the site
to protect and enhance the stream and riparian vegetation located on the northern portion.
Next slide please.
While the entire project is located in the coastal zone, the portion of the project within
100 feet of portions of an on-site stream is within the Commission's appeals jurisdiction
and subject to review on substantial issue under Section 13577 of the California Code
of Regulations.
As shown on this slide, the portion of the exhibit depicted in yellow is within the Commission's
appeals area and subject to the Commission's review on substantial issue.
The development taking place within the Commission's appeals jurisdiction is repair of an existing
drainage pipe and habitat restoration.
The roads, streets, buildings, and other development associated with the residential development
not before the Commission on substantial issue. Next slide please. Slip lining the
drainage pipe consists of inserting a new pipe into the existing damaged one
via a horizontal approach from outside the 100 foot buffer. There will be no
digging or ground disturbance within the stream or its buffers. Because there
will not be any adverse impact to the resources, slip lining of the pipe does
not present a substantial issue with regards to consistency with the LCP. Next
Next slide, please.
As noted, restoration activities will also be taking place on the northern side of the
site to mitigate for impacts to sensitive vegetation associated with apartment construction.
Within the appealable area, existing sensitive vegetation and riparian vegetation will be
preserved, while the areas within the 100-foot buffer will be restored to coastal sage scrub.
Next slide, please.
The Appellants make a number of claims regarding the City's approval.
The most significant relate to the scope of the Commission's appeals jurisdiction.
Specifically, that the city failed to identify the presence of additional resources on the
site and that therefore the Commission's appeals jurisdiction actually extends further
south on the site.
They also assert that sensitive species will be harmed by the development across the site.
Next slide please.
This slide again shows the area which has been identified as within the Commission's
appeals jurisdiction.
Depicted here is the onsite stream, which includes a section of stream in solid blue
that is daylit, as well as a section of stream in the dash dark green that is in a pipe.
The appealable area is depicted in yellow, while the riparian vegetation, which constitutes
significant habitat, is circled in red.
The appellants claim that there are also wetlands on the site, as well as the stream.
Next slide, please.
Section 13577 of the Commissioned Regulations defines the Commission's appeals jurisdiction
which includes the area 100 feet landward from the bank of a stream.
In reviewing the appellant's claims, the Commission's ecology and mapping teams carefully and extensively
evaluated the biological resources and the drainage channel that crosses the site.
Staff agrees that a natural stream does run through the site.
However, for purposes of determining appeals jurisdiction, section 13577 specifically excludes
channelized streams not having significant habitat value.
Next slide, please.
Going back to this exhibit again, the red outlined areas at the northern portion of
the site include two large willows near the center of the site and southern willow scrub
in the northeast portion of the site.
This vegetation provides significant habitat value by supporting riparian associated birds,
trapping sediment, and dissipating flows.
Thus this portion of the stream has significant habitat value.
In contrast, as the water course flows south, the area becomes highly disturbed and does
not contain significant habitat value.
The appellants also contend there are two additional areas that should be considered
wetlands based on the vegetation observed.
However, the Commission's ecology staff has reviewed the claims and determined the areas
do not meet the criteria for wetlands.
Thus, the appeals area is limited to the yellow area shown here, and the development occurring
in this area is the slip lining repair of the pipe and habitat restoration.
Next slide, please.
The appellants further allege that several sensitive species have been detected in or
adjacent to the project site, and that the applicant has not completed the necessary
focused surveys to document the presence of all of them.
Based on the surveys that have been completed by the applicant, some sensitive species have
been identified on the site, including the federally listed coastal California gnatcatcher.
However, there will be no impacts to sensitive species resulting from the work in the appeals
area.
The approved development in this area adds to and enhances the habitat that special status
species rely on for foraging and breeding opportunities.
have been included in the city's approval to ensure sensitive bird species will be protected
during construction both during and after the nesting season.
Thus, the appeal contentions do not raise a substantial issue.
Next slide, please.
Shown here is one of the willows growing on the northern portion of the site in which
the commission's ecologist has determined to be significant habitat.
Another contention from the appellant raises the concern that in slip lining the existing
pipe, the hydrology source for two wetlands would be eliminated.
In reviewing this claim, the Commission's ecologist has determined that these alleged
wetland areas are actually riparian vegetation, and the willows associated with these riparian
areas have large tap roots that will access groundwater throughout the year rather than
rely solely on surface flows of the non-perennial stream.
No impacts are anticipated to occur to this vegetation.
Therefore the appellant's contention does not present a substantial issue.
Next slide please.
The appellants further allege that the existing pipe and its head wall are unpermitted illegal
structures that impede the natural flow of the onsite stream.
These allegations are addressed in detail in the addendum to the staff report, but in
brief an allegation of unpermitted development does not form valid grounds for an appeal
under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act.
Regardless, staff investigated this question.
Historic aerial photos and the physical condition
of the structures indicate that they have been in place
for many decades.
Available evidence also shows that the site
historically supported agricultural operations prior to,
and during, the period in which these structures appeared
to have been constructed and utilized.
Although commission and city staff were unable to locate
any coastal development permit
or other commission authorization
for the installation of the structures,
Certain drainage improvements associated
with ongoing agricultural uses may have been determined
to be exempt from coastal development permit requirements
at that time.
Given the age of the structures,
the historic agricultural use of the site,
and based on the information available to it,
commissioned staff did not review the storm drain
and head wall as coastal act violations.
As noted above, even if staff had been able
to conclude unpermitted development took place,
the assertion does not form valid legal grounds
for an appeal.
Next slide please.
Similarly, many of the public comments submitted on this appeal point to issues associated
with the residential development, including drainage issues, traffic, and community character.
These assertions pertain to components of the project located outside the appeals jurisdiction
and are not within the scope of the Commission's appellate review on substantial issue.
Therefore, they do not raise a substantial issue.
Next slide please.
In conclusion, after review of the appeals, commission staff recommends that the commission
determine that the project raises no substantial issue regarding conformance with the certified
LCP and the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
The motion can be found on page 8 of the staff report.
There is an addendum to the staff report.
Only the applicant, persons who oppose the application before the local government or
their representatives and the local government are qualified to testify.
Commission staff is available for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. All right
Are there ex partes?
Commissioner press yero
They're noted in the record, but I'd like to comment on both of them. I had an ex parte in January along with
Councilwoman
Vivian Moreno, I'm I'm mad at her but that's another topic. Um
the
The nature of our engagement in both instances, or at least in the January meeting was associated
with the value of this project from a housing point of view.
And so I understood the project to be over 400 units and of those 90 units to be affordable.
I had another ex parte last week that is also recorded in the record that was associated
with whether or not the 90 units remained in the project
as a result of any examination or any review.
That was the extent of my review and my interest
in the specific project.
I, of course, recorded it and made
both available to the record.
Thank you, Commissioner.
All right, seeing no other ex partes,
I will open the public hearing and it looks like we have some folks in the room.
And who have we got in terms of the appellant and are they online or here?
There appear to be in the room.
We've got Doug Carstens available on Zoom.
Yep.
Okay.
Are you one of the appellants?
Representing the.
Yes, I'm one of the appellants, but all of our time is being given to the other appellants
attorney.
Okay, that's fine.
case is he prepared to move forward on zoom he is yes all right great miracle
of miracles how much time does he need give him three minutes mr. Carson's
yeah you've been given three minutes please go ahead thank you good
afternoon honorable chair and commissioners on behalf of a manolo
Turner we asked that you grant both appeals find substantial issue and
proceed to de novo hearing.
The Coastal Act states that this commission shall hear
the appeal unless the appeal presents no substantial issue.
So there is a presumption of hearing and appeal,
and the applicant bears the burden of proving otherwise,
which the applicant has failed to do.
The appeals are supported by extensive factual evidence,
especially the letters of Hamilton, Biological Inc.
And these letters include detailed factual analysis
and pictures demonstrating the basis for the appeals.
The factors supporting substantial issue finding
are well supported.
The first factor, the degree of factual support
for city conclusions support substantial issue
because factual support for the conclusions
of little or no impacts to coastal resources
is low and speculative.
The existence of unpermitted development
in the form of storm drain and its head wall is undisputed.
The blue line streambed was buried
by this unpermitted development,
thus violating the Coastal Act
and the California Fish and Game Code section 1602,
that violation would now be locked into place by the CDP.
The staff addendum released on Tuesday
asserts that there is no way to tell
exactly when the unpermitted development occurred.
However, the specific statement of Mr. Jose Calderon
narrows it down to 1982 to 1986.
There's a lot of speculation in the addendum
that the improvements may have been determined to be exempt,
but if these structures were permitted or exempted,
there would be evidence of that.
And it is the applicant's burden to produce that,
but their failure to produce it
means such evidence does not exist.
The unpermitted development
creates a well-documented substantial issue.
These are violations of public resources
code 30251 and 30240.
The conclusion that the Blue Line Stream
was clearly documented on site as low habitat value
except in limited spots is not factually supported.
Pictures in the report, the Hamilton report,
show its value as a stream at all parts of the site.
The conclusion that the wetlands do not occur
except in connection with the stream areas
and their 100 foot buffer is not factually supported.
The conclusion that the sensitive species
which have been documented on site
are all migratory or unusual
is similarly not factually supported.
More detailed focus surveys are needed
to establish actual factual evidence.
In conclusion, refusing to find a substantial issue
in the face of the overwhelming evidence
which has been presented to the commission
would place the commission in a legally untenable position.
We ask that you grant the appeal
and proceed to a de novo hearing.
I thank you for your attention
and I would be available for questions.
Thank you, Mr. Carstens.
All right, I'll turn now to the applicant.
Come forward and you'll have three minutes.
Honorable chair and commissioners,
I'm Nick Lee representing Quill Gardens,
The applicant for the project and I want to start with a bit of history just because staff has done a great job with their
With their staff report on identifying why there's no substantial issue
Back in 2018 the city of Encinitas did not have a compliant housing element
They went through steps to get into compliance and that included up zoning 15 sites through the city
We are one of those 15 sites and we were a critical site in the city being able to achieve their housing goals as required
by their housing element and
That was eight years ago since then we've been working on this project
We've gone through designs and redesigns to work to make it less impactful on the community
But also to make sure it's something that can provide the affordable housing that's so well needed in this area is a lot
Along with housing in general. We've had several rounds of community outreach
We reduce the height of the project
We reduce the number of units in the project and at the same time we increase the number of low-income units from 72 to 90
Most relevant I think to this body should be the fact that I think the project is kind of an example and how to do
development in this area. We met with the coastal staff including the planner and ecologist on site. We walked to the site,
we rolled out plans, we drew lines of where they wanted us to avoid, where we could preserve, and where we could enhance, and
then the leftover area as staff showed was the southern portion where that was deemed qualified for development.
That's the process now what the project is. It's 448 homes in the coastal area of those 90 are going to be low income restricted
90 in a coastal area I have to imagine you don't see that very often and so here's one that we are offering this project
We've done a lot of work with staff to get to something that both sides can live with and that we're prepared to go forward with
The record is clear. The project doesn't impact wetlands. There are not unresolved biological questions
It provides much-needed drainage infrastructure.
There is limited work within the appeal area, just the slip lining of the pipe.
And the restoration results in a net improvement to the habitat in the area.
In closing, it's taken over a year to get here since the appeal was filed, but I think
you see by what staff did in their report that they put that time to use and they kind
of looked under every stone and took every issue that was brought up and have a response
to it.
They understand the site and the issues, and their recommendation reflects as much.
We respectfully ask that you follow their recommendation and make a finding of no substantial
issue.
Thank you, and we're available for comments.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Now, do we have qualified speakers, those that objected during the – all right.
And do we have some in the room?
Yes, we have one speaker in the room, Katherine Campbell.
All right.
you'll have two minutes. You have to turn on your mic and lower it down. There you
go. My name is Catherine Campbell. I'm a resident of Encinitas, California. As you
can see in my pictures, there are multiple developments going in on this
very corner that will increase our density population to over 5,000
individuals in an already dense populated community. Please note this is
about a two mile street, ending at Quail Hollow in Saxony, as well as going into Encinitas
Boulevard. This type of development cannot support our efforts as a community simply
because there are serious issues with it. Among those issues are the density. How is
A fire truck that is 8 feet wide supposed to get down quail gardens during a disaster.
Next slide please.
As you can see there's not room for emergency vehicles to move down this street.
Next slide please.
Please stop the quail gardens because it's not only something that has major issues with
the LCP inconsistencies, there's violations,
the density bonus versus density is still an issue.
In addition, this is a feeder street
that goes between Lukadia Boulevard and Encinitas Boulevard.
That being said, it's a known issue to our community.
Next slide, please.
As again, as you can see, no emergency vehicles
will be able to come and get my family out of this.
Our neighborhoods are one street in,
one street out.
Next slide, please.
Next slide, please.
Next slide, please.
This project has a lot of issues.
Next slide, please.
We are in fear of our lives.
Please do not make us another palisades.
Thank you.
All right.
Anyone else here in the room?
No more speakers.
No more speakers on Zoom or in the room.
Correct.
Neither.
OK.
All right, in that case I'm going to close the public hearing.
Return to staff.
Ask if there are any other comments.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart.
I just wanted to make a few comments on sort of the process
that we have in front of us today.
And in terms of the procedural framework that we have,
as Ms. Leach explained, in our initial staff presentation,
several questions were raised by the appellant
regarding potential and permitted development
and the appealability of the project.
I want to be clear that those issues are not before you today.
This hearing is limited to determining whether the appellant's appeal raises a substantial
issue.
And as outlined in our staff report addendum with regard to the claims of the unpermitted
storm drain, staff has not treated the storm drain or the head wall as coastal violations.
And further, even if staff had been able to conclude the unpermitted development took
place, the assertion does not form legal grounds for an appeal.
Accordingly, we have drawn our conclusions about what is appealable based on known present
site conditions.
And with respect to appealability questions specifically, Section 13569 of the Commission's
regulations provides that when the executive director and the local government are in agreement
regarding the appeals area, as we are in this case, the regulation provides that there's
no further challenge available on that point.
In other words, the appealability determinant is not open for reconsideration in this proceeding.
The only matter again before you is whether to find substantial issue on the appeal.
this of course doesn't mean we can't answer questions on any of these topics and we do
have our entire staff here today to address any of those including our San Diego staff
are represented from our ecology unit and I believe our enforcement staff is available
online.
So with that I'll conclude my comments and I don't see anything further.
All right, let me return to the commission. Are there any questions? Okay, I have
You have a question Commission Lee
So just to clarify that mr. Schwing that means that the Commission's
Jurisdiction in this matter is solely regarding that hundred-foot buffer area around the stream. Yes, that's correct
We are not talking about
Apartment buildings or the units or any of these other things the city has adequately addressed all of the other issues
Surrounding this and our jurisdiction right now is to determine whether or not there's a substantial issue with the hundred-foot area around the screen
That's that's correct. Yes
If that's the case, I'm supportive of staff's recommendation. Thanks so much
And I think it would be worth given the testimony here or the questions and issues raised with regard to the traffic that
Staff clarify that that is not the issue that's before us today
if possible, please
Sure, so I just will note that the site is located approximately a mile and a half
East of the ocean and the nearest public beach
You know again, this is located outside of our appeals jurisdiction
so we don't have a thorough analysis within the staff report, but
Yeah, so we we didn't believe that there would be public access impacts to the coast
thanks so much and it's not our
Just to clarify
Mr. Schwinn, is it a coast elect issue regarding?
Emergency access and that sort of thing to this site
Emergency access and
You know traffic generally those aren't issues that we would tackle unless there's some relationship to a coastal act issue
Which there isn't here which we have not identified. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much
I'll bring it back to the Commission for a motion, which is on page. I'm happy to make the motion
Thank you. I move that the Commission determine that appeal number a-6-e NC-25-0 zero five
Excuse me, zero zero zero five raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under section
three zero
Six zero three of the Coastal Act and I recommend a yes vote
Second a motion by Commissioner Wilson and a second by Commissioner Kelly and I
would ask if there is an agreement for unanimous approval of the motion all
right seeing no objection the motion is approved no substantial issue is found
and that concludes the hearing on this item move on to our next item item 21
Thank you Vice Chair Hart. Yes that does take us down to item 21a which is the
Martinez application and there is a staff PowerPoint on this item if we
could bring that up and Chelsea Jander with our San Diego coast district office
is going to do that presentation. Chelsea when you're ready please go ahead.
Great thank you Carl and good afternoon commissioners. Item 21a coastal
development permit number 6-26-0025 is a request by Jose Martinez to receive after the fact
approval for an ADU conversion project.
Staff is recommending approval of the project as conditioned.
The applicant is in agreement with the special conditions described in the staff report.
There is an addendum for this item which responds to a letter of opposition to the proposed
project, and which staff will also address in this presentation.
Next slide, please.
The subject site is located on the east side of 9th Street in the City of Imperial Beach.
The proposed project is sited with a single-family residence, which was permitted by the Coastal
Commission in 2016, and is located in a low-lying area near the southern shoreline of the San
Diego Bay.
Next slide, please.
The project includes the after-the-fact conversion of a detached garage with a second floor
Den into an approximately 1,154-square-foot accessory dwelling unit. As proposed, the
project would result in a total of one detached ADU increasing the housing units on the site
from one to two. Next slide, please.
The primary Coastal Act issue raised by this project is addressing coastal hazards in particular
sea level rise. Staff analysis suggests that the site could experience flooding over the
anticipated lifespan of the structure. However, there are several mitigating factors to the
risk posed by sea level rise to the proposed ADU. These include the distance of the site from San
Diego Bay and in fact the subject site generally sits above base flood elevation. More generally,
the site is located in an established neighborhood with many residences vulnerable to future flooding
and sea level rise and the City of Imperial Beach is currently in the design and permitting phase
for a climate adaptation project that would retrofit the Bayshore
Bikeway highlighted in purple on this slide. The Bayshore Bikeway resiliency project is anticipated
to enhance flood protection of the bikeway and adjacent neighborhood and alleviate some of the
coastal hazard risks at a regional and neighborhood level which benefits the subject site. Nevertheless
Because the proposed site may still be exposed to coastal hazards over the anticipated lifespan
of the structure, Commission staff are recommending several special conditions to reduce risk
to coastal hazards and future sea level rise flooding, including an assumption of risk,
a waiver of future shoreline protection, and notification to future occupants
that the ADU is located in a low-lying area. As noted before, the applicant is in agreement
with all the special conditions. Next slide please. Commission staff received a public comment
letter in opposition to the project that claims that the removal of three enclosed parking spaces
will impact the availability of on-street parking utilized by residents and coastal visitors.
However, the proposed project meets all parking requirements. For the main residents,
this includes a two-car garage attached to the main house, highlighted here in purple. For the
proposed ADU no parking is required because the site is located within a half mile of the closest
major transit stop and therefore according to state ADU law no parking minimums can be imposed.
In addition to the attached garage that fulfills the site's parking requirement,
the site has four uncovered parking spaces in the rear yard with access to the alley and the
proposed ADU and there are at least two parking spaces on the driveway of the main house.
These six spaces are highlighted in orange on this slide.
This results in a total of eight off-street parking spaces
for the main single family residents and proposed ADU.
Finally, to address the letter's claim,
1.3 miles walking distance from the beach
and 0.3 miles walking distance
from the closest Bay Shore Bikeway access point.
And street parking is available
much closer to these access points.
Given the distance of the site from the shoreline
and the abundant parking on the site,
the proposed ADU won't have an adverse impact
on public access and we believe the concerns
in the letter have been addressed.
Next slide please.
As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent
with the applicable chapter three policies
of the Coastal Act.
Therefore, staff is recommending approval
of the coastal development permit subject
to the special conditions outlined in the staff report.
The motion and resolution begin
on page four of the staff report.
This concludes staff's presentation
and we are available for questions.
Thank you.
All right, thank you so much, Ms. Jander.
All right, we'll turn up with a public hearing,
ask how many speakers we have.
We have two, one in person, one on Zoom.
All right, is one of them the applicant?
No.
Do we have an applicant available, or?
Is David George the applicant?
It looks like the applicant is Jose Martinez.
It's just a weird Zoom applicant.
David George, apparently, is the agent for this project,
but I think was supposed to be in person
and I don't believe is here.
We've got them on Zoom.
David George is on Zoom.
All right, let's bring them in in two minutes or...
All right, Mr. George, are you available?
I am.
Please go ahead.
Hi, Mr. George, how much time do you need?
I don't really need any time.
I'm only available for questions.
Okay, that sounds great, thank you.
All right, any other speakers?
We have Kelly Konezny available on Zoom.
Okay.
She's on it.
Sorry, she's actually not here, so that's everyone.
All right, so in that case,
if we have no further speakers,
I imagine there's not much for staff to say.
Nothing further.
Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission
for any questions.
I don't believe I asked if there were any ex partes on this.
Right, not seeing any.
I'll bring it back to the commission for any questions.
Comments or motion?
And the motion is on page 4.
Don't all speak at once, though.
Page 4.
I move that the commission approve
coastal development permit 6-26-0025
pursuant to staff recommendation and recommend a yes vote.
Second.
All right.
Motion by Commissioner Kelly.
Second by Commissioner Knott-Off.
Any opposition to unanimous approval?
All right, seeing none the motion is approved and the project is approved and that is the
final topic for today so we're gonna move to closed session I want to thank
everyone and particularly the staff for such an excellent job this afternoon and
AGP thanks you guys. Okay we're gonna go to a next room