Hey, good morning, everyone.
So happy to be here with you today.
We'll call this meeting to order
and begin with a roll call, please.
All right, good morning.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Present.
Commissioner Hart?
Commissioner Jackson?
Here.
Commissioner Kelly?
Here.
Commissioner Lee?
Here.
Commissioner Lopez?
Here.
Commissioner Hellmick is not in yet.
Commissioner Knothoff?
Here.
Commissioner ketchum commissioner Wilson present chair Harmon here we have a
quorum great thank you very much alright before virtual meeting procedures I'll
turn it over to our chief counsel to report out from closed session please
thank you chair Harmon yesterday afternoon the Commission met in closed
session it received litigation information and advice and took action
on the following cases book out versus California Coastal Commission and Hottian
versus California Coastal Commission.
Commission also received litigation information
and advice on the following cases
in a matter of potential litigation.
Sable Offshore Corporation versus Coastal Commission,
Ruby Falls Fund, LLC versus California Coastal Commission,
and City of Fort Bragg versus Mendocino Railway.
And that concludes my report.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, turn it over to Chris
for 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 wish to watch or listen to the meeting
only and not speak on an item, we recommend using the CalSPAN website. Those who wish
to address the Commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform or by
phone. The speaker request forms may be found on the Commission's webpage. Paper forms
and a scannable QR code for paperless submittal are available on the Commission staff table
just outside the meeting room. For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures
on the Commission's agenda webpage, which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom
or by phone. Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given
up to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the Chair. Requests to speak during the
general public comment period will not be accepted after 9am on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation, you
may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comment are typically allowed
two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the link
to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission
staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We 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 yourself on the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Apologies.
Sorry.
Thank you very much.
Now we will move to the agenda changes, please.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, Vice Chair Hart and commissioners.
I'll go ahead and go over today's agenda changes.
Item 9A is move to consent.
This is a Humboldt County LCP amendment to update the county's density bonus regulations.
Item 11A is move to consent.
This is the City of Pacifica LCP amendment to establish outdoor commercial regulations.
Item 13A is move to consent.
This is the City of Morro Bay LCP amendment to update height and slope standards.
And finally item 20A is moved to consent.
This is a permit application 5260015A1 for Baywatch Inc. in Venice.
And that concludes today's agenda changes.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much, Ms. Gray.
All right, now we will move to general public comment.
Thank you.
All right.
For members of the public, I'll be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite
you to speak when it is your turn.
Each speaker will be allowed 2 minutes during general public comment at the discretion of
the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom, we will be bringing you in as panelists.
As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload, and this 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 the speak. There is a raise your 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
you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
So today for general public comment,
we have a total of 18 speakers signed up,
including four in the room.
We'll start with our in-person speakers, Lance Schulte,
followed by Michaela Coates, Alex Ferra-Mignona,
and Mitch Silverstein.
Lance Schulte, go ahead.
Thank you very much and good morning.
I have a very, very simple request for you,
but it's a very important request.
The Carlsbad LCP is going to be coming before you this year.
And what's being proposed is the most critical, the most
commented on item of that LCP amendment request
is the Ponto Park issues and the coastal issues at Ponto.
What we're finding out is that the city staff or the Coastal
Commission staff is proposing to bifurcate that issue
from the rest of the LCP, even though they're
very interconnected in very significant ways,
dealing with both coastal recreation and low-cost visitor
accommodation, land use issues that are specific to Ponto,
but also related to the rest of the city.
And they're moving that agenda item to next month's meeting
in July, 200 miles away in Ventura,
And while the rest of the Carlsbad LCP is going to be considered in San Diego in October,
we request, a very simple request, that the Ponto LCP issues that have been segregated
or bifurcated out of the LCP issues for Carlsbad be held at the same day in the same location
in San Diego as the rest of the LCP.
They're interconnected.
interconnected on some very critical issues and over 8,000 petitions have been
submitted to the City of Carlsbad and the California Coastal Commission
regarding the citizens concern on this issue. This is a high priority public
participation issue and public concern and citizen issue and it should not be
bifurcated and it should not be shuffled off to Ventura 200 miles away over a
holiday weekend to discourage public participation. That's not what the Coastal Act is about.
So it's a simple request. Just basically put the two meetings, not to, if you're going
to keep them separate, keep them separate, but have them at the same meeting and have
them in San Diego. That's all we're asking. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next three speakers are from Surf Rider. We have a handout that's going
behind it on it. First is Michaela Coates, then Alex Farin Mignonna, and mid Silverstein.
We do have a presentation. Okay, it's a shared presentation. Then Silver, presentation for
Silverstein. I can't answer it for, since we have slides too.
No, you can read it, but we have a slide to do.
Alright. Awesome. Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Michaela Coates, and I am Servighter's Southern California Regional Manager here
to update you on OCTA's efforts to armor south San Clemente's irreplaceable beaches
to protect its rail line.
Surfighter commissioned Bob Bataglio, a respected coastal scientist with decades of experience,
to produce two reports on OCTA's existing and proposed armoring, the effects on its
beaches, and the potential for nature-based alternatives.
Next slide, please.
His first report covers Cypress Shores, the beach between the world-famous Trestle surf
breaks to the south and San Clemente State Beach to the north. Between 2021 and 2023,
OCTA used emergency permits to drop 27,000 tons of boulders across this stretch. And
the result is that a once walkable beach has been reduced to a pile of rock. The waves
break directly onto the boulders, access is blocked, and the connection to trestles in
the south is gone. The armoring has also degraded wave quality at Cotton's Point, the northernmost
surf breakout trestles and reflection off the rock ruins the waves and surfers face
a dangerous wall of rock instead of a sandy exit.
Next slide, please.
But the results of the report's most significant finding is actually that OCTA's armoring is
counterintuitive.
The boulders don't make the railroad safer, they actually make it more dangerous.
As sandy beaches absorb and buffer wave energy, rocks instead reflect that energy, scouring
the sea floor and carving an underwater trough.
As the trough deepens, bigger waves break closer to the rocks which calls for more rocks
which creates the self-reinforcing cycle, pulling the oceans wave forces closer to the
rail line which Battaglio has documented evidence of.
So staff is now negotiating a follow-up CDP to formalize this armoring and Surfrider's
position is that the beach must be restored and at minimum the footprint of the armoring
dramatically reduced. Next slide please. And I will pass it off to my colleague Alex.
Good morning, I'm Alex Veramignona, Coastal Adaptation Manager for the Surfighter Foundation.
Battaglio's second report looks just north where OCTA proposes to continue and expand armoring.
OCTA calls at Area 4, but but clearly it's the southern half of San Clemente State Beach.
In the images you can see Area 4 and Cypress Shores from the north and south
along with some wayfinding.
OCTA first tried to emergency permit up to 33,000 tons of boulders across 2,000 feet
of this public beach.
The commission denied it, thank you.
Now staff are negotiating a regular CDP for a boulder revetment or seawall.
OCTA has agreed to a one-time sander punishment, but Battaglio concludes that's nowhere near
enough to offset decades of compounding beach loss.
An armoring here would trigger the same self-defeating cycle Michaela described.
Next slide please.
But Area 4 differs from Cypress Shores in a very huge way.
It still has a wide beach, with a vegetated sandy berm that shields the tracks and helps
rebuild the beach after storms the way natural dunes do.
OCTA's proposal would trade that functioning feature for more rock.
Bataleo concludes armoring could be avoided here in the near term, in favor of a nature-based
adaptation strategy, as is being invested in other San Clemente beaches.
What it could look like. Dune restoration is viable on beaches that are about 150 feet wide.
A threshold this beach already hovers around. Paired with sand replenishment, a restored dune
system here would work with the existing berm as layered defense. A sandy beach slope for wave
run-up followed by dunes to buffer higher wave energy and then the existing berm as a backstop.
Layered nature-based protection. A healthy beach with function functioning dynamics is the best
protection for infrastructure. Next slide. Thank you so much. I'll pass it over to Mitch.
Good morning, commissioners. Mitch Silverstein, State Policy for Surf Rider. Here to bring it
home. Michaela and Alex covered the situation and our position. So I'll close with Bataleo's
recommendations, as well as reiterating the conclusions we've drawn from the report.
And in that photo, that's Bob Bataleo right there on site. For both sides, first,
document the armoring properly.
It was nearly impossible to reconstruct
OCTA's full permitting history
across cybershores in Area 4,
and some of that armoring may still be unpermitted.
The commission and the public have a right to that record.
Second, require OCTA to maintain a beach
in front of any armoring.
We oppose armoring, but it's far less harmful
with a beach in front of it.
Third, expand monitoring.
OCTA's current monitoring is too narrow.
It should cover ecology and ecosystem services
like recreation, access, and surfing,
the way that the Coastal Commission does.
Next slide, please.
Now, going to Cypress Shores,
where we've lost the beach due to the armoring.
Battaglio concludes we need to evaluate
whether we can reduce the footprint of the revetment.
Those boulders were dropped very haphazardly
under emergency permits and have spread seaward,
making the impacts worse.
Our position is that footprint can and must be reduced
and the beach restored.
Next slide, please.
Now moving on to area four or San Clemente State Beach.
As Alex said, we need to do some things
to restore that beach instead of armor it.
Battalion concludes that we should investigate
restoring natural sand supply from the rail ray,
that the rail ray now traps through the drainage arroyos
and use that to expand the existing berm.
Also widen the beach with nourishment
paired with native dune restoration.
These must be, this is our position,
these must be implemented and monitored
for any consideration of hard armoring.
And then next slide.
The big one, and this goes without saying,
is that we need to assess relocating the rail line
as soon as practicable.
Only realignment resolves the underlying conflict
between protecting the rail and preserving the beach.
That corridor was closed nearly nine months in 2023
due to storm damage and bluff failure.
With sea level rise, it only gets worse.
Each foot multiplies the threat exponentially
and flooding that's rare today
becomes routine within our lifetimes.
Thank you for your continued support
saving south OC's beaches from endless boulders, a couple notes, the handouts are just for you to
take with you. They don't summarize just his findings, but they summarize Surfrider's positions
informed by those findings. Thank you. Thank you. We have one more in-person speaker, Adam Leverns,
and then our first three Zoom speakers are Walter Lamb, Dan Stegink, and Lucia Casalinoovo.
Adam Leverns. We have your presentation. Give us a moment to bring it up.
Thank You chair
Good morning again. I really appreciate opportunity to be before you in person in a small venue
Thanks for all the travel you do that allows that several times a year for me
At your meetings last month as well as yesterday you heard from stakeholders in Newport Beach
About the California State Lands Commission benchmark rates which is rates
They set for the recreational use of sovereign lands in various regions of the state and this assures adequate
compensation to the people of the State of California for the use of those lands.
As we've all heard from state lands they have the experience and expertise to do
this. They generally do it about every five years. It's data driven with local
data from local marinas and the Southern California category one rate is for
Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties. The benchmark rate also
removes local political influences and some of the corruption we've seen in
appraisal processes in Newport Beach.
When I speak about corruption,
this is documented, it's not just hyperbole.
The city seems to,
as some of you have heard for a couple of years,
not want fair and equitable access,
they want more pay-to-play access,
which a lot of people would lose their access under.
The flyer that I've got up here has been submitted at
the last two city council meetings and
the first stakeholder meeting for these matters,
the 27th of last month.
Generally, agenda materials with
the city will get linked online and people can view them.
The city hasn't done that with this information,
and at these meetings,
they're spreading misinformation and not allowing people to see this.
These are having to be printed out and handed to people.
At the meeting on the 27th,
they told me there weren't accommodations to display the sign of screen,
Yet the city and state lands could display information on the screen and and the fact
That I'm not supposed to talk about this locally is kind of indication to me that it might be too good of an idea
And if you're if you're here poo-poo on this idea from people, please
Open your minds. I know staff is very busy and can be manipulated and just be open. Thank you
Thank you. Now moving to our zoom speakers. We have Walter lamb followed by Dan stajink and Lucia Castellino o'wovo
Walter lamb go ahead. We're loading up your presentation
Thank you very much. Good morning commissioners Walter lamb
Represented by one's land trust when I've touched on two issues today
Related to the binder wetlands. I spoke two months ago about the Southern California gas well abandonment sites and
how so-called gas wasn't really doing anything to
we vegetate those sites with native habitat, if I could have the next slide please.
And that, you know, because of that a lot of invasive weeds were growing up and those will
take over the site if there is not some kind of action. Next slide please. This is our restoration
site that we work with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This was one you also voted on,
you know, mitigation for a fence that was in the wetlands. It's that this is coming along
very well. You can see native algalai, native seaside heliotrope. Next slide please.
There is some good news is that one of the well-abandoned sites,
Department of Fish and Wildlife, allowed us to bring out some volunteers to pull some weeds.
But really, the point is that SoCal gas is the responsible party for this. And I just want to
reiterate, you know, it's unfortunate, but they are going to try to do as little as possible,
going to do the absolute minimum that they think they can get away with. And so for the
next well abandonment, you know, I'm hoping to work with your staff to beef that up a
little bit. In the meantime, we're just going to keep monitoring this up. Next slide, please.
We don't have a lot of time to get into this, but there's a fairly new microhabitat up by
own. It's called the non-tidal marsh. That is the result of hydrologic policy change where more
water is being allowed from what's called the freshwater marsh into the ecological reserve.
and we just recently had young blackneck stilts and other young birds but that marsh over the
period of about two weeks disappeared and it's a mystery as to how the freshwater marsh is being
managed and how that's impacting the ecological reserve. Next slide please. And these were slides
from 2019 that your staff gave about some of the water features. One more slide and anyways we'll
We'll come back with this, but we can do some help
getting to the bottom of how that all works.
Thank you very much.
Lucia, I see, I just muted you.
You unmuted early.
Next will be Dan Stegink, followed by Lucia Casolinoovo
and then James Houbiniak.
Dan Stegink.
Thank you, supervisors.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
And excellent.
And I should have said commissioners.
My name is Dan Stegink from the beautiful city of Pacifica
of the ocean as we speak.
I'm calling today to urge you to stop hosting coastal commission meetings at the Oceano
Hotel in Half Moon Bay, California.
Last month, Governor News emerged the state to boycott Chevron stations due to price gouging.
A&N Properties owns the Oceano Hotel and adjoining shops at Harbor Village.
properties was created to facilitate the permitting of petroleum stations owned by Chevron across
California. K&N petroleum is now owning a series of Chevron gas stations that have been renovating
fuel stations without public notice, without proper soil testing and remediation across
California, including within 600 feet of the median high tide line at Highway 1 and Lindemar
Boulevard in Pacifica. Another issue is, on May 7, 2025, I asked the Coastal Commission.
I suggested two excellent potential commissioners, Supervisor Jackie Speer and Supervisor David
Kanepa. Less than an hour later, I got an angry email from an applicant, Ray Mueller,
Supervisor Ray Mueller, who had complained about my contacting the press, asking them
for simple controls that would ban corruption like campaign donors from receiving real estate
contracts with San Mateo County. Mr. Mueller rents his office from KN Properties, Keaton
Erhan. Mr. Mueller received $95,000 in independent expenditures from Chevron. Chevron beneficiaries
are also his largest donor group as he sits on the Air Quality Management District and
and make Chevron decisions every single month.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next is Lucia Casalinoovo, James Kubiniak,
and Kimberly Larrick-Kurs.
Lucia Casalinoovo.
Lucia Casalinoovo.
Larrick-Kurs.
Lucia, it sounds like you have another device playing
the audio from our meeting, and it's providing
a lot of feedback in our room.
you can you meet your other device it looks like you have two devices logged
in I'm gonna try removing the other device from the meeting okay let's see
if that works. Okay I remove the other device we should be able to hear you
clearly now. Can you hear me now? Yes we can hear you. Go ahead. You removed me
from the seminar? You had two devices and I removed the other one. Yes good
morning. No I only have one device I'm sorry. Go ahead we can hear you. You can
hear me. Good morning then commissioners. I'm here again to kindly request that you
hold every view of the Oceana Dunes SVRA. You are out of compliance because according
to the original permit you are supposed to hold one every year. And I really wish to
know why it's not happening. Maybe somebody from your staff can walk with me and explain
of why you are not holding an annual review. It has been five years since you held the last
review 21, when unanimously abandoned driving on Oceania Beach in Dunes. Thank you. That was an
extraordinary determination. However, unfortunately the clock struck down. But there is more than one
way to screen a cat. One, submit recommendations to San Luis Obispo County to amend its local
plan, which is in violation of the cost of that. Two, hold the review and lower the number of
traffic on the beach and dunes down to no knocking. You 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, so to protect the creek and reduce air pollution. Three, let them
drive on their 800 acres but withhold the permit to drive on Oceano Beach. Five years ago you
determined that 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 due. The quiet tidal suit filed by the off-roaders a few years ago has been
dismissed. So, they do not have the historical right to drive on the world behind the scenes.
Therefore, you can still stop that people from listening.
Thank you.
Next, James Kubiniek, Kimberly Larek-Kurz and the Noah Suarez Sykes.
James Kubiniek.
Good morning, commissioners. My name is James Kubiniek. I'm an architectural designer.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you. I'm an architectural designer who has worked on major projects for Frank Gehry Los
Angeles and currently for Nike in Oregon. Through my education professional experience,
I understand the responsibility that comes with building unenvironmentally sensitive sites.
I'm here to express my opposition to the opposed residents at 501 Sandpoint Road, Carpentaria.
My primary concern is that the scale of the project is fundamentally incompatible with the site.
The buildable area above the sea and wetlands is extremely limited, yet the proposal includes
a large residence, extensive docks, decks, and a pool. For a property surrounded by dune map,
habitat, and wetlands, this level of development is excessive and out of proportion to the landscape.
My second concern is the impact on one of the last remaining native fordune systems
along the stretch of the coast. Even with the mitigation measures and buffers,
This project introduces permanent disturbances to sensitive dune and wetland habitats.
More importantly, it establishes a precedent for future development in similarly constrained
coastal environments. Finally, the long-term hazards are being understated. The site faces
sea level rise, erosion, and storm impacts within the lifespan of the structure. Approving a large
permanent residence in such a vulnerable location increases the likelihood of future environmental
damage. Debris and public costs associated with coastal retreat. Even with reduced footprint,
the proposal is simply too large and too permanent for such a fragile site.
I respectfully urge the Commission to prioritize long-term coastal stewardship
and deny this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Kimberly Larrick-Kurs, followed by
Noah Suarez Sykes and then Joellen Mallard. Kimberly Larrick-Kurs. Okay, you got moved.
You should be able to unmute soon as soon as you're in. Kimberly.
Are you able to hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. Great. Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Kimberly Larrick-Kurs and I urge the Commission to reject any proposal to build new development at
501 Sandpoint Road with Carpinterugia. The reason is simple. The site is already
demonstrated it's not a sustainable location for permanent structures.
A house once stood there down the lot in the 30s and today that location is
underwater. The ocean has made clear what maps,
studies, and photographs increasingly show that California's coast
shorelines are changing, erosion is accelerating, and sea levels continue to
rise. Approving new construction on that site
has already been lost to the ocean would ignore the physical reality of the coastline.
It would place future property owners, public resources, and emergency responders at risk.
It could also create pressure for shoreline armoring and other protective measures that
may harm beaches, public access, coastal habitats, and neighboring properties.
The Coastal Act requires careful stewardship of California's shoreline for present and future
generations and that responsibility means recognizing when a site is simply no longer
appropriate for development. Building in an area that has already succumbed to coastal erosion
and inundation is not adaptation. It is repeating a mistake that nature is already corrected.
The commission has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by acknowledging the realities of the
coastal change and ensuring that public policy reflects long-term coastal resilience rather than
short-term development interest. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that no new development
be approved at 501 Sand Point Road in Carpinteria. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Next, Noah Suara Sykes, JoEllen Mallard, and then Christina Navarro. Noah Suara Sykes.
Great. Tremendous. Can you all hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Lovely. Okay. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Noah Suara Sykes, and I'm an organizer
for Better Neighbors LA, a housing coalition focused on protecting long-term housing by
regulating short-term rentals. I'm here today to once again ask the Coastal Commission to consider
the benefits of a hosted-only approach to regulating short-term rentals throughout the
Coastal Zone. In the Coastal Zone, unhosted short-term rentals have driven out residents
of coastal towns and hollowed out once vibrant communities. Corporate-owned entities continue
to buy up housing to flip into expensive, luxury short-term rentals, driving workers
that provide necessary visitor services farther and farther out of the Coastal Zone.
Just the other day in Los Angeles, we saw an apartment building right on the Venice Boardwalk with 60
rent stabilized units, each of which is capable of housing an entire family turned entirely into a grouping of illegal short-term rentals
run as a luxury boutique hotel. And that's not even the only one on that block.
Many of these unhosted STRs are also several hundred dollars a night, far out of the reach of the average family.
And this isn't equitably providing coastal accommodation.
It is taking housing that people need and converting it into a commodity for the wealthy.
Choosing hosted only as a regulatory method for STRs means protecting housing
along the coastal zone while also allowing visitors to be embedded in their community.
Hosted STRs tend to be significantly more affordable than un-hosted, allowing for
visitor accommodation while also not removing more housing from the market.
Cities throughout California have found great success in hosted-only STRs, including in some
coastal cities like Santa Monica, which managed to have a surfeit of visitor
accommodations while also protecting its residents from having their housing turned into corporate
investment vehicles. We ask the Commission, as you hear future regulations on STRs in the coastal zone
from a variety of towns, do the right thing. Support hosted only, short-term rental regulations
to protect our coastal residents and preserve our housing. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Next, Joellen Mallard, Christina Navarro, and then Terry Walsh.
Christina Navarro, please accept being moved to panelists. Joellen Mallard, go ahead.
Good morning Chair and Commissioners. My name is Joellen Mallard and I live in Marina del Rey.
I've worked as a cook for over 15 years and I'm a proud member of Unite Here Local 11.
I want to be honest with you, you may not typically hear from people in Marina del Rey
about housing affordability. I live in one of the most expensive parts of the California coast and
I know that. But I grew up differently than where I live now and I remember what it felt like to
look at places like this and think, you know, that'll never be for me. Fortunately, somehow
it worked out and I'm here and I'm grateful every single day. What I can't shake though is that
thinking about people who won't ever have the opportunity to make it here. Not because they
didn't work hard enough, not because they don't deserve it, but because we're allowing the housing
that could have been theirs to get swallowed up, listed on a platform, and then priced for long
weekends and not for working families. Some of the units in my neighborhood are dark most of the
week. They're just inventory. And that's what this is really about. It's not about data or vacancy
rates. It's about whether the coast gets to be a place where people can actually live, or whether
it just becomes a collection of properties that a bunch of wealthy investors rent out to other wealthy
people and the rest of California is just forced to watch from the outside. I was fortunate
enough to get into my community and I love it. I want the door to stay open for others.
So please support policies that keep homes as homes and not short term rentals. Thank
you.
Thank you. Next is Christina Navarro, Terry Welsh and then Leslie Purcell. Christina Navarro.
Hi, Christina, I see you're in as a panelist.
You should be able to unmute.
All right, I'm not seeing any motion.
Terry Welsh will continue with you
and come back to Christina.
Terry Welsh.
Hi, can you hear me?
Good, thank you very much.
Yes.
Thank you, commissioners.
My name is Terry Welsh and I am president
of an organization called the Coastal Corridor Alliance,
formerly known as the Banning Ranch Conservancy.
And I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
want to talk about Randall Preserve, a property formerly known as Banning Ranch. And as you can
see it's located in Orange County at the mouth of the Santa Ana River between the cities of Newport
Beach, Huntington Beach, and Costa Mesa. And in 2022, Banning Ranch went from being a privately
owned oil field to a publicly owned, permanently protected coastal open space. And this real estate
transaction was handled by the Trust for Public Land and made possible by a very generous donation
from Frank and Joanne Randall, hence the name Randall Preserve. The title was immediately
transferred to a state agency that you're familiar with, the Mountains Recreation and
Conservation Authority, or MRCA, that's known for their stewardship of the Santa Monica Mountains.
Now, this real estate transaction was 387 acres. It did not involve a separate 11 acres owned by
the local school district, the Newport Mesa Unified School District. So you can say that these 11
acres, while publicly owned, are not permanently protected. And as much as the local community
would love to see them become part of Randall Preserve, the school district has announced that
they are in early discussions with a developer to build several multimillion dollar ocean view
Newport Beach homes on the site. Next please. Next slide please. Now here's a separate view
looking out towards the ocean and Newport Harbor and you can appreciate where the school district
11 acres is and as distressing as it is to the local community to think that these multimillion
dollar homes are going to essentially be built in Randall preserve what's even more concerning to
us is what's going on with the property right now as we speak. Now I'm out of time I'm going to have
to come back and tell you about it. So stay tuned, commissioners, and I very much appreciate your time.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Back to Cristina Navarro. Cristina, if you're able to please unmute.
Hello. Hi, go ahead. Yeah. Go. Bueno tías. I want to speak Spanish. Bueno tías,
comisionados mi nombre es Cristina Navarro soy mienbro de una hier loco 11 soy una recamerena
por ventitres años bivo en santa monica ante vivía en el sur centro de los angeles que me tomaba
ora y media para llegar a mi trabajo ahora ese tempo lo utiliso para estar comifamilia pero también bivo en una
partamentos de bajo recurso que quiciero que nuestros compañeros y nuestra comunidad
biviera cerca de su trabajo porque muchas personas que biben empando biben en orange
scanning y tienen que via harcas y tres cuatro o auras al lugar de trabajo. Este y no es
posible yo que èndado tocando puertas para campañas este muchus a partamentos que tienen
cantados de herbe en b, en que nuestra comunidad en nuestros trabajadores de recamereros que
bivencerca de nuestralugar de trabajo bivencerca de su trabajo, y también que sierra que apoyen
por que bibam una su dam muy bonita que Santa Monica a mieda, ya de que tengorita, esta y
I think that there's a point in the political
that is, in here, we have rent to afford to pay.
Thank you for all, and I hope that this person
will be with us.
Thank you.
Chris, just a moment.
Commissioner Preciado has generously offered
to give us an overview.
Thank you.
Cristina Navarro is a resident,
a resident of the city of Santa Monica,
Anne is a member of Unite Here.
She's inviting the commission
to consider her life experience.
She's been an employee of Unite Here for 23 years
and she has this good fortune
of being able to not have to commute anymore.
She lives in Santa Monica, works in Santa Monica,
and she'd like to encourage
that other workers have the same opportunity
instead of dedicating their lives
to a one and a half hour commute,
that they have the ability to stay in housing,
socialized housing in the community.
And as such, she's encouraging us to work
to restrict short-term rentals
and encouraging us to ensure that housing is available.
She indicated that in campaigns she has been part of,
she's seen a lot of doors locked
and that those doors seem to be available to Airbnb.
Thank you.
I think that captures her sentiments.
Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Miss Navarro Chris. Thank you
Next Leslie Purcell and then I'll call names that we weren't able to find on on the zoom meeting Leslie Purcell go ahead
Good morning Commission
I'm Leslie Purcell. I am in Ventura and I'm
Speaking about your next meeting which will be here in Ventura. I believe so. I'm
Hoping that you will arrange a site visit to the surfer's point managed retreat project
Which has been very interesting to watch
over the several years that they've been working on it and I think it would be wonderful for you all to
Observe and have somebody that was involved with the project to
Meet you there and possibly the public as well. We could be there
It's a very, very successful project in most ways and enjoyed by the public.
The second thing I wanted to mention is that there is this decommissioned power plant along
the coast in Oxnard, which is just south of us here in Ventura.
And it is very visually obvious, if you are a little bit above the horizon, you can look
out across the whole channel and you see this big blot down there on the coast.
And it's, I think, decommissioned in 2018 and was bought a couple, actually in 2022
by an LLC, and there was some indication
that they might remediate and restore it
for habitat value.
But I also found online that the city of Oxnard
is advertising it as a place for filming.
So I'm wondering if the staff could possibly look
into this and give us some more information
and an update on what is going on with that site.
And I think if you all are staying at the Crown Plaza,
you'll be able to see this.
Yeah.
All right, thank you.
We had three other speakers that we weren't able to find.
I'm gonna call your names.
If you hear your name, please raise your hand
so we can find you on the Zoom meeting.
Patty Judd, Lionel Mares, and Margaret Malloy.
Again, that's Patty Judd, Lionel Mares, and Margaret Malloy.
We haven't been able to find you.
If you could raise your hand.
All right, I'm seeing no hands raised.
Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
And thank you, as always, to the public
for participating and sharing your testimony.
I will return to the commission, Commissioner O'Mellie.
Thank you, Chair.
Just wondering if we can get maybe a little bit
more information, maybe from staff on the Carlsbad
and Ponto situation, please, thanks.
Yeah, so staff has been working closely with the city,
as well as meeting with Mr. Schulte
on the Carlsbad LCP Amendment.
Part one of the amendment,
which is planned for hearing in July,
is a project-specific LCP Amendment
that includes affordable housing,
visitor-serving commercial, and open space.
For efficiency's sake, the city has requested
this portion of the amendment move forward
as soon as feasible.
Staff anticipates that all coastal resource present
on the site will be reviewed and adequately protected
through this initial amendment under the existing LCP.
The second part of the amendment,
which is an overhaul of the city's entire LCP
is expected to go to the commission in October for hearing.
Any other?
Okay, great, thank you very much.
All right, we will continue on.
That brings us to item 5A, please.
Item five is the administrative calendar for today,
which includes only one item by the Ventura Port District.
We are not aware of any opposition to this item
and are asking the commission
approve the consent calendar today great thank you any public comment I know
commenters any expertise thank you all right
Commissioner Wilson I'm ready to move consent second it's a motion by
Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly any objections to
unanimous consent seeing none oh okay do four or more objects to any item in the
administrative calendar. Okay so no objections, so approved. Thank you. Now
we'll move on. Thanks. That takes us to item seven. Item seven provides for
applications to be moved from regular calendar to the consent calendar. There
are four items that we are recommending be moved to consent and those are item
nine a Humboldt County LCP amendment to update the density bonus provisions of
its LCP. Item 11A, the City of Pacifica LCP amendment to establish regulations for outdoor
commercial uses including outdoor dining areas. Item 13A, a City of Morro Bay LCP amendment
to add height and slope standards to its LCP. And item 20, a permit amendment by Baywatch
Inc. in Venice to make changes to previously approved filming activities. The applicants
are in agreement with the staff recommendations on these matters and staff is not aware of
any opposition to the items to be moved to the consent calendar today.
Staff would note that there is an addendum to the staff report for item 9A, the Humboldt
County LCP amendment, which includes minor language changes to the suggested modifications.
Staff recommends that the commission vote and approve this item.
Okay.
Thank you.
And just to clarify, there's nothing on regular consent.
of the items pulled from regular calendar to consent.
So looking at my colleagues, are there any ex partes to report?
Okay.
Seeing none, any public commenters who wish to speak on any of these items?
Yes.
We have two speakers across these items.
I'll start by noting that for item 11A, we have one person available for questions.
For item 13A, we have Shirley F. Shirley, I'm moving in as panelists.
you should be able to unmute and begin your comment.
All right, Shirley, you see you're in
and now I just saw you unmute.
You should go ahead.
Okay, good morning.
Are you able to hear me now?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you so much.
Good morning distinguished commissioners.
As the resident of Morro Bay,
I'm speaking in support of the Morro Bay LCP amendment
containing the height and slope standards.
And I want to express my agreement
with the executive director's determination
as presented in the report.
I urge you to concur with this determination
and move it forward today in approving this amendment
containing the bluff top height standard
as it will continue to protect the public viewshed
of our beautiful moral rock, our bay
and our working waterfront as it's been for over 40 years.
I would appreciate your serious consideration of this
and support, thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
Now for item 20A, we had one person sign up to speak,
Carrie Andrews, but we aren't able to find them
in the Zoom meeting.
Carrie Andrews, if you're there, raise your hand.
And we also had one person available for questions.
Okay.
All right, I'm seeing no hand raised.
There are no other speakers for all the items on consent.
Great, thank you very much.
So I will return to the commission.
Comments, questions, a motion.
I'll move consent.
Second.
Great.
Thank you.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Kelly.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing no objections, the consent calendar is approved.
Thank you.
All right.
Let's continue right on to item 8, the Deputy Director's Report for the North Coast District,
please.
The Deputy Director's Report for the North Coast includes two waivers, one permit amendment
and one permit extension.
I would note that we did receive comments regarding the permit extension, which is for
a Humboldt Bay Harbor District project that includes improvements to two seawater intake
systems as well as other infrastructure upgrades.
Comments were received from the water board and a member of the public relative to the
underlying permit itself.
Staff responded to the water board with information about the conditions of the CDP and contacted
the interested member of the public who indicated that he was opposed to one of the projects
contemplated under the original permit. Neither party objected to or provided a
basis for objection to this time extension, so we continue to recommend
approval here. In addition to the four regular items, today's report includes
final certification review for the Humboldt County Wireless Telecommunications
provisions, which was approved by the Commission last December. The County
acknowledged and accepted the Commission's suggested modifications for its
Wireless Telecommunication LCP amendment, and the Executive Director has
determine that the county's action meets the requirements for certification. This
certification is a report out only. Staff is not aware of any opposition to the
other matters and we're asking whether commissioners object to any of the items
in today's report. Okay, thank you. Any ex partes? Any public comments? I know just
one available for questions. Great, thank you. Do three or more commissioners
object to any item in the deputy directors report? Commissioner Wilson? I
I have no objection I just want to thank the staff to help our county get through our
cell phone tower regulations really appreciate it I want to just remind folks that even cell phone
towers that have fake trees or water towers still look better than cell phone towers and the
regulations to implement that in your community are really easy to do so and they don't add a ton
on a cost, so it's just a recommendation, thanks.
Thank you, okay, seeing no objections,
the commission concurs, thank you.
Item 10, please.
Yes, that brings us to item 10,
which is the North Central Coast District Directors report.
This month we are reporting two waivers,
one immaterial amendment and one extension.
We did receive one objection for one of the waivers,
which is for a project in the city of San Francisco
to install a replacement water transmission pipeline
near Lake Merced.
The commenter suggests that the project would have
an adverse effect on coastal resources
for which a CDP would be more appropriate.
However, the project is about one mile inland
of the shoreline and the water line in question
would be subsurface under city streets
where we don't expect any significant
coastal resource impacts, including as the city
has included a series of construction BMPs
that can sufficiently contain any impacts
that do not occur to the roadway area.
So we respectfully disagree with the commenter
and continue to recommend the waiver for this project.
Past that, we are not aware of any objections
or controversy regarding the other matters
in the DD's report.
And so the question is whether three or more commissioners
object to the items in the report,
and if not, then the commission will concur.
Great, thank you.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
Yes, we have one person who wishes to speak.
Eileen Bochen.
Eileen, you should be able to unmute your phone now.
Eileen Bochen with SPEAK.
Following up on my written submission dated June 5,
opposing the executive director's de minimis waiver
for the SFPUC water transmission pipeline,
file 2-26-0131-W.
The SFPUC proposal is part of a major infrastructure
project, which will cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, and which would likely
have an adverse effect on the coastal resources. Therefore, the Minimus waiver is inappropriate
for coastal at public resources code section 306 to 4.7. Sunset Parkside Education and
Action Committee is strongly urging the Coastal Commission to require a coastal development
appropriate for this proposed project.
As stated previously, SF Planning Department
has publicly stated that it believes
Coastal Commission requirements are bureaucratic
and a waste of time.
SF Public Utilities Commission staff
have publicly stated that it would take 10 to 20 years
to obtain a coastal development permit
for an ocean water pumping station
for an independent emergency firefighting water system.
This is a blatant misrepresentation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'll also just note that we have two people from SF Water
on Zoom and available for questions as well.
There are no other speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
I'll look to our staff to see if they'd like to respond or...
Yes, thank you.
And just briefly, we continue to recommend the waiver
for this project.
It won't result in any significant impacts.
And the commenter appears to be talking about a different project in this case.
Thanks.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Return to my colleagues, comments, questions, or looking for any objections.
Okay.
Seeing none.
The commission concurs.
Thank you.
We'll continue, please.
Yes.
That brings us to the Central Coast District Director's Report.
And this month we are reporting one waiver and one immaterial amendment.
We did receive an objection to the immaterial amendment, which is a state parks project
that provides for replacing a series of public access trails, boardwalks and stairs that
were damaged in the 2023 winter storms at Asilomar State Beach and Pacific Grove.
The comments suggest that the project is not LCP consistent in terms of coastal hazards
and archaeological resources, and suggest that it be conditioned for debris removal.
With respect to coastal hazards, the project is an appropriate hazard's response, including
in order to retain access to and along the coast in this area.
The project also includes dune restoration for the prior trail locations and appropriate
construction BMPs.
Regarding archaeological resources, state parks archaeologists identified sensitive
cultural sites in the area and identified measures to redirect access away from those
sites.
state parks also consulted with local tribes and incorporated their guidance
on avoiding any impacts, so we think that issue is adequately covered. As to the
commenters request that the project be expanded to require the removal of
derelict infrastructure and debris, we want to note a few things. The first is
that that type of activity is beyond the scope of the project, including that it's
beyond the scope of the funding provided for the project by FEMA. It is also not
clear to what specific infrastructure and debris the commenter refers and where it may or may not
be located in relation to the project. So while staff agrees that such materials if present are
likely better removed and while staff notes that state parks shares a commitment for doing so when
it is feasible if such materials are present it is not within this project and any such requirement
would derail the important public access improvements inherent in the project. And finally the commenter
asks that the Commission find the project consistent with the LCP in addition to the
Coastal Act.
On this point, staff would note that the project spans Coastal, Commission, and City jurisdictions
where both are the standard of review, each for different components of the project.
Staff inadvertently limited its consistency findings to the Coastal Act in the amendment
notice but notes that the project is also LCP consistent and thus modifies the staff
recommendation to include LCP consistency as well.
All told, we continue to believe that this is a positive project that is consistent with
both the Coastal Act and the LCP, and we continue to recommend the Immaterial Amendment.
Past that, we are not aware of any objections or controversy regarding the other matter
in the DD's report, and so the question is whether three or more commissioners object
to the items in the report, and if not, the commission will concur.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
no speakers. All right great two three or more commissioners object to any item in
the deputy director's report. Seeing no objection the commission concurs and we
will continue on to item 14a please. Thank you yes that takes us on to item
14a and Bri Gwingana who is our newest planner in the Central Coast district
office will be giving our staff presentation and we do have a powerpoint.
Thank you so much Sarah. We'll just wait for the PowerPoint to come up. Is it up
in the border? Give us a moment. Okay, no worries. Sorry we missed that. I need to
get the presentation over really quickly. Give me a moment. Another 30 seconds or
so. Sorry about that. Perfect, thank you. No worries. Good morning commissioners.
Item 14A is an appeal of a San Luis Obispo County CDP approval for a new
single-family residence located on a vacant parcel in the unincorporated
community of Los Osos and San Luis Obisépokante.
Los Osos is located south of the city of Morro Bay
and north of Abola Beach, and is a primarily
residential community of around 15,000 people.
Slide one shows Los Osos where to buds Morro Bay
with a project location at the bottom right of the image.
Next slide, please.
Slide two shows the county approved project,
which is an approximately 2,000 square foot
single story home, including attached garage,
and subject system on a vacant residential lot.
Next slide please.
The appellant contends that the county's approval
raises LCP consistency questions related to water supply
to serve the development,
arguing that there's not sufficient water
and thus that the project should be denied.
Staff respectfully disagrees.
The commission has spent considerable time
over the past few years evaluating Los Osos'
water supply issues, including groundwater health
and any coastal resource concerns associated with withdrawals.
staff has concluded that the current best available science
demonstrates that the Los Osos groundwater basin
is not in overdraft.
The withdrawals are not resulting
in any significant coastal resource harm
and that there's sufficient water
to serve new water using development.
Specifically, the Los Osos Basin Management Committee,
the entity created to comprehensively manage
and monitor water resources to stop overdraft
and seawater intrusion,
has shown that the community is using less water
than the basin's calculated sustainable or safe yield.
This is defined as the amount of water
that can be used without advancing any seawater intrusion
and meeting all applicable drinking water standards.
And based on this information,
the commission in 2024 approved updates to the LCP
reflecting that the community's water supply
is healthy enough to support a modest amount
of new development,
subject to the strict monitoring of the basin going forward
to ensure that it remains in a sustainable yield state.
The commission has also affirmed the finding
that there is an adequate water supply
to serve new development in Los Osos in nine recent appeal actions since that time, based
on contention nearly identical to the appeal from the same appellant.
Thus, the Commission has determined that there is an adequate and sustainable water supply
for Los Osos to serve new development, as defined and required by the LCP, and applies
that understanding to this case as well.
Next slide, please.
Before concluding, I'd note that we distributed an addendum on Wednesday, responding to comments
received from the appellant and others on the staff report.
The addendum provides some clarifications in response to the comments, but the comments
received like the appeal are nearly identical to the past comments from the balance and
others.
The addendum does not change staff's conclusion, which remains that the Commission should determine
that the appeal contentions do not raise a substantial LCP conformance issue, and that
the Commission should decline to take jurisdiction over the CDP application for this project.
The motion and resolution to implement staff's recommendation are found on page 4 of the
staff report.
This concludes staff presentation.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes on this item?
Seeing no ex partes, we will open the public hearing.
And Chris, I will turn it over to you.
Yes, we have four speakers sign up to speak on this item.
We have Kurt Mammon, Chuck Sesana, Patrick McGimney,
and Cheryl Gardner.
Is this an appeal?
Okay we'll have the appellant first, which is Patrick McGibney. Patrick give us a moment as
you're moving in as a panelist and Patrick you should be able to unmute. Yes can you hear me?
Hi we can hear you. Hi this is Lindy Dowd in for Patrick McGibney um he has a medical
issue he's dealing with. Ma'am are you representing the appellant? Yes I am. Okay please proceed.
Okay, thank you. As with our other recent appeals, this is not about one residential
home's new water use. It is the cumulative effect of all the new development now being approved by
the county and this commission in spite of the BMC's recommendation to have zero percent growth,
including several large residential homes and the 10 full-size manufactured homes that are now going
in at Morro Shores. Just a few years ago your staff sent a forceful letter to the San Luis
Obispo County Director of Planning and Building threatening legal action if the county didn't
stop issuing CVPs for new water using development over the Los Osos water basin, which this
commission considered to be in overdraft with continued seawater intrusion. No metric benchmarks
have since been reached to refute that correct assessment though the county did submit metric
data that neither the state department of water resources the Los Osos basin plan nor the court's
stipulated judgment except as legitimate benchmarks of sustainability. The sustainable yield is a
calculated estimate only not a measured benchmark. Your staff claims to be relying on the best
science available, the transient model, but there is nothing in the data produced by it that even
hints at a sustainable basin. On the contrary, it concludes that pumping at the current average
rate of 1830 acre feet a year with the current well placements or spatial distribution is causing
seawater to intrude further into the basin and the primary cause of seawater intrusion is a basin
overdraft. The transient model says this isn't sustainable. The new sustainable
yield of 2,000 acre-feet year agreed upon for 2026 by the BMC has a major
caveat. It relies on a system of optimized pumping which could take up to
five years to implement and will entail moving wells further east at a cost of
millions of dollars. Please also consider that the basin yield metric must be
derived by using a 20 percent uncertainty buffer. To achieve that with a sustainable yield of
2000 acre feet year, the extraction rate must be 1600 acre feet year or less and that's not going
to happen. 40 percent of our basin is unmetered and estimated. A big reason why it's been an
overdraft for over 40 years and continues to be so. When staff respectfully disagrees that the
basin is in overdraft, it is disagreeing with the California State Department of Water Resources
which states on every monitoring report that this basin is in critical overdraft. There is
no data to show otherwise. Any additional intensification of use will only worsen its
condition. For this reason we ask that you take this and all future appeals under jurisdiction
until actual data or as you watch the topic conclusive evidence shows the Los Osos water
basin to be sustainable. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you. Next we have the applicant, Kurt Mabin. Kurt, I see that you're in as a panelist
already. You should be able to unmute. Unmute. Sorry, I was having trouble unmuting.
Okay go ahead we can hear you. Great, greetings staff and Commissioner Harmon. My name is Kurt
Mammon, resident of Los Osos, representing myself and my wife Renee Mammon as the
applicants on this issue. We are long time residents of the central coast and Los Osos
residents this year marking my 49th year in the area and our 26th year as Los Osos residents.
We brought the property under consideration today along with the adjoining separate house 20 years
ago with the hope of selling the existing house and building a new home on the vacant lot to raise
our children. The youngest has just graduated from San Francisco State University but we are still
in the existing home and still working on building that hope for new home. We bought the property
because it was outside the sewer prohibition zone and was considered buildable if you obtain
a habitat conservation plan and an incidental take permit for the Moro shoulder band snail.
We immediately spent several thousand dollars installing a water meter, which we've been
dutifully paying for monthly for nearly 20 years. That adds up to over six thousand dollars.
Next, with the help of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, countless research and writing hours,
over 100, I would estimate, and thousands of dollars of biological and archaeological reports.
We successfully filed an HTP and obtained a 10-year ITP that happens to be expiring this year.
Thankfully, we should be able to extend it. In 2014, we were told that even though we had an
existing water meter that was on, that we needed a Title 19 retrofit certificate to be able to
build to offset the water demand for a new home. We purchased a 900 gallon retrofit certificate
for eighteen thousand dollars. At the cost of several thousand dollars we designed a home with
an ADU only to be told by the county that they could not support an ADU due to the water issues
in Los Osos. So at the cost of several more thousand dollars we designed a smaller home
without an ADU applied for a MUP slash CDP in the fall of 2021. So here we are today,
20 years after purchasing the property, dutifully following federal, state, and county regulations,
nearly five years after paying over $16,000 for this MUP CDP permit under consideration today,
and after saving 950 gallons a day for Los Osos since 2014. We respectfully ask you today to
to support staff's recommendation to find no substantial issue on this appeal and uphold
the county's decision to approve our decades-long effort to build a simple single-family residence
on an infill lot in Los Osos.
While we have lost the opportunity to raise our children in this home, being able to build
a new home on this property is still important to our future and would mean the world to
us.
Thank you, Commissioners and Chair Harmon, for your consideration of our project today,
And thank you for the Commission's positive impacts for the state and people of California
over the years.
I was notified that our other two speakers were not qualified to speak on this item,
so there are no other speakers on this item.
Okay, thank you very much.
With that, I will close the public hearing and return to our staff to see if there's
a response.
Thank you.
Yes, I'll just quickly note that we continue to believe that the staff report and addendum
addresses the appellant's concerns regarding the adequacy
of the community's water to serve this project.
And I'll also note that staff in this commission
have spent considerable time and effort
understanding and evaluating these complex water issues,
including in both the approval
of the Los Osos Community Plan two years ago
and what is now actually nine hearing items since then,
where essentially all of these same issues
have been discussed and debated.
So none of this is new and we'll leave it there for now.
And if you have any more specific questions
Regarding water we're available to go into more detail as is the county's director of groundwater sustainability. Thanks. Great
Thank you, Miss McGregor. All right. I'll return to the Commission comments questions emotion emotion
Sure, that's your heart. I move the Commission determine that appeal number a-3-slo-2 six-zero zero one two
Raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under section three zero six six zero three
And I recommend a yes vote. I'll second that and just note that I appreciate that this that the work that has been done with
By the county and the Commission staff to really examine this issue
it's very important with the groundwater availability and I
am familiar
I've heard we've heard this before a lot and
There's I take each one seriously, but I want to support the staff on this one
Great. Thank you. That's a motion by Vice Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner not
off. Any objections to unanimous consent? Seeing none, no substantial issue has
been found. Thank you. Okay item 15A please. Yes, that brings us to item 15A
which is a CDP application the Bayside Landing Mixed Use Project in Morro Bay
and we do have a PowerPoint. Great, thank you. Agenda item 15A is the Bayside
Landing mixed use project. This is an application to redevelop an existing two-story office building
to demolish three vacation rental units and to construct a new two-story building in its place
and to construct a new commercial building just south of that. The converted and new
buildings will accommodate a mix of commercial uses including a takeout restaurant and a 10-unit
hotel. The proposed development is shown in the rendering here on slide one with the converted
buildings shown to the left in dark brown and the new buildings shown to the right of that.
As you can see here the project also includes a series of public access improvements including
a new 10-foot wide lateral segment of the Harbor Walk public access walkway on the bay side of
the project, public restrooms, and a new publicly accessible floating dock and a public pocket park
with the park shown to the far right here where the Harbor Walk curves to meet the Embarcadero.
Next slide please. Slide two shows you the southern Morro Bay area with the iconic Morro
Rock at the Bay entrance noted. The project site is located at the southern end of the prime
visitor serving Embarcadero area of the city that fronts directly on Morro Bay itself. Next slide
please. In slide three zooms in on the site which is inside of the red polygon here on the slide.
The existing site includes an office building, three vacation rental units,
and the southernmost end of the site is currently vacant. Next slide please.
Slide four shows existing conditions with the existing two-story office building in the image
to the left and the vacation rental units and vacantly site shown in the images to the right
all with the Embarcadero in the foreground. Note that there is currently no public access on the
seaward side of the buildings. Next slide please. Slide five shows a simulation of the proposed
project as seen from the Embarcadero side. Again, the existing office building would
be converted into ground floor commercial spaces with a takeout restaurant with three
new hotel units and a lobby on the second floor shown on the right in this image. To
the left of that is the new two-story structure containing seven new hotel units for a total
of ten standard operating units, where 15% of the rooms would be capped at lower cost
and to the left of that is the new one-story commercial building. The
project will also include a 10-foot wide lateral accessway along the entire bay
frontage of the site which would be part of the Morrow Bay Harbor Walk and would
connect to the existing upcoast Harbor Walk, thus filling a gap in this stretch
of the California Coastal Trail. The project will provide other public
access amenities including three public restrooms, a new public park which will
serve as the southernmost end of this primary visitor-serving stretch along the city's waterfront,
a publicly accessible floating dock with three finger slips, and a kayak rental shack where the
applicant has proposed to implement a kayak program aimed at providing free kayak tours to
lower income and underserved youth and their families, representing a unique public access
opportunity for community members in the San Luis Obispo County. The proposed lower cost rooms in
In conjunction with these other public access benefits is consistent with the Commission's
overarching goals and intent in administering Coastal Act and LCP public access and recreation
provisions and will constitute a significant increase in public access at this site.
Before concluding, I would note that we received correspondence raising a few objections to
certain aspects of the project that I will address for the record now.
First, the commenter suggests eliminating the elevator and second floor raised walkway
due to potential impacts on public views.
The lobby for the hotel is proposed to be located
on the second floor,
thus the elevator is necessary to provide ADA access
to the lobby and to meet building code requirements.
And the second floor raised walkway is necessary
to connect the elevator shaft to the lobby.
Furthermore, the proposed project meets the LCP's height,
bulk and scale requirements,
and the project incorporates an articulated roof line
with varying building heights and architectural variety.
Thus the project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to public views.
Second, the commenter raises concerns regarding the required parking associated with the proposed uses.
The Commission has historically calculated parking requirements for sites located along the Embarcadero in Morro Bay
by determining the parking requirements and provisions related to the site's legal historical uses versus the proposed uses.
Here, the existing parking demand for the site was allowed to be accounted for on-street
and in public lots, and that demand is for 14 parking spaces, whereas the proposed project
would require 15 spaces.
Thus, the proposed project is short by one parking space, but the city's approval requires
the payment of a $15,000 parking in Luffy as mitigation for the difference of one parking
space and continues the allowed use of on-street parking and in public lots as before.
As to the commenter's request that an ADA parking space be provided on site, the parking
lot nearby and across the street has an ADA spot and it is consistent with past commission
practice to rely on such lots in that way on the Embarcadero, including to avoid requiring
parking on waterfronting sites where higher priority uses can make use of that space,
like for public access.
I would also note that the City is currently in the process of updating their Waterfront
Master Plan, which is intended to address circulation and parking along the Embarcadero,
including for ADA purposes, and the CDP is also conditioned for the applicant to prepare
a Transportation Demand Management Plan, which is required to detail programs or incentives
for employees and hotel guests to use alternative transportation.
Thus, the proposed project won't result in significant adverse impacts on parking in
the surrounding area.
And finally, the commenter suggests that the existing cottages should be maintained on
site due to their cultural significance.
Not only were the cottages not found to be historical for the purposes of CEQA, but the
units are quite deteriorated and would not be feasible to restore.
However, the applicant is proposing to incorporate salvaged materials from these buildings into
the retail building proposed to be located at the southern end of the project site, and
the project will incorporate shiplap siting, stained glass, and colorful accents on the
trim and doors to emulate the colorful palette and maritime designs currently found on the
existing units. Thus, staff does not believe that the alternatives suggested by the commenter
would result in a superior project. I also want to note that there was an inadvertent error in the
staff report that states that the project would provide three public restrooms. However, the
project will provide two public restrooms, one on each side of the project site, so we are changing
the recommendation to correct that error. Next slide please. In short we consider this to be a
good visitor serving enhancement in addition to the Morro Bay Embarcadero area. We worked closely
with the applicant on the parameters of the project and the applicant is in agreement with
the staff recommendation. We recommend that the commission approve the conditioned coastal permit
and the motion is on page four. That concludes staff's presentation. Great thank you very much.
are there any expertise okay seeing none i will turn it over to chris thank you we have two
speakers on this item paul gillen who is here in person and then chris munson from morrow bay
on zoom paul gillen good morning commissioners thank you for the opportunity to speak
in support of my project i'm the applicant we work very hard with the staff to
meet all the conditions and provide what we think is a very professional, enhanced project.
We've also addressed the low cost accommodation issue as best we could.
This is only a 10 unit development and we've agreed on a 15% of the rooms be provided for
low cost accommodation.
However, the conditions for low-cost accommodations don't really seem to be able to address who
takes these low-cost accommodations.
There's no way of verifying or quantifying how people would qualify, and the way rooms
are advertised, it would be very difficult to see if low-cost or low-income applicants
can actually stay in these rooms.
So in discussion with the staff, we came up with another alternative.
We believe we should contribute to low-cost facilities and we've provided some water sports
activities with our special conditions that would allow for unserved or low-income people
to enjoy water sports from our facility, 104 groups of 100 per year and that be a direct
contribution for low cost and underserved people to enjoy the water sports in Morro Bay.
So I hope you can improve my project. Thank you.
Next, Chris Munson.
Thank you. I'm Chris Millinson, I'm the harbor director for Morpe. We really support this
project and the coastal staff for their hard work and getting this together. It brings
a lot of public benefit and if you've ever walked down Morro Bay's Embarcadero, as you
get farther down the Embarcadero it kind of just peters out and dies and this will actually
to provide a good connection to the areas farther down
the Embarcadero, which leads to the Tylons Park
and the boat ramp.
I mean, just kind of mimicking or echoing the developers
concerns on the low cast, the affordable element to this.
That does, that condition does pose a challenge
for a lot of the developments on the Embarcadero.
to be able to make up for that.
A lot of times it requires more intensive use
and in practice, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's just first come, first serve.
And there is, it's actually illegal to verify
if somebody is in fact of a lower income rate.
So I had noticed,
Coastal Commission had posted a list of all of the,
all of the establishments that have this requirement
statewide, there's 10 listed and three of them
are in Morro Bay.
So 30% of all of the affordable accommodations
in statewide are in Morro Bay.
And I completely empathize with Coastal staff.
They're trying to meet the requirements of California law.
It just seems like in practice,
there's a better way to do that.
But overall, we're very supportive of this project,
very supportive of the staff report.
And yeah, we're excited to see it get done.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No other speakers.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
I'll look at Ms. McGregor.
If there's anything you'd like to add
before we turn to the commission.
Yes, just briefly, we agree with the points
that were made by both the applicant and Mr. Munson
regarding providing the low cost rooms
to underserved communities.
The CDP is conditioned to require the applicant
to advertise these rooms to underserved communities.
And again, we agree that this is a difficult nut
for us to crack and we haven't quite gotten there,
but we're hoping with that special condition
we can get a little bit closer.
Thanks.
Great, thank you very much.
All right, I'll return to the commission.
We'll start with Commissioner Pressiato.
So a couple of things.
I think one of the opportunities we have in these new developments is, in fact, the ADA
opportunity, and I am very pleased that we agreed to keep the elevator and that the elevator
contributes to those of us who may need that kind of accommodation to be able to participate.
I'm interested in understanding better why not have the ADA parking space in the immediate
facility?
Just wondering how far away is the ADA.
Particularly if you're checking into hotel accommodations and you have different kinds
of needs as an ADA hotel guest, you may have different requirements, so, you know, having
to go even further for a parking facility is not always so easy. And if you consider
are also some of our seniors, even if their mobile distances become issues. And so I just
interested in how that waiver became available. On the other hand, this project seems to be
an excellent new addition to the area. And it seems to be like a new improvement. And
I'm just fascinated by the discussion of keeping recycled materials from the existing...
It's just a fascinating way of meeting, I guess, the goals of the Coastal Act, that
that kind of recycling has to take place.
I think the facility looks like an excellent addition to that area, but if you could comment
back on the parking situation, and again, I think the project and the elements of the
project seem to be reasonable. I'm just interested in understanding that, and I apologize for
my unique sensibility to it. I'll have you note that I just parked right outside because
there was a parking space right there, and it facilitated my access to this instead of
but sometimes when I have to go into a very large hotel
and meander through all kinds of places
to get to facilities,
I'm just interested in the response.
Yes, thank you for those comments.
So there is an ADA parking spot that is located
in the parking lot just south
and across the street of the project site.
I believe it's about 75 feet away.
And then as I mentioned in the presentation,
the city is currently in the process
of updating their waterfront master plan.
And as part of that project,
they're sort of rethinking parking and circulation
in the Embarcadero area as a whole.
And as part of that process,
they're considering adding ADA parking spaces
along the Embarcadero.
So that would help serve some of these in this hotel project
along with some of the other uses
currently located on the Embarcadero.
When I first joined the commission, I was encouraged to look up the golden bear pass
that is a process that is used for individuals to seek access to state parks.
And that seems to be a voluntary kind of activity versus, you know, invading somebody's privacy
or something like that.
So I'm just wondering the opportunity to encourage those who may have golden passes, golden bear
passes as a way of advertising that the facility is available.
I don't know if everyone is familiar with the golden bear pass, but there's a website
that you can visit, and that may be a way for the hotel and other facilities to suggest.
If you have one of these, we can accommodate you in our low-cost opportunity.
Thank you very much.
I yield back to the chair.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
I just want to say I'm very supportive of this project.
Happy to make a motion when it comes.
Our last visit to Morro Bay, we did the boulevard there and the Embarcadero.
The access of the water side walkways was amazing.
it was just very welcoming to visitors.
And I thought it was very supportive of the businesses
there, just made it feel just alive.
And so I just want to say I'm really
grateful that we're moving a project forward that's
going to extend that.
And I think it's going to be good for the businesses here.
And so I'm really happy about that.
I don't want to belabor too much the issues
around low cost accommodations and our quandary
around that, and I'm sure we're going
to have more discussions about that and hoping
that we can do that with staff moving forward.
But I think that this is as good as we're
going to get in this arena.
And I just want to thank Ms. McGregor for doing
a great job today.
Thanks for killing it.
And that's it.
So that's all I got.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
So I just want to address the low-cost overnight
accommodation issue.
I want to appreciate you for providing that
and for providing the additional recreational facilities.
The only thing I would note that, yes, Morro Bay
does have several low-cost accommodations that
are on our list that are currently available.
But the difference is that in Morro Bay,
It's generally one hotel room per, like for example,
Harbor Walk Inn, one hotel room, Salty Sister,
one hotel unit, whereas the other ones that are listed
have, for example, in Big Sur, 63 campsites,
15 tent cabins, Santa Monica, 58 to 72 standard
hotel rooms, Newport Beach, 46 cottages.
So you see, even though Morro Bay has several listed,
they tend to be, because of course it's such a,
it's a small community and a wonderful community.
I agree with Commissioner Wilson, it was incredible to visit.
So I think for that reason, it's really
very important to include the low cost accommodation.
And I just wanted to express my gratitude for that.
And I'd also like to say there are so many low cost
accommodations on the list of under construction
are not built yet.
And I really hope that we see these low-cost accommodations
accelerated so that they're available to the public.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lee.
Thank you, I'd just like to echo my colleagues' support
for the project and emphasize how important it is
to follow through on the promise to proactively
advertise the low-cost unit among the communities
that might best use it.
I agree, Santa Monica might have many, many more units,
but also the hotels are enormous there.
And so to the extent that we're right sizing these projects
and making them appropriate for what exists in Morro Bay,
it would make sense that fewer of the units
are available for that.
But to the extent that you're proactively advertising
to the people who might best use them,
it will help fulfill the mission
of what we were trying to do.
And at the same time, I'm incredibly supportive
because if you're moving from three units to 10,
and that just increases the amount of access
that everybody has to be able to stay there.
We should underscore the public access infrastructure
in the area too, the completion of the trail,
the pocket park, the public restrooms.
It's quite a cute and charming design
for the project as well,
so very much an appropriate extension
for an existing commercial district
that allows people to access this area.
And then finally, really commending the kayaking program
as a community benefit to allow all people,
but especially children, to experience something
that they may not otherwise be able to experience.
I remember the first time I was on a school trip
and went out on a kayak in Monterey
and a sea otter came up to me.
And it's quite a life-changing event for a young child
to experience that when no one else
was gonna take me out on the water.
So I wanted to commend that program
and hope that it's very successful
again that you are actively seeking for people to use the unit 1.5 units and and the kayaking
program. Thank you. Thank you very briefly. I'll just join with my my colleagues and I love this
project and agree Commissioner Wilson's exactly right. It is so welcoming along that stretch and
And this will be a very fantastic addition.
And I also agree, Commissioner Wilson,
that I don't want to belabor the point around the low cost
visitor serving accommodations.
But I do have to take the opportunity
to express my continued frustration
with the challenge that was identified by the commenters.
This has been something that I've been struggling with.
I know we've all been struggling with for years.
And I would love for the opportunity,
Ideally in the next six months while I still sit here to really have a conversation about
how we thread the needle.
Advertising is so important.
But I don't think that changes the fundamental calculus that there is no legal way to control
who utilizes these rooms.
And I think we've all been in the position where you just go online and you click the
cheapest option.
And so I'm not sure that we are actually serving folks in the way that we intend to.
So more conversation definitely necessary around that issue.
But here today this is very exciting and I will very proudly be voting yes on the motion
that I will turn to Commissioner Wilson for.
Thank you.
And besides kayaking, the paddle boarding in Morro Bay is astounding.
I just want to say, I've never seen more bat rays in my life.
All right.
I move that the commission approve coastal development permit number 3-25-0777 pursuant
to the staff recommendation.
I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Kelly.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Okay, the motion carries.
Congratulations and thank you very much.
To my colleagues, we're just going to power through, so please keep an eye on quorum issues
if you need to step out, that's okay.
All right, wonderful.
So I will turn it back to our staff
and I believe that brings us to item 16, Mr. Hudson.
Thank you and item 16 is the deputy director's report
for the South Central Coast District
which includes one permit waiver,
one immaterial permit amendment,
one permit extension and one concurrence determination.
In regard to the certification review being reported today,
It is for an LCP amendment by Santa Barbara County
to update its housing ordinance
to incorporate streamlined permit processing
for qualifying housing projects
and conformance with the new state housing law.
The county's amendment was approved by the commission
at its March meeting,
and the executive director has determined
that the local government's subsequent action
accepting all of the commission suggested modifications
pursuant to a resolution is legally adequate
And that this amendment will become certified upon being
reported to the commission today.
This matter is being reported pursuant to our regulations
and does not itself require any additional action or concurrence
by the commission.
Staff is not aware of any opposition to any
of the items being reported.
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.
I am available for questions.
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
No speakers.
Great, OK.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Thank you.
Item 17A, please.
All right, and item 17A will be presented by Eric Stevens,
the commission, Southern California Transportation
Access and Mobility Program Manager.
We do have a PowerPoint for this.
If we could pull that up, please.
and Eric, please take it away.
I'll get started.
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
Item 17A is an appeal of a CDP approved
by the City of Malibu for a temporary limited term
15 to 18 month in duration pilot program
involving temporary traffic safety improvements
along a portion of Pacific Coast
or PCH Highway in Malibu.
The applicant is the City of Malibu Public Works Department
and the appellant is Dr. Thomas G. Diamontidis.
Next slide, please.
As can be seen on this slide,
the project is located along a 1.2 mile segment of PCH
between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road.
Next slide, please.
This stretch of PCH is a busy five-lane highway
with no formal improvements for pedestrians or cyclists,
marked by very high traffic speeds
and frequent excessive speeding.
PCH throughout the area has experienced a high number of fatalities and serious injuries
due to vehicle collisions, including some involving pedestrians.
A particular concern is that there are no crosswalks along this segment of highway for
members of the public parking on the inland side of the road to safely access the beach.
Here we are looking at PCH at the entrance to El Matador State Beach, one of the locations
of the proposed crosswalks.
Next slide please.
The project is essentially a pilot project to install two temporary roundabouts on PCH.
These roundabouts are intended to reduce vehicular speeds, improve predictability of traffic
movements, and enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety.
The project was developed by the city in coordination with Caltrans and is entirely within the
existing PCH right away.
Currently, PCH here is four lanes with a middle turn lane.
The project would install roundabouts
that reduce traffic to one lane in each direction
within the 1.2 mile project reach
and a center turn lane for the majority of the project.
Here we can see a visual of the proposed roundabout
at El Matador.
This pilot project allows the city and Caltrans
to collect operational and safety data
and community feedback
before considering any similar permanent improvements
these are other locations in the PCH corridor. Importantly the project is
temporary and adaptive in nature. Any permanent implementation will require
future discretionary approvals and additional coastal permitting. Next slide
please. The second location for the proposed improvements is at Encino
Canyon Road and here we see a current photo of the highway and the proposed
roundabout configuration. Next slide please. As part of installing these
roundabout. The pilot project also includes a number of complete streets
and traffic calming measures including a reduction from two lanes in each
direction with a center turn lane into one lane in each direction and a center
turn lane. Buffered class 2 bike lanes, new striping signage and crosswalks,
flashing beacons, safety lighting, and temporary traffic channelization features.
Here we can see the proposed road layout with one traffic lane in each direction,
in a two-way center turn lane and free public parking
on either side of the highway.
Posted seed limits will be reduced along PCH
as drivers near the lane reduction areas
and reduce furthers as drivers approach each roundabout.
Next slide, please.
The appellant asserts that the project,
in particular the proposed roundabouts,
would reduce roadway capacity and may worsen congestion,
could impair wildfire evacuation and emergency response,
was approved without sufficient traffic
evacuation analysis, could create unsafe conditions for motorist and bicyclist and adjacent private
driveways, and may adversely affect coastal access and recreation. The city concluded that
physical roadway design changes are necessary to address speeding and collision concerns on PCH,
that other alternatives were infeasible within the existing right-of-way constraints,
and that existing traffic volumes can continue to operate adequately under the proposed lane
configuration. With respect to wildfire evacuation and emergency response, the
city concluded that emergency vehicles would be able to rapidly drive over the
roundabouts and that the installations can be rapidly modified or removed
during emergencies. Staff therefore concurs with the city's findings that
the project is not expected to result in any changes that would significantly
impair roadway capacity, emergency access, or evacuation operations. The
The Coastal Act requires maximizing access opportunities for all users, not solely motorists,
and the project is intended to improve safety and usability for a broader range of coastal
visitors.
The project does not eliminate shoreline access way, remove beach access points, close recreational
facilities, nor permanently reduce coastal parking supply.
Instead, the project enhances multimodal coastal access by improving conditions for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
Thus staff believe the approved project would result in a net benefit to public access and recreation. Next slide, please
staff published an addendum for this item to note that
following the publication of the staff report the Commission received a letter in support of the staff recommendation from the city of Malibu the applicant and
Five letters in opposition to the staff recommendation from members of the public including one from the appellant
The letters in opposition do not raise any new issues that have not already been fully addressed in the Commission staff report
Addendum also includes a minor correction in conclusion
The project is a temporary pilot project limited in scope and the local record contains substantial factual and legal support for the city's findings
Accordingly staff recommends that the Commission determine that appeal number a for mal
106-0011, raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal
was filed.
The motion to implement this recommendation is found on page seven of the staff report.
Staff is available for questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Stevens.
Okay.
Are there any ex partes?
All right.
Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing.
Chris, I'll go to you.
Yes, we'll start with the appellant.
We have Christina Krop on Zoom, the appellant's representative.
of that. Thank you. Good
morning, commissioners. I was
advised to have two separate
presentations, one that was
three minutes long and one
that was 10 minutes long. Based
on the number of speakers that
gave up their time to me, and
I'm not sure what I'm going to
be provided. Turn to our staff.
We don't typically allow people
In this case, the appellant requested ahead of time
if she could have 10 minutes
and we said we would direct that question to the chair.
Perfect, yes.
I do recall we had that conversation.
10 minutes is fine, thank you.
Shall I begin?
Ah, ready, I'll wait.
All right, we're ready.
Okay.
Good morning, commissioners.
I am Christina Krop.
I represent the neighborhood group
that has appealed the Malibu PCH project in front of you.
The main point of our appeal commissioners is that this project, as approved, is claimed
to enhance safety and public access, yet the record doesn't have any actual evidence to
substantiate this claim.
All we are asking of you today is to provide a de novo hearing for you to independently
review the evidence, and in our opinion, the lack thereof.
We are confident that you will find that there is no substantial evidence in support of hazards
and public access.
The Coastal Act and Malibu Local Coastal Program both require that development minimize risks
from hazards, including specifically fire hazards to protect public access and coastal
resources.
It also requires clear and substantial evidence to substantiate these findings.
In practice this means that if you say the project minimizes life and property risks
from fires and other hazards, you have evidence in support of these statements.
To say that the project minimizes life and property risks from fires and other hazards,
we must have analyses, showing that the project in fact does this.
Commissioners this is not a concern over loss of private views in Malibu.
these are real hazards and safety concern.
In 2018, the City of Paradise also reduced lanes from two to one despite warnings not
to do so.
As we all know, people got stuck on those roads and the city burned down.
The city's approval of the CDP was issued without adequate evidence to support the lack
of project related hazards impact.
There's nothing in this record that has Malibu-specific transportation modeling, no numbers of cars
at different times, how those transportation numbers will be impacted, no evacuation simulations,
no analysis of how lane reductions, roundabouts, and access changes will affect transportation
patterns, safety, both day in and day out during an evacuation, during a disaster.
and transportation issues are particularly acute along PCH and Malibu.
PCH is the primary evacuation corridor for all of western Malibu and the surrounding
areas.
The project proposes reducing lanes for more than a mile and installing roundabouts.
The Encinal Canyon Roundabout will directly interface with two private driveways.
This is against U.S. Federal Highway and Administration guidelines.
The roundabouts will require vehicles and bicycles to merge into one lane, undivided.
This is also against the U.S. Federal Highway Administration guidelines.
Reducing capacity to a single lane and building roundabouts along critical evacuation routes
creates a bottleneck that could trap residents and visitors during a wildfire or other emergency.
To claim otherwise?
We need traffic studies.
We need transportation analyses.
We don't have that here.
To the contrary, we have a city manager,
and I included this in our appeal documents,
telling Caltrans on paper in an email
that reducing lanes from two to one,
and I quote, would be a disaster
with current traffic volumes on PCH.
Yet this is what we're doing.
to claim anticipated benefits based on hopes
and not evidence is not what the Coastal Act requires.
The lack of impact on public access,
one of the Coastal Act's central aims
is also not substantiated.
Public access isn't just about parking.
It involves safe, reliable access for all users,
drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and beachgoers,
Reducing lanes and introducing roundabouts
is likely to decrease availability,
increase congestion and impair the public's ability
to reach coastal areas safely.
Again, the assertion that these changes simply will
improve public access has to be substantiated and it isn't.
The factual record presented
to the Coastal Commission is troubling.
This project was presented by the city as something that was recommended by a 2015 safety study. Yet, this study does not analyze or recommend the specific roundabout on Encinal Canyon, nor the lane reductions proposed and approved here. The record misrepresents the basis for its approval.
City staff and Caltrans have provided incomplete
and inconsistent explanations,
some statements contradicted by the established guidance.
It calls into question whether this decision was informed
by substantial evidence.
And we urge you to review that evidence
because we feel that it was not.
The record shows that at the City Council meeting,
the mayor asked the city attorney
whether the references in the proposed resolution
the city with regard to hazards and safety were necessary. He recognized it could not be
substantiated. He asked whether do we have to make these hazards and safety findings?
The city attorney said no. The mayor then asked that all the references to safety and hazards be
removed and they actually were. Everyone in Malibu, including the residents and the
appealance want a safer PCH. But not putting in the work to make sure that
these safety improvements will actually make PCH safer as is required to
substantiate the COSALAC findings is inexcusable. We all know that
transportation and hazard analyses the kind we're asking for the kind that's
required to substantiate these findings, they can be done. Transportation modeling can be done.
Analysis of vehicle pedestrian and bicycle traffic during different times of the year,
evacuation modeling. All of this is available with the guidance and appropriate review by
transportation engineers. This is not a temporary project in the sense that it will be gone in two
weeks. This will span over a year into fire season and beyond. If at a de novo hearing
the commissioners feel that enough analysis has been completed, you absolutely, we understand,
have the discretion to allow this project to move forward. But we're asking that the state act
responsibility. With so much at stake, the residents urge this commission to independently
assess the determinations of the city and the evidence, specifically the evidence commissioners
in support thereof. We are confident that you too will find that the evidence of hazards
and public access is lacking.
Again, you are the goalkeepers of the codes
and we urge you to allow a de novo hearing
to proceed in this matter.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It looks like you have two minutes remaining.
We'll move on to the applicants
who also get a 10 minute presentation.
No, no.
Okay, yeah.
The applicants, we have the team with Nadia Fahoum,
Tyler Eaton and Courtney Brown here in person,
and they will also have a 10-minute presentation.
And I was notified that the
appellant does not reserve time for rebuttal.
So we're bringing up your presentation.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Nadia Fahoom.
I am an associate engineer with the city of Malibu,
and I am the project manager for the item before you.
Very quickly to start,
I do want to thank the staff members of the California Coastal Commission for their careful
and thorough review and consideration of our project.
We're hopeful that after your review of the findings of this project you will make the
motion that is consistent with staff's recommendation that no substantial issue exists as our project
does not violate the LCP or Coastal Act.
As we go into the next slide, I have a short video for the commission today that I think
explains better than anyone could our why in Malibu.
The deadly collision happened just afternoon and left two people dead and two others injured.
The news of the crash has heightened concerns over safety out here.
I get to where I'm supposed to meet her, which is the corner of Heathercliffe and PCH, and
I see cars turned over.
For a split second, I said to myself, you know, Emily was supposed to be there.
can't be. She was a really good kid. She was a sweet, kind person who didn't have
a mean bone in her body. The EMT told me she had died. My life changed forever.
It is one of the most dangerous places around.
BCH isn't safe and everyone knows that and no one's done anything about that.
I have seen nine fatal collisions or deaths from this exact spot where I'm
There is study after study after study about what needs to be done. Not one of them has been implemented
Despite and we can go to the next slide. Thank you
Despite the appellant's claims that this project was not
recommended or studied or listed anywhere is untrue a
2015 Pacific Coast Highway study was performed in collaboration with the city Caltrans
California Highway Patrol the Sheriff's Department in which our entire 21 miles were analyzed and
Two roundabouts were proposed at the intersections of Encinal Canyon and Almatador Road to improve safety in the segment as well as provide
facilities that didn't exist
If we could go to the next slide
Roundabouts are recognized by the Federal Highway Administration as a proven safety measure
The purpose of this temporary project is to reduce speeds on a dangerously high speed corridor and in doing so it it supports our
Ability to lower the enforceable speed limit as well as provide facilities to accommodate the various roadway users
Again in a segment where none currently exist
the temporary roundabouts
Were designed in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration
guidance, as well as the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and any analysis and reports
that are required by the State of California Department of Transportation.
And in fact I want to note that in July of 2025 a member of the Federal Highway Administration
peer reviewed this project and no design exceptions were taken.
Something that I want to note about our design is that it is a data driven and performance
based approach.
It is governed by speed, collision, volume and operational history.
Next slide.
It follows a particular process identified by the state of California, which is that
of an intersection safety and operational assessment process, which again identifies
those parameters.
Next slide.
I want to note that in 2024, a Michelin mobility study conducted by the California Office of
Traffic Safety and California Highway Patrol identified our project segment as seeing
the highest frequency of vehicles going over 120 miles per hour in a 55 zone.
The higher the speeds, the greater risk of fatality.
Next slide.
Volume data will show you that the traffic volume in West PCH where our two roundabouts
are proposed is that on average 15,000 vehicles per day, which is well below the capacity
of the roadway.
And what that tells you is when you're operating well below that roadway space, it encourages
poor driving behavior, such as speeding, which is consistent with the study conducted by
California Highway Patrol.
Next slide, please.
I want to note that at a volume of 15,000 per day in this segment, that is well within
in the range for a single lane roundabout to operate efficiently.
I also want to note that we had conducted an analysis that demonstrated how the intersection
would operate under a roundabout condition.
And it demonstrates that the operational efficiency of the roadway is unchanged under a roundabout.
So we maintain efficiency in this corridor, but reduce speed.
Next slide.
We also will be conducting a series of safety and operational assessments as was mentioned
by staff during this period in which we could modify based on the performance that we're
seeing.
Next slide.
The appellant cited references of the Federal Highway Administration guidance on roundabouts.
What wasn't disclosed to the commission was that her reference was no longer applicable.
It was superseded by a new guide in 2023.
And that current guide, it states in section 10.11.1 that it is possible to provide direct
access into a roundabout so long that it does not affect the roundabouts safety or operation.
And so here what you'll see are examples from the current guide that shows direct access
of driveways into a roundabout from the inscribed circle.
If we could go to the next slide.
Here I'd like the commissioners to know that there are no driveways that are located directly
in the inscribed circle.
All driveways are located outside, so our proposed project does not obstruct any access
to private driveways or any public facilities.
Next slide.
Regarding emergency access and evacuation, that remains a priority for the city.
I want to begin with this.
The width of the existing paved roadway surface is unchanged.
It remains the same and it's not being reduced.
And the temporary roundabouts are designed to be mountable, thus they do not serve an
obstruction in the roadway.
And the roadway can also be operationally reconfigured, as staff had mentioned, or the
temporary roundabouts can be removed if directed to by law enforcement.
Next slide.
Leslie, I'll bring up our senior planner Courtney Brown to discuss the findings of the city.
Hello, commission.
Thank you for having me here.
I just wanted to give you a brief overview of how the city processed and reviewed the
temporary roundabouts.
Here on the screen are the conditions of approval that were recommended by the Planning Commission
and then later adopted by the City Council.
These conditions of approval include that after the commencement of the pilot project,
the applicant must obtain an additional CDP if the roundabouts were to become permanent.
They also prohibited any use of reflective materials.
They also requested that no construction of the roundabouts would occur during the summer
months when heavy traffic flow would occur.
And then they also requested that a report be presented to the council.
Speak directly into the microphone.
Sorry, that a report be presented directly to the council just to demonstrate how the
temporary improvements went.
Next slide.
So here is the proposed parking plan.
To support the temporary roundabouts, the existing street parking will be modified to
allow safer pedestrian maneuvering along PCH.
There would be no net change to the existing 299 parking spaces, and relocating parking
spaces near the El Matador State Beach entrance will not impact access to the public area
And we'll comply with the LCP.
Next slide.
There are two established environmentally sensitive habitat areas per the LIP Section
4.5.4A.
They do permit that type of land use within the ESHA buffer in addition to LIP Section
4.6.2, which permit traffic lights, navigational lights.
Next slide.
Can I continue?
Let's just wrap up.
Thank you.
Just that there will not be any adverse scenic impact with the proposed light fixtures and that we did include
Conditions of approval to make sure that they are dark sky compliant and then any other LCP related questions that you may have
Myself and Tyler Eaton are available to answer them. Thank you
Thank you very much
And I'll quickly respond to the appellant's comments like this city mentioned the
There any other speakers Chris
Yes, we have four people signed up that are qualified to speak.
Are we we'll let you get them two minutes to speak two minutes per
comment confirmed.
Um, we have Ellen Olivier and then Calvin, uh, Ellen give us a moment as
we're moving in as a panelist.
So our speakers are Ellen Olivier, Calvin, Brian zine, and then Kathleen
summers, Brian zine and Kathleen summers.
We're not able to find you in the zoom list at the moment.
So please raise your hand so we can find you.
All right, Ellen, it looks like you're in.
When you're ready, please go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
All right, OK.
I'm ready to start.
First of all, I want to say that that was quite a powerful video
that the city of Malibu showed.
However, you should know that none of that
happened in our section of PCH.
All of that happened in East Malibu,
except for maybe one or two,
and none of them were in West Malibu
between Trancas and the county line,
which includes all the areas with the roundabouts.
There have been no fatalities in that area,
and I've lived in the area for 26 years,
and if there were fatalities, I would have known about it.
We do not have serious accidents.
The other thing is that in the 2015 safety report
that the city staffers were talking about,
the roundabout was not recommended
where they're putting it.
It was recommended in a place
where the Encidal Canyon Road would be moved to,
which would not inconvenience property owners
and would not impact anything where we are.
The other thing I'd like to say is that there is,
during the Wilsey fire, it took me eight hours to get out of Malibu because there's only one way in
and one way out and that's PCH. And if people have to go in the other direction, nobody was on hand
to help us. There was nobody that would say, okay, we're going to remove the roundabouts. And it's
not something that residents of Malibu will be able to do. There is no evidence that this is needed.
And there's no evidence that very little evidence, excuse me, that accidents happen in this section
of Malibu and I have asked for many many statistics and I've looked for statistics
and there are very few accidents that have there. There is no need for these roundabouts.
If you start putting bicycles and trucks and delivery vehicles and Edison contractors
into the roundabout into one lane there are going to be more accidents.
All right. Thank you. Next is Calvin. There's no last name, just Calvin.
All right. Calvin, I see that you're unmuted. I'm unmuted. Go ahead. When you're ready.
This is an amazing video out of Long Beach showing a driver just go
airborne. Can you imagine being in that car and have a disaster as you go by now?
The streetlights that are necessary for a roundabout operations
as you kind of get to an intersection for safety purposes?
The official name for the American Interstate Highway System is technically the Dwight D. Eisenhower
system of interstate and defense highways. But wait until you hear about why Eisenhower
was so eager to get the highways built. Eisenhower's interstate system wasn't just about safer
civilian travel. It was also a Cold War defense strategy with the threat of nuclear war looming.
He envisioned highways that could rapidly evacuate major cities if they were targeted.
The network also served a military purpose, allowing troops, weapons and supplies to move
quickly across the country in a crisis.
Well take a look at this sprawling military installation of Port Wainime.
This is Construction Battalion Center, Port Wainime, and is one third of naval-based Ventura
County along with Air Station Point Magoo and San Nicolas Island.
Like a lot of the military infrastructure in Southern California, this was built in
World War II. And this port was selected by the Navy because it is the only deep water port
in between Los Angeles and San Francisco. That means they can bring these huge vessels in here
because the water is more than 30 feet deep. It's played a vital role for the Navy in World War II,
and especially during the Korean War where basically all naval supplies were routed
through this base. It continues to play a vital role with the Navy. And it's also the primary
training grounds of the CVs, the Construction Battalion.
So what is the CVs?
You can kind of think of them as a warrior engineer.
They build all sorts of type instructions
or whatever the technique is.
Thank you.
Another call for Brian Zeen and Kathleen Summers.
I do also see Zachary Giedzic from the Supervisor Lindsay
Horvat's office.
But at this time, we are only taking qualified speakers
opposition. I'm seeing no one else qualified to speak. Madam Chair. Great.
Thank you very much. Okay Mr. Stevens I will return to you. Thank you. I'll
briefly respond to the comments raised today. As the city indicated the city
record includes daily traffic volumes for this specific corridor and the
projected capacity of the new lane configuration and roundabouts appears to
be adequate. Secondly, the project was designed in close coordination with
Caltrans and a further review by the Federal Highway Administration was
obtained and no exceptions to standard safety standards were required here. And
I'll reiterate that the city contends the barriers can be quickly removed or
modified in the event of an emergency. Specifically, I direct everyone to the
the city's comment letter for this item,
which includes a detailed plan
to address circulation issues
based on different types of emergency situations.
And probably most importantly,
this is a pilot project to evaluate whether it works.
And if it doesn't result in impacts to circulation or access,
it can be removed after the pilot period or even sooner.
And that includes staff's comments.
Thank you very much.
Okay, with that, I'll return to the commission
and begin with Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the city of Malibu.
Thank you for the speakers today.
As somewhat of a neighbor of a coastal town,
I remember when Malibu declared a local emergency
following the reckless and driving
that culminated in the deaths of four Pepperdine students
We were struck by a speeding motorist in 2023.
And that certainly underscored
the need for safety improvements.
And with PCH continuing to experience often tragic crashes,
taking measured steps to improve safety while gathering data
before making long-term decisions
is both responsible and certainly prudent public policy.
Doing nothing is not an option.
doing nothing simply pauses the clock until the next tragedy.
So I applaud the city of Malibu for being willing to act,
test solutions, and to prioritize public safety.
I attended a mayor's conference a few years ago
and I'm at the mayor of Carmel, Indiana.
Carmel, Indiana has the most roundabouts of any city
in the entire country, 150 roundabouts.
And I wish he were here to testify
as to the importance and what those 150 roundabouts have
done in Carmel, Indiana to reduce serious crashes,
slow vehicles down, and improve roadway safety.
So I applaud the leadership of Malibu
for making decisions in the face of opposition,
both in this corridor, because I think the cost of inaction
will only be measured in lives lost.
So I fully am support.
Moving forward and we'll make the motion
when appropriate, Madam Chair.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks, I was just wondering Mr. Stevens,
if you could address the comment that said there was no,
there had been no fatalities in this area
and how that relates to the choice of this area.
I'll just quickly say that in this area,
the city has observed that this is where they see
the people going the fastest, the most tickets
for people going over a hundred miles an hour,
which I believe was why this area was chosen for a speed
reduction.
But I would direct that question to the city through the chair.
If I could, and could I, through the chair,
just to address, I've just seen I'm completely supportive
and see that there is a huge need for this.
But I was just hoping you could address also
how you will be as people enter into this area.
I assume you'll have large flashing lights
That there's going to be a slowdown.
There's going to be a backup so we don't see more accidents.
So those are my two questions.
Yes.
So how this project was designed.
So approximately 1,000 feet in advance of the roundabout,
you'll start to see the two lanes merged
to one in each direction.
And the roadway will be reconfigured
to become a little more windier.
That will provide the speed reduction.
It will force drivers to lower their speeds, which gives us
the ability to reduce the enforceable speed limit in this segment, and then there will
also be a series of signage placed to let drivers know that there is a roundabout and
approach.
And then once you get through the first roundabout, we maintain the single lane in each direction.
That also gives us the ability to maintain the lowered speed.
And again, we will be using raised medians in certain segments to create a more narrowed
Feel which force drivers to slow down to the speed limits that we want
Thanks, and then I guess the other concern or thoughts I was having about it
So there's no bike lane going into this and then a bike bike lane will appear as part of this project in between the park cars
And the lane of traffic
so there is a bike lane provided in advance of the roundabouts and then in the in-between segments for the
Navigating through the roundabouts the cyclists do begin to share the lane with the motorists
Now, Federal Highway Administration guidance does state that because a single-lane roundabout
achieves a reduced speed at what we're seeing, about 10 miles down to zero because a driver
needs to be able to yield to the vehicles that are already in the roundabout, it is
safe for cyclists to take the lane with the motorists.
The guidance also states that a cyclist who feels very comfortable navigating a high-speed
corridor would feel very safe in a travel lane with motorists going about
10 miles per hour and then once you come out of the roundabout they have their
separate lane. Okay so prior to this new construction there is no bike lane.
Correct. So then a bike lane would appear for this segment. Yes. And then disappear
again on the other side of it. It sounds like. So in it after our project segment
the highway is then it transitions into its existing condition. Okay sounds like
you might not get too much bike use. I will note that Caltrans does have a 55
million dollar capital capital preventative maintenance project in which
they are proposing bike lanes and so bike lanes are going to be striped in
this segment. Okay thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much Commissioner
As you can imagine I'm very supportive of this as a civil engineer and as
someone who sees and supports these in our community they I just want to say
any project that makes a driver feel uneasy or nervous makes everyone outside
the vehicle safer. And and so this is often a complaint we have about about roundabouts is
that people say that they're confusing to me I don't know what I'm doing well it turns out
that when you feel that way as a driver everyone on the road is safer and and even if you get into
an accident it's likely that you that it's it's it's minor because you're going slower and and
those are things that the video that we saw of the of the car running through the roundabout and
flying through the air. We can't account for drunk drivers in any of this. Drunk drivers are
a menace on the road, no matter what, how we design them. And so I think that's something to,
and also idiots in fast cars that are not designed to, they're designed to be on racetracks,
not on roadways, and people choose to drive them that way. And we can't account for that
necessarily. Although this is trying to mitigate for that problem. And so I appreciate this very
much. Oh, just one last thing. When they were talking about Eisenhower and the highway system,
as we know, part of that design was to make lanes on the federal highway system 12 feet wide.
The reason that they did that wasn't to move people, it was to move tanks. And basically the
designs of cars in the United States, we always wonder why cars are so big and trucks are so big
in the United States is because they were designed to fill that 12 feet to a certain degree and so
we are designing towards the size of tanks and so trying to mitigate for that in our communities
is difficult and it makes roads less safe when we have these very wide lanes from that from that
and what happened there. So anyways I just appreciate this. I'm thankful that we're doing
it through a sort of beta test to see how it works and I support this 100%.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Yeah, a couple of points.
One is the pilot, this is a pilot program and I wanted to commend the city for taking
that approach because that's the whole purpose to see how this works and to see if it needs
adjustment. I actually confess I was not aware that you could have a temporary roundabout.
And my second point is I wanted to share that I happened to just live right near a roundabout
that was recently constructed. And I wanted to just say the anxiety and concern that the
neighbors had about this was very elevated and high, particularly doing construction.
And that's one of the reasons I think this idea about the temporary one makes a lot of
sense because it won't take that long to construct it.
And then people can get used to it and see how it works.
So now that the roundabout is constructed after, I think it was about seven or eight
month construction which was very difficult for the community. I hear
nothing but like hey that works it's okay it's we're getting through even
during high volumes and I also live in a very fire prone area and the issue of
emergency vehicles getting how they were going to make that turn when we have the
next fire also was a big concern and it has it's been all right because we've
had some fire trucks barreling through there so I just wanted to share that I
appreciate that there's concerns about this and it's a different way of
thinking about traffic management but that I applaud the city for taking an
effort to try and address this and if we just hang in there hopefully it's
gonna feel better when it's done so I support the project as well. Thank you
Commissioner Lopez. Thank You Madam Chair yeah I just want to express support I'll
share that I'm a one of those folks who was anti ran about about eight years
ago and they started to appear and since then I think there's an opportunity in
them, especially around utilizing AI as well with signalization because when you look at
traffic patterns through communities, I think the big concern is the narrowing to a single
lane. I know we're hearing some of the others as well. But on Highway 68 feeding from Salinas
to Monterey, we've recently introduced AI signalization controls. And with that, we're
also going to be implementing roundabouts. We were waiting for the one in Carmel Valley
to finish because we got a lot of heat for that one, but we've got more coming as well.
And the pairing of those two I think creates an environment where you can imagine being
right outside of Laguna Seca to Commissioner Wilson's comment, those a lot of cars that
are intended for the racetrack make it onto Highway 68.
We want to encourage folks to go save speeds and these roundabouts are a way to do that.
I get that there's pain when they initially roll out.
And some of the videos we saw in the held up video were real as well as we opened the
first one at CSUMB we had an 18-wheeler get stuck on top who was not paying
attention and was used to what the road was and you can't control for drivers
who are not cognizant so I guess the one request is a messaging program right
and more frequent than you might expect whether that's to visitors or residents
I just think that's critical from what I've experienced with folks who are in
autopilot almost and so I'm gonna be able to I'm gonna be supportive of this
today because I guess you can say I've gone all the way around the roundabout
because I know some people love puns and just say thank you for bringing this
forward and I look forward to seeing this project implemented thank you okay
with that I'll return to Commissioner Jackson for a motion thank you Madam
Chair I move that the Commission determine that appeal number a-3-sl
026-0012 raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which
the appeal has been filed under section 3-0-6-0-3 and I recommend a yes vote second okay just
confirming is that the right number that was read I don't believe so I heard SLO instead
of yeah may I call but hang on a second no worries hang on here I'm a little slow oh here we go back
to the boo as they say I move that the Commission determine that appeal number
a-4-mal-26-0011 raises no substantial issues with respect to the
grounds on which the appeal has been filed under 30603 of the Coastal Act and
I recommend a yes vote I still second thank you that's a motion by
commissioner Jackson a second by Commissioner Wilson any objections to
unanimous consent seeing none no substantial issue has been found thank
you very much hey we will continue on almost almost done here item 18 please
the deputy directors report for the South Coast District thank you thank you
and item 18 is the deputy directors report for the South Coast District this
month it includes 10 permit waivers one permit extension an objection to
one permit time extension and one emergency permit. In regard to the
emergency permit it was issued to Michael Levine in response to a bluff slope
failure for installation of an approximately 100 foot long caisson
tieback retaining wall and that was to protect an existing storm drain that
serves several homes in the Rancho Palace Verdes area where they've
experienced several landslide issues. In addition the deputy directors report
also includes an addendum responding to objections received to two separate but
related immaterial permit extensions that are being reported this month. Five
letters were received from members of the public who were listed in the memo
and they're objecting to the one-year time extension for two CDPs by Ocean
Avenue LLC and Community Corporation of Santa Monica. That project was for
redevelopment of the Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica with 312 hotel rooms and 60
market rate condo units in conjunction with the new five-story multifamily 42
affordable rental unit project. Now as explained in detail in the memorandum,
the primary contentions raised by the opponents were also raised during the
previous two years during the previous two one-year time extensions that were
approved by this Commission. And it's primarily that the traffic is too large,
would exacerbate traffic, that noise pollution, building vibrations, air
quality degradation from truck exhaust, management practices by the hotel are
problematic and that the project has not yet commenced so it should not be
allowed to do so. However, I would note that these issues were fully evaluated
by the Commission and its approval of the project or determined to raise no
chapter 3 resource issues and the Commission found the project would
result in no significant impacts. Pursuing to our regulations in order to
deny a permit extension request, objectors must identify change
circumstances that would I didn't that would affect the consistency of the
development with the Coastal Act or LCP. It does not in these cases provide an
opportunity to rehear the merits of the project itself and in this case in staff's
opinion, none of the objections raised by the opponents assert changed circumstances.
Thus the executive director has determined that in this case there are no changed circumstances
and we recommend the two immaterial time extensions be approved.
Staff is not aware of any opposition to the other items being reported today in the deputy
director's report 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.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
No, we just have Sherman's DC available for questions.
Great.
Thank you.
Return to the commission.
Any comments or do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy director's
report?
Okay.
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
All right.
Our final item for today, item 19A.
Thank you and that does bring us to item 19a which will be presented by Willy Renagi,
a coastal program analyst in our south coast district office.
We do have a powerpoint for this if we could pull that up and Willy please take it away.
I'll wait for the presentation to get on.
Good morning commissioners, item 19a is a CDP application by Golden Voice LLC in the
city of Santa Monica for a two-day ticketed music festival on Santa Monica State Beach
in late September of 2026, with daily anticipated attendance of 35,000.
The proposed event would occupy approximately 900,000 square feet of the beach immediately
south of the Santa Monica Pier, with two performance stages.
To maintain public access along the beach at all times, the perimeter fence will be
placed a minimum of 15 feet landward of the mean high tide line.
The total period including setup and takedown is 15 days.
The event will temporarily displace approximately 2,478 beach adjacent parking spaces during
the two event days.
Along with lots for setup in the box office, the project includes temporary conversion
of some of the parking to bicycle and scooter storage, ride share, and shuttle drop off
areas.
For those who choose to drive, 3,600 offsite spaces are available outside the coastal zone
at Santa Monica Airport and Santa Monica Business Park, served by a complimentary shuttle open
to both attendees and the general public.
As shown on this slide, the temporarily affected parking areas are outlined in yellow, rideshare
routes in blue, shuttle pickup and drop-off in orange, and bicycle and scooter routes
in yellow and turquoise.
The proposed event would result in temporary impacts to public access and low-cost recreation
as a result of the closure of a portion of the beach and displacement of almost 2,500
parking spaces for beachgoers during the event.
To address these impacts, staff has worked closely with the applicants to develop a public
access and recreation public benefits program.
Next slide, please.
The Commission's 1993 temporary event guidelines provides that events qualify as exempt from
requirement to obtain a CDP if 75% of seating is free to the public. In cases where temporary
events involve paid admission, such as this proposed event, the Commission has previously
required a public access and recreation benefits program intended to provide the public an
equivalent benefit in order to offset the adverse impacts to public access and recreation.
The applicants have worked cooperatively with staff to develop a public access and recreation
benefits program that includes multiple provisions intended to provide the equivalent mitigation of at least 75% of
free seating for the event. In this case,
the program will include provision of 2,000 festival tickets and 3,000 regional Golden Voice event tickets to be
distributed free of charge to underserved communities throughout the greater Los Angeles area with transportation provided. In
In addition, the program also includes
free scholarships to the city
for ocean safety instruction for 500 youth,
peer access stays for 600 youth
with transportation provided,
beach safety program at the Annenberg Community Beach House,
two free concerts at a local park,
and cultural activations and programming
in partnership with the city
at Historic Belmar Park in Tongva Park,
centering around black Santa Monica history
and indigenous coastal identity.
Further, the event will also include
onsite coastal education zones hosted by organizations such as Heal the Bay and the Commission's
annual Coastal Cleanup Day will be marketed to all ticket holders prior to the event.
Special Condition 4 requires the applicants to submit an attendee engagement plan prior to
permit issuance detailing specific incentives to drive meaningful participation in both
and provide reporting to the Executive Director to evaluate participation for these events.
Finally, the city has committed $625,000 of Golden Voice's license fee revenue
to replacement of Muscle Beach recreational equipment which will be available for public use.
Further, Golden Voice is directly contributing an additional $75,000 to $80,000 for ADA and
beach access improvements, and the city has committed to accelerating broader coastal capital
improvement projects in the area. Complementary event tickets over $700,000 in capital investment
and tens of thousands of direct participants, staff finds the program equivalent to a 75%
free beach event. The Public Access and Recreation Benefits Program will be implemented pursuant to
Special Conditions 1 and 4. In addition, Special Condition 7 requires a post-event compliance
report within 30 days to evaluate the success of these mitigation measures, which will also inform
the feasibility of any future events at this location. Next slide, please. There is an
addendum for this item which addresses correspondence that was received following publication of the
staff report. Commissioned staff received one letter from the Surfrider Foundation supporting
the project and offering two recommendations related to sustainability practices and one
voicemail from James Gershia raising concerns about the adequacy of the number of restrooms
during the event. Both are addressed in more detail in the addendum, and I would note that
in regard to the letter from Surf Rider, the applicants have proposed and submitted a sustainability
program which commits to coordinating directly with the City of Santa Monica's Resource Recovery
and Recycling Division on zero waste plan compliance and additionally providing reusable
cups for beverage service throughout the event. On the restroom concern raised by Mr. Grichao,
The applicants have confirmed they have worked to adequately evaluate the demand for portable
restrooms during the event and propose providing approximately 400 to 450 restroom units within
the event footprint, and 50 to 75 supplemental units outside the perimeter, with special condition
3D ensuring that adequate facilities will be provided during the event. In closing,
commission staff believes the project as condition is consistent with the Chapter 3
policies of the Coastal Act and recommends approval of the coastal
development permit application with conditions as detailed in the staff
report. The resolution to accomplish it accomplish this recommendation may be
found on page 6 of the staff report. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is
available for questions. Great, thank you very much. Okay, I will ask for ex partes
and turn it to you commissioner Pressagata yes on May 26th I had the
opportunity to meet with representatives City of Santa Monica and golden boys in
which they presented a slide deck that had previously been provided to district
staff the representatives provided a project overview of the today music
festival and outlined the transportation path public access
considerations and community benefits program and you can can see the rest of
the information that was submitted in the written ex parte thank you thank you very much okay
commissioner Lopez yeah on June 8th at 230 i had a 10-minute meeting as well with Michael
Ellils Roxanne Tenamori Melissa Permon uh Ann Blenker and my chief of staff Priscilla Ramos
the content was largely what was shared by commissioner Presiado we also talked a lot about
the youth focused coastal access programs that they're going to have as part of this effort
And lastly, I grilled them about the artist's lineup,
but they didn't cave.
Thank you.
OK.
Thank you very much.
Chris, to you.
All right.
For this item, we'll start with the applicant.
We have Roxanne Tanamore from the city of Santa Monica
here in person.
And we're queuing up your presentation.
And how much time will you need?
You can turn the mic on, please.
We are requesting eight minutes.
We may not use it all.
All right good morning commissioners Roxanne Tanimari assistant director with the city of Santa Monica's
Community Development Department also joining me online are members of the city's public safety
Traffic services and cultural affairs teams who are available for questions on behalf of golden voice in the city of Santa Monica
We are pleased to present this application today
And we want to thank South Coast district staff for their collaboration and guidance on this proposal
As Santa Monica has been preparing for a series of major event opportunities, our city council recently approved partnerships related to the FIFA World Cup, this proposed music festival, and the 2027 Super Bowl.
The city is also planning for an international presence and activations in Santa Monica during the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
These events are all consistent with the city's economic recovery and realignment strategy,
and at the same time, they provide a platform to highlight Santa Monica's coastline, our
cultural offerings, and public spaces, while also ensuring continued protection of coastal
resources and public access.
As part of this overall events program, I'm also pleased to share that the city and coastal
staff have agreed to begin collaborating this summer on a programmatic CDP framework for
these temporary events that will be held over the next two years. I can also add that I
am pleased and looking forward to working with staff on that effort. Next slide. And
next slide please. The Golden Boys and City teams have worked closely together to prepare
for this one of a kind music festival. This partnership has resulted in an operational
plan that addresses festival logistics, public safety, coastal resource protection, maintenance
of public access and transportation management utilizing all modes.
Importantly, as your staff noted, we did work closely with their team and do greatly appreciate
the feedback they provided on the development of what we believe is a comprehensive community
benefit program that is consistent with Coastal Act priorities.
Some of these include the direct event access to underserved communities, youth-focused recreation
and water safety programs, and a plan for physical improvements to improve access safety
and infrastructure for all.
Next slide, please.
From the city's perspective, in addition to community benefits, public access has been
a foundational priority throughout the planning process.
For example, when the city initially sought a partner for this music festival, we specifically
invited proposals for an event that would occur outside of the peak beach youth season.
In addition, we're maintaining a dry sand corridor,
seaward of the event perimeter to facilitate public access.
We are requiring transportation demand management
to encourage travel by rail, bus, rideshare bicycle,
or utilizing the offsite parking and shuttle system.
And finally, the city has a communications plan
throughout the community and for event goers
to make sure that everyone has that know before you go
information prior to the event.
And with that, I'll go ahead and turn it over
to the Golden Voice team, thank you.
To echo Roxanne's previous comment,
it's been a pleasure and privilege working
with the staff on the presentation thus far,
and thank you for having us on the agenda today.
The picture on this slide just shows in context
the event sandbox area that we've been working
with the city on.
It encompasses approximately 10%
of the Santa Monica coastline.
So just wanted to put that frame into context.
Next slide, please.
And similar to the overview slide that Willy presented in his presentation this showcases the both the event footprint as well as some of the adjacent city footprints that we intend to utilize both in the interest of public safety for the festival goers, as well as mitigating impact to local businesses and residents.
Next slide please.
and with regards to the public benefits package that we've been working through with both the city and the staff
This highlights a handful of the bullet points that Willie referenced in his presentation as well
Including complementary tickets to both the festival as well as additional
Concerts in the Los Angeles area as well as free concerts including both
indigenous performers, as well as a wide variety of cultural artists and event performances.
Next slide, please.
And separate of live event-type public benefits, we are pleased to present a variety of youth-focused
programs that work through both coastal access, coastal exposure, surf education, beach education,
working with the Santa Monica Peer Corp on their newly launched Youth Day program as
well as additional swim and aquatics-based programs with the city of Santa Monica.
Next slide, please.
And I'll introduce again Roxanne from the city.
Just a couple of notes, the public benefit program.
One of the items that I wanted to reinforce is related to the long-term investments on
coastal access safety and infrastructure.
an event like this allows us to prioritize and accelerate
those physical improvements that we have
programmed into our capital improvement program
for the city of Santa Monica and that includes,
like I said, the replacement of recreation equipment,
fire sprinkler upgrades at the pier,
pier lighting along the bike path,
and other beach access and safety improvements.
We're pleased to be able to put our commitment to
those improvements facilitated by this event.
next slide, please
Based on everything in your record. We are thrilled that there is a positive staff recommendation. There are seven conditions of approval we
Support all of those and accept the conditions next slide, please
And with that, thank you. We're in agreement. I'm happy to answer your questions
Thank you
We also had Sofia Klasker from the city of Santa Monica
If you wish to speak we had it as wishing to speak or if you're just available for questions, you can let us know
Sophia on zoom and then we also had Melissa Ormond with the golden voice
I'm available for questions. This is Sophia
It looks like both are available for questions only. So we'll move on to our general speakers
We have Mitch Silverstein in person and then we also have Jill suppressor on zoom Mitch Silverstein
Chair Harmon commissioners, thanks for the opportunity comment Mitch Silverstein with surf writer a quick correction to staff
If we're not opposing the event, that's more neutral than saying we support it.
Importantly, we'd like to put it in the context of current legislative threats to
the Coastal Act.
AB 1740 as originally written would have allowed the city of Santa Monica to self
certify an event like this one without commission review.
That exemption has since been removed and this application shows why it had to be.
The entire standard would have been whether the event unduly obstructs public
beach access and traversal of the shoreline.
That's it.
And the city, which is a co-applicant, profits from the event and
it would have been self-certifying its own financial interest on public beach
with no independent check.
Commissioned staff secured mitigation for real acknowledged impacts to public beach access.
They secured environmental conditions,
protecting water quality, coastal wildlife, and habitat.
They prohibited single-use plastics,
and they negotiated a community benefits program with a genuine environmental justice focus,
free tickets to underserved communities,
ocean safety programming, cultural activations.
None of that is guaranteed under local permitting.
Surf Rider has real respect for Santa Monica City staff and leaders,
but the Coastal Act doesn't rest on any one city
being well-intentioned at any given moment.
It exists because California's coastal resources are
consistently threatened by exactly the kind of
local financial and political pressures visible right here.
This event is the proof that the review works and that it
leaves the public and the environment better off.
A few quick points, we asked the commission to ensure
community benefits are meaningfully
documented in the post-event compliance report with
enough demographic detail to confirm
underserved communities were actually reached.
On plastics, we appreciate staff's addendum addressing
additional concerns around non-compostable bioplastics and reusable cups at the event.
If approved, we look forward to reviewing the post-event report and talking to our members
afterwards. And we'll have more to say if they come back for 2027. Thank you.
Thank you. Now moving to Zoom, we have Jill Supresso.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jill Supresso, and I'm grateful for you
pronouncing my name correctly. I'm speaking today on behalf of as a Santa Monica community member
and supporter of the Community Benefits Program, specifically Aquatic Education
and ocean safety programs. I'm here in support... Oh, let me put my video back on there. There we go.
Hi. I'm in support of this application and to speak to why community benefits from large-scale
events, which include meaningful investments, and in this case, it would be water safety and beach
based recreation. Santa Monica is defined by its coastline. It draws residents and regional
visitors alike, family, youth, people of all ages and abilities, many of them experiencing
the ocean for the first time. But access to that experience isn't equal. Not every child gets swim
lessons. Not every family understands ocean hazards. Not every community member has had
someone teach them how to be safe in the water. I speak from personal experience growing up in
Chicago with only lakes and pools. And now raising children in Santa Monica, I have full-blown ocean
anxiety. When a major event temporarily impacts access to the beach, the sand, the shoreline,
the ocean. The public deserves something real and lasting in return. That means programs that
reach people who face cost and access barriers, swim instruction, ocean safety outreach, adaptive
recreation, beach-based education, delivered through pools, beaches, and community partnerships.
This is also an opportunity to build water safety and aquatic education into how Santa Monica thinks
about large-scale events going forward, alongside arts, culture, and public programming so that the
community benefit consistently reflects who we are as a coastal city. I support approval of this
application and I encourage the Commission to ensure that community benefit here is meaningful,
inclusive, and connected to the water that defines our city. Thank you. Thank you. We were just missing
one person on Zoom. James Guercio. James, if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. Then I also note
we have Tim Cullen from Heal the Bay indicating that they were available for questions. Tim,
if you wish to speak, please raise your hand and then, okay, they do wish to speak.
Tim, you're being moved in. I don't see James Gursio, so Tim will be our last speaker.
Just very quickly, Tim Cullen here, Chief Philanthropy Officer for Heal the Bay.
Want to echo everything my colleague at the Surf Rider Foundation echoed about this
application. We are here in recommendation of approval of the permit as conditioned,
not necessarily advocating for the festival itself, and we support these types of special
conditions that protect our coast during events like this one. We strongly maintain and support
the integrity of the Coastal Act, and we do not condone any attempts to undermine the Coastal
Commission process, so we applaud everyone for going through the entire process. I'm available
for any questions here, but I just wanted to let you all know that we are here and at available.
Thank you. Thank you. Still not seem James Garcia, so no more speakers.
Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Hudson. All right, thank you. Just keep our comments very short,
and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the city and the applicant for working so closely
and cooperatively with our staff, and to note that this project, in my opinion, is a model
for other temporary events.
We do have that experience of using a template for other temporary events, and in this case
we were able to bring this to hearing in record time because we had a willing and cooperative
applicant and such good coordination from the city of Santa Monica.
So I would like to note that and that did allow for what we believe was the development
of a meaningful public access benefit mitigation package, which helped make this an even better
project.
So with that, I'll close staff comments and just note that we are available for questions.
Great.
Thank you very much.
So I'll return to the commission.
We'll begin with Commissioner Presiado.
I just wanted to, again, raise my voice to commend the development of some of the public
benefits that will remain as legacy for this two-day event that seems a bit extraordinary.
I'll just say, as people think about the commission who are not in this immediate venue, they
sometimes express a challenge when anyone has to go through this much to participate
in a two-day event. I can imagine if it was a permanent structure or permanent activity,
but I'm raising my voice today because of the ADA accommodations that were considered
and developed and that will remain for the continued use of any beach goer regardless
of event or non-event and I do appreciate the extraordinary steps that address participation
and even I guess as an educator I would suggest that teaching folks how to embrace all aspects
of the ocean are important and to the extent that that also includes preservation of our
ocean resource. I see the value. But I must say, I guess I now appreciate Mr. Hudson's
comments about the template approach and then the ability to go through this much faster
you have interested and available and professional applicants that are engaged in the full spirit
of being in the ocean and the beach, but needless to say, I appreciate everyone's involvement.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Any further comments or a motion?
Commissioner Kelly.
I just want to align myself with the comments regarding the community benefits as well as
the public improvements as a local elected official with a city that has a lot of aging
infrastructure and major capital improvement needs.
We know kind of the struggles that communities are facing in trying to maintain some of these
incredible public resources while also realizing that the revenue is not there to support it
coming from just our local tax base,
and so when events like this come along
that wanna utilize public land,
being able to put forward some of those dollars
to improve the long-term impact
and the impacts of the moment of the two day event
and putting funds towards increasing access
and opportunities for youth and others,
economically disadvantaged communities as well,
to have those opportunities is great.
And then I think on balance,
also seeing the investment in that long-term public
infrastructure for the millions of people who will visit
the California coast, and being able to have those
improvements made with a lasting impact,
I think is a great balance.
And to see this plan come forward with both of those
elements makes it quite easy to support it.
I do imagine that we will be seeing many more requests
for similar types of events up and down the coast,
because as we know, it's a beautiful place to come
gather and listen to music and all of the other great things that people want to do along the
coast and so ensuring that we are seeing those community benefits as a part and parcel to those
applications. I go to a lot of music festivals, I'm aware of how expensive they are, the people
putting on this event love music but they're also doing it to make money and so I think seeing some
of that revenue going towards improving the public's realm is really a wonderful thing to
So thank you to the applicants for your willingness to to work with us and the city and I'll be supporting the motion
Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lee
Yes, I like the thoughtfulness that went into this it is critical that we're bringing more visitors and more economic activity
To the cities along the coast particularly in Santa Monica where the commercial district
I'm thinking especially around the promenade have suffered greatly in recent years and this will bring a lot more visitors
eyeballs, while I initially thought that the percentage for allowing lower ticket prices
to attend the event was a very compelling reason, all of the other improvements and
access and recognition that will go to our local parks, the programming that will happen
in Annenberg, these are longer lasting community benefits that outweigh maybe the benefit of
of allowing more people access to a two-day event.
And so I'm pleased to see how collaboratively
the commission has been able to work.
I don't think it would be bad at all
to see more of these temporary events take place
that are thoughtfully created that maintain public access,
that leave lasting community benefits,
and that will increase the economic activity
in the areas that really, really need it.
And so I'd like to make the motion.
I move that the commission
approve coastal development permit application
5-26-0188 subject to the conditions set forth in the staff recommendation.
Second.
So motion by Commissioner Lee, second by Commissioner Lopez.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Great.
Thank you very much.
All right.
That brings us to the end of our agenda.
I want to thank our staff Deputy Director of Cavalieri.
Excellent job this month.
To the great team at AGP.
you for everything and the city of San Diego thanks so much for hosting us we
will see everyone next month in Ventura. And just again thank you to the city of
San Diego just I want to mention one more time that this is a great place to
visit the civic pride here is palpable the the participation of folks both at
the private level and at the at the city level and at the county level is just
It's just really good to see, and this place is dynamic.
Every time we come here,
something has changed in the positive.
And I just wanna emphasize that it's on the move.
I love San Diego.
We love San Diego.
Meeting adjourned.