Okay, good morning everyone
We're gonna get started. I'll be at a few minutes late. Thank you for your patience
So let's call this meeting to order and begin with a roll call, please
All right. Good morning
Commissioner O'Malley present
O'Malley, I don't see Commissioner Escalante online yet
All right, Commissioner Hart
Commissioner Jackson here
Commissioner Kelly here
Commissioner Lee here
Commissioner Lopez present
Commissioner Lowenberg
Commissioner Smith present
See Pressiado yet either Commissioner Wilson here
Commissioner Brownfield here Commissioner Eckerly
Here Commissioner Williams here chair Harmon
Here we have a quorum great. Thank you so much
All right. Now we will move to the virtual meeting procedures, Galen.
Good morning. This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring
both in person and through Zoom. This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online
at Cal-Span.org. If you have internet access and which to watch or listen to the meeting
only and not speak on an item, we recommend you use the CalSpan website. Those who wish
to address the commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform or by
phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittal are available on the commission's
staff table just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have postponed, pardon me, posted virtual hearing procedures on the
agenda webpage which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up
to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. Requests to
speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m.
on each day of the meeting. In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest
a strange 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 and number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting
through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the Commission,
the organizer will invite you to turn on your video
and microphone or provide instructions
on how to unmute the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Great, thank you very much.
And now Mr. Schwing to you for agenda changes please.
Thank you Chair Harmon and good morning to the Commission
And to everybody who is joining us today for the hearing we do have a number of 11 we have a number of agenda changes total of 11 three of which are new additions since we posted the agenda changes memo earlier this week starting with item 10 a CDP application one twenty three eight eight two.
This is the louder back north Harbor North project in Fort Bragg that is moved to consent.
Then next item 12 a this is the city of Dana points LCP amendment for their zoning code
IP cleanup that is postponed.
Next item 14A, the CDP application 523, 237, the SCRRA Metrolink project out of San Clemente
that is postponed.
Next item 14C, CDP application 525, 579, this is a dock project in the Dana Point Harbor
by OC Parks that's moved to consent.
Item 16A, the City of Oceansides' LCP amendment on their appeals process, their local appeals
process.
That's move to consent.
Item 16B, the City of Carlsbad's LCP amendment on the airport uses.
That is move to consent.
Item 16D, City of San Diego's LCP amendment on their Claremont Community Plan.
The time extension only that's move to consent.
Item 16E, the city of San Diego's LCP amendment on their community enhancement overlay zone.
Again an LCP time extension only that's move to consent.
Item 16F, the city of San Diego's LCP amendment on their AVA Pacific beach project.
Again a time extension only that's move to consent.
Item 16G, the city of San Diego's LCP amendment on their preservation and progress package
A. LCP amendment, again, time extension only, that's moved to consent.
And then last, item 17A, this is application 6333A6, surf song application out of Solano
Beach.
That is moved to consent.
And that concludes today's agenda changes.
All right. Thank you. Now we'll go to Ms. Warren for a report on yesterday's closed
session. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Harmon. Yesterday the Commission met in closed session.
It received litigation information and advice on City of Port Bragg versus Mendocino Railway,
City of Dana Point versus California Coastal Commission, Stable Offshore Corporation at
all versus California Coastal Commission. It also received litigation information and
advice and took action on a matter of potential litigation. And that concludes my report.
Okay, thank you very much. Now we will move to general public comment. I'll turn it over
to you, Galen. Thank you. For members of the public, I will
be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite you to speak when it is your turn.
Each speaker will be allowed two minutes during general public comment at the discretion of
the chair. In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom, we will be bringing you
in as a panelist. As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload. This may take a moment.
To speed up 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 the attendee role. For members of the public present in the room, I will
call your names in the order that they appear on your sign-up list. When you hear your name,
Please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you approach to speak.
There is a raise hand function that will help us find you in the attendees list.
If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by dialing star nine.
If you're participating by zoom, you should see a button on your zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand
now.
When it is your time to speak, we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by downloading star six.
So first up in person, we have Joan Tharp, Carolyn Mullen, and Ashwin Mantrapragata.
Joan Tharp.
And can you turn on the mic?
Oh, please press the button.
Read the instructions.
I believe there was a slide that was submitted.
us just one moment. No, there was another one. Tharp. Perfect, thank you. Good morning,
Chair, Commissioners. My name is Joan Tharp. I live in Port Wainimi and I'm a volunteer
with the Surfrider Foundation Ventura County Chapter. I'm here today to share a project
close to home at the Wyneme Beach Park Dune Restoration.
In partnership with the city of Port Wyneme
and through Surf Rider's Climate Action Program,
we are restoring two and a half acres
of degraded coastal dune habitat
using nature-based solutions.
For years, invasive ice plant Bermuda grass
and European sea rocket have crowded out native vegetation
at Wyneme Beach Park, weakening the dune's ability
to buffer storm surge and erosion.
Since launching in 2025, more than 400 volunteers have removed over 18,000 pounds of invasive
plant material. That's one year. We've installed sand fencing to rebuild natural dune topography,
and like last year, this year we'll be doing a large native plant effort before the winter rains.
This site sits directly adjacent to the Ormond Beach wetlands, so restoring these dunes helps
connect to critical ecosystems and strengthens the coastline's natural defenses against
sea level rise consistent with the City of Port Wainimi's certified local coastal program.
The project is funded in part by an $80,000 state coastal conservancy grant along with
support from Patagonia, Yardy, and Coastal Quest as well as donations by our members.
But its heart is indeed the community.
leaders, students, and neighbors working side by side one Saturday a month. We
invite the Coastal Commission and the public to visit, volunteer, and see
nature-based coastal resilience in action at Wainani Beach Park. Thank you
for your time and for your continued work protecting Californians coast. Thank
you. Thank you. Next up we have Carolyn Mullen followed by Ashwin
Menther Pragata and Darryl Gail. Ms. Mullen please go ahead. If you could turn
the mic on please ma'am. Just press the button at the bottom. Thank you. Is it on?
Okay great. Good morning chair and commissioners. My name is Carolyn Marina
Mullen. I'm the executive director of the Oxnard Performing Arts Center
nonprofit and I'm here today to express our sincere gratitude for the California
Coastal Commission's recognition of the important role that artists and arts
organizations can play in coastal stewardship. Through the Whaletail Grant Program, OPAC
has the incredible opportunity to support three artists in residencies along our coastline
in Port Wainimi, on their beach, Oxford Beaches, and at the Channel Islands Harbor. These residencies
will invite artists to engage directly with our coastal environments and work alongside
community members to inspire a deeper connection to the places we all cherish. Conservation
is most successful when people feel personally connected to the places they're being asked
to protect.
Artists have a unique ability to create those connections.
They help us see familiar landscapes with fresh eyes, spark curiosity, and translate
complex environmental issues into stories and experiences that resonate across generations
and cultures.
As an arts nonprofit, we deeply appreciate the commission for seeing that arts not simply
as an enhancement to environmental work but as a trusted partner in advancing conservation,
education, and community engagement.
That recognition is meaningful and it reflects an understanding that protecting our coastline
requires both science and storytelling.
On behalf of OPAC and the communities we serve, thank you for investing in creative approaches
to coastal conservation.
We are honored to be entrusted with this work and look forward to sharing the impact these
artist residencies will have throughout our region.
And I brought some fun stickers but I'm running out of our whale stickers so you're going
to get some sassy owls and some butterflies.
Thank you.
Next up we have Ashwin Mantra Pragada followed by Daryl Gale.
Good morning my name is Ashwin Mantri Pragada.
I'm a lifelong resident of Coastal California currently living here in this very beach town.
I'm fortunate to call home.
I walked here this morning.
I speak today not only as a private citizen,
but also on behalf of the Environmental Defense Center
where I serve as Development Director.
First, I wanna thank each of you for your service.
I know your work is often difficult
and sometimes controversial, but it is essential.
For 50 years, the California's Coastal Management Program
has protected this beautiful and biodiverse coastline,
not by accident, but because Californians chose
to create strong public protections
and entrusted this commission to uphold them.
The current federal review is being framed
as a routine evaluation,
but many of us recognize what's really at stake.
This is about whether California will continue
to have the authority to protect our own coast,
or whether those decisions will be weakened
in service of offshore oil expansion
and industrial development that put all of us at risk.
The consistency review authority of this commission
has resulted in the protection of our coast
from devastating impacts of LNG and of more offshore oil
drilling.
As the federal government targets the California coast
with proposals for more and more offshore drilling
and assists the restart of Sable's pipeline,
it's ever more critical that we ensure
the people have a voice in our coastal management
for the health of our environment and economy.
For me, this is an abstract.
My dearest friends, our surfers, I'm not,
and swimmers, and beach goers.
My family comes here from all over the world.
And when they come here, they can't believe what they see.
And we are entrusted to protect this place.
It reminds me, lately I've been walking the shoreline
at dusk, and I notice a heron always in the same spot doing
its nightly routine of fishing or just watching the coast.
So I watched the heron, watched the coast.
And it reminds me that this is a shared inheritance.
And it's up to all of us to hold,
protect this place for generations to come.
So thank you for your work.
Thank you.
We have Daryl Gale in person,
and then we'll move to Zoom for Bonnie Ernst
and Shelley Hilkema and George Hilkema.
Daryl Gale, please go ahead.
Just push it one more time, there you go.
Okay, I'm Daryl Gale.
Hello commissioners, was it your intention to turn the California coast into a radioactive
apocalyptic dead zone nightmare?
I'm talking about the 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste on the beach at San Onofre.
I was there in 2019 in Chula Vista where you or your predecessors let Edison talk you into
believing it would be just fine.
take care of it. What are you doing to mitigate, monitor this catastrophe you
created? Year after year, month after month, you ignore it. Just last month, I
was in San Diego, if I look familiar. My colleague Nina asked about gouged
canisters out of compliance. Commissioner Nordoff asked staff who also ignored the
A question.
Complete acquiescence to Edison.
And when PG&E wants to extend their aging Diablo Canyon
facility, you happily go along with that also.
Did you tell the Olympic committee
that they're sending all these healthy young surfers in 2028
to that surfing competition that's in the same area?
At least tell them to get thyroid pills.
So what are we as citizens supposed to do?
I have been up to Sacramento at least 10 times.
Nobody in Sacramento knows anything about this mess either.
And when I tell them about it,
I even got to talk to two of Newsom's staff
and they like giggled and got all embarrassed
and acted like they didn't know anything about it.
So that just excused it.
So I don't know what to do anymore.
I keep coming here, nobody does anything.
Nobody talks about anything.
It just keeps getting ignored and I'm really, really frustrated.
It's, we're just waiting for a tsunami and an earthquake.
Venezuela had to, and now Elon Musk is sending rockets with radio activity into our atmosphere.
Thank you.
Next up, moving to Zoom, we're going to start off with Bonnie Ernst and then Jaylee and George Hocama.
Ms. Ernst, please go ahead.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
I'm Bonnie Ernst with the Oceano Beach Community
Association.
There's no rush, but I do have four slides
to go along with this.
And I wanted to speak to you today
to provide a quick history lesson, mainly
for the newer commissioners that maybe I haven't met yet,
but one of California's most glaring examples
of environmental injustice, and that
is the coastal zone of Oceano.
For decades, this low-income majority-minority community
has been treated as a regional sacrifice zone
forced to bear industrial and recreational burdens
that would likely not be tolerated
in wealthier coastal areas.
Fundamentally, violating the spirit of the Coastal Act.
First there is the Oceano Dunes state vehicular
recreation area, likely most familiar to you.
Oceano's beach remains the only state beach,
park beach in California where vehicles drive
through a residential coastal zone.
This severely disrupts safe public access,
degrades sensitive habitats and erodes
one of the state's most beautiful beaches.
Slide please.
The wastewater treatment plant.
Second, our coastal anchors
a regional wastewater treatment plant
processing the sewage of surrounding communities
while sitting in a low line flood prone area
adjacent to sensitive wetlands.
Slide please.
Oceano Airport next to the plant sits a 60 acre recreational airport. This underutilized fully
fenced runway locks up prime coastal land and prohibits general public access for the benefit
of a few of affluent mostly out-of-town hobby pilots. Slide please. It sits squarely in a
severe flood and tsunami zone and it is demanding millions of dollars for projects
that threatened to lock in these liabilities for decades, much via federal grant assurances.
As commissioners, you inherit a legacy of night-minded planning. And I thank you for your time.
I think I'm out of time here. Is that not true? Yes, that's the end of the time for you.
Thank you very much. All right, next up we have Chaeli Hilkama and George Hilkama,
followed by Scott Babcock. Chely, can you hear me? Please go ahead. Yes, yes. Good morning,
commissioners. I'm a Newport Harbor mooring permit holder. The city of Newport Beach is
threatening only mooring permit holders with a three to 500% increase in fees and an end to
permit transferability. Though it is duty bound by the public trust doctrine's requirement of
equitable administration to manage trust resources fairly, it doesn't. And this can be seen in its
harbor policies that benefit preferred classes of harbor users. Moring permit holders are treated
like unwelcome second-class voters and compared to like users we've been overcharged and more highly
regulated for decades. Those with residential peer permits pay nothing to store their boats at the
private docks. They pay a fraction of the fees we pay for much larger tide lines footprints. They
enjoy exclusive use rights and the city allows them to rent docks based for private gain which
which can amount to many thousands of dollars
of profit per year.
And the residential peer permits can be transferred
to new owners adding more than a million dollars of value
to their multimillion dollar Harborfront homes.
Permits are required for private use
of the public tide lands.
They have value and when they're transferred,
they can, there can be private financial gain.
The city says people shouldn't profit
off of the public tide lands,
but it's been singularly focused on making a case
against mooring transferability.
Past and present policy makers and staff
have resorted to making dishonest claims
that we're selling the tide lands
and that we make huge profits when we transfer our permits,
but the facts are that we don't sell the tide lands
and most only recoup some of what they paid.
Though the city wants us to believe
that they're trying to protect the public interests,
it intends to end only mooring permit transferability
while it illogically, but not surprisingly,
allows residential peer permit transfer process
that guarantees homeowners far greater private profits.
If the city is not centered for its inconsistent treatment
and unequal regulation of like users,
it will raise our fees excessively
and end our mooring permit transferability,
which will surely end further access
for voters with moderate needs.
Thank you for your good work.
Please don't allow the city to go forward
with this intentions.
Thank you.
Mr. Hillkama you can please go ahead.
My name is George Hillkama.
I'm 90 years old and I've had my sailboat on a mooring
in Newport Harbor for 40 years.
I've been a board member of the Newport Mooring Association
for 35 years and I've spoken to this commission
many times about the unfair mooring related policies
enacted and enforced by the city of Newport Beach.
Now the city wants to raise our mooring fees 300 to 500%
and end our lowering permit transferability again.
I've spent countless hours addressing these same issues
with competent volunteer members of the NMA
and on committees with well-connected city policymakers,
including Ducky Duffield and Brad Avery,
both past Harbor commissioners, council members and mayors,
and we resolved the user fees and transferability concerns.
Now it appears that the current policymakers
that that first pass, think that the past policymakers got a problem. Recreational voting
is a protected use under the common law doctrine of the public trust. The California Coastal Act
states, quote, increased recreational voting use of the coastal waters shall be encouraged,
and it calls for the protection of recreational voting harbor space, which is not to be reduced
as long as there is a demand for those facilities.
Borders need a place to store their boats when they're not in use,
but the City's plan will make these places unaffordable for most,
even though its own local coastal program states that it will
both continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings
as an important source of low-cause public access to the water and armor.
The city of Newport Beach has mismanaged the tide lands for decades,
In its recent efforts to change long-established harbor policy by ending mooring permit transferability
is not only indefensible, it's discriminatory.
Please support fair tide lands policy so mooring permit holders can enjoy their boats rather
than be financially burdened by them.
Thank you.
Oh my gosh, that was perfect, honey.
Good job.
Thank you.
Thank you both so much.
much. Alright next up we're looking for Scott Babcock. Mr. Babcock we're not
seeing you in Zoom so if you can raise your hand if you're in the webinar or if
you're on your phone then you can dial star 9 and we'll circle back to you. In
the meantime we're gonna move on to Jennifer Savage followed by Leslie
Honda. Ms. Savage, please go ahead. Give us his one sec.
Hi. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning Chair Harmon, Commissioners. Jennifer Savage,
Surfrider Foundation. I wanted to bring your attention to a story published in the Washington
Post last week by meteorologist Ben Noll in case you missed it. In short, a massive marine
heat wave in the Pacific is expected to impact global weather. Formed by two heat waves,
may cause a super typhoon and a heat dome and as a result scientists are warning a potential
sea level rise and extreme weather in California. This is linked to El Nino and climate change
and while we can't predict exactly what will happen in California, we do know that the
very warm Pacific seas will drive sea levels, or could drive sea levels, excuse me, 6 inches
to 2 feet higher along our coast. So winds from storms this fall and winter will elevate
the sea potentially even more resulting in up to two to three feet or more along the
California coast.
And I really want to emphasize what climate scientist Daniel Swain said and why I'm bringing
this to your attention, this is the time for local governments, for county governments
and for the state government to start to prepare for a significant likelihood of much higher
than average sea levels, more destructive coastal flooding and potentially record-breaking
coastal water levels during winter storm events and King Tots.
I flag this because too often we see new sea walls or rip rap justified as an appropriate
response to what's deemed an emergency, but we've been experiencing the emergency of
rising sea increasing storms for years.
These are not unexpected one-offs and we cannot continue issuing emergency permits for new
armoring when the problem is long known and known in advance.
We urge commissioners and staff to keep this in mind in the coming months if and when a
parade of emergency permitting requests come before you.
public speech should not be the price paid for local jurisdictions failure to play now thank you.
Thank you very much we're going to move on to Leslie Honda. Ms. Honda please go ahead.
Can you hear me? We can yes please go ahead. Great honorable commissioners and the public
my name is Leslie Honda lead ornithologist at the San Diego bird alliance. I support the
comments made by SEAL society and wildlife jewels today. I'm here to officially state that the
contrary to spokesperson city of San Diego Benny Cartwright's statements the environmental
groups strongly object to the city of San Diego's proposal to spray bio-cac on the bluffs
as two chemical ingredients bit and less according to the materialed safety data sheets are heavily
toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects. No chemicals should be sprayed in this area
as it will harm sensitive wildlife and habitats and to do this directly over a globally recognized
green IUCN marine protected area is negligent. For the past five years I've provided comments
at the California Coastal Commission meetings due to the city of San Diego's negligence towards
protecting the wildlife from management decisions that have no scientific basis. Frankly, I'm tired
of having to show up to these meetings to complain and I'm sure all of you are sick of hearing about
the numerous management issues at La Jolla that harm the wildlife and destroy the habitat.
This matrix summarizes the management issues in La Jolla impacting wildlife. For many decades
we've been piecemealing solutions to properly address these issues when the city of San Diego
should have created a science-based natural resource management plan long ago to identify
the natural resources. This plan would identify where the bird of conservation concern,
western gold nests. A breeding bird the city consistently mismanages even though the species
has been nesting in the area since the 1930s. The wildlife advocacy groups are grateful to
to the rangers that have been working closely with us.
However, we are setting them up for failure
as it's not the rangers jobs to address these issues
without a coherent plan.
We urge the Coastal Commission to mandate
the city of San Diego to prioritize creating
a natural resource management plan for La Jolla
to help resolve these issues and protect wildlife.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're looking for Morgan Placenik.
I believe that may be Morgan Hayne.
If that's you Miss Plesnik under the Morgan Hay name,
please go ahead, possibly, oh, there she is.
Yes, please unmute yourself and go ahead.
Hello?
Hello, we can hear you.
Yes, please go ahead.
Hi, great, thank you.
Good morning.
I did prepare a video to present.
Yes, give us just one moment.
We'll pull that up for you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Morgan and I'm a San Diego resident
to frequent La Jolla three to four times a week.
I run social media pages dedicated to Pinapat education.
Across my platforms,
I reach over 8 million viewers each month.
I educate about how to view wildlife responsibly
and the Marine Mammal Protection app.
Today, I wanna advocate not only for locals and tourists
to respect our wildlife,
but for our city representatives to do the same.
Today, I'm submitting videos that show city lifeguards
attempting to scare sea lions away from the stairs
full view of tourists. I understand they have a responsibility to keep both
stairways open. However, when public safety officers are seen stomping, clapping, or
intentionally scaring sea lions, they unintentionally peach the visitors to do
the same. These are the very same actions I witness tourists do each week. Those
actions are not only harassing protected marine mammals, but also increasing the
risk that someone gets hurt. That is the opposite of what a public safety
officers should be modeling. There has to be better wildlife sensitive ways to
keep this access open. This is especially concerning because La Jolla
Cove is already experiencing significantly higher up mortality than
the protected areas nearby. I respectfully ask the Coastal Commission
to work with the City of San Diego to develop standardized wildlife handling
training for lifeguards and increase range of presence during the busy summer
months when human wildlife conflicts are at their highest. Our public officials
should be setting the example for respectful wildlife viewing,
not teaching people how to harass them.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commission.
That's it.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Ozzy Sharif followed by Elena Tillman,
Nathan Brenner, and Robin David-Hoff.
Mr. Sharif, you've been promoted to panelist.
Please unmute yourself and go ahead.
Hello, good morning, commissioners.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
My name is Dr. Aussie Sharif,
Executive Director of Wildlife Jewels.
Since my last comments before the commission,
Wildlife Jewels has continued regular field monitoring
through our eyes program at La Jolla Cove,
Point La Jolla and Children's Pool.
Documenting wildlife activity, human disturbance,
injuries and habitat conditions.
We appreciate the increased presence of city rangers,
but significant wildlife management challenges remain.
At La Jolla Cove, we continue to document
after-hours harassment of sea lions,
including disturbances that separate mothers and pups
and interfere with injured sea lions
attempting to come ashore for a chance to be rescued.
At Children's Pool, we continue to document disturbance
of federally protected nesting Western galls
and their chicks,
as well as ongoing harassment of harbor seals,
including injured pumps, attending to rest
or come ashore for rescue.
Wildlife Jules Seabird Rescue crew also continues
to document injured and tangled and distressed seabirds
along the La Jolla shoreline.
California seabirds are already facing
an ongoing starvation crisis,
leaving birds more vulnerable to injury,
entanglement, disturbance, and reduced breeding success.
For these reasons, Wildlife Jules joins
the San Diego Bird Alliance and the Seal Society
in urging the Commission to oppose the city's proposed
biotech spraying.
Introducing chemicals into nesting, roosting and puffing
habitat is not a precautionary science-based approach.
We also respectfully ask the Commission
to urge the city of San Diego to develop
a comprehensive science-based natural resource management
plan for the La Jolla coastline with clear proactive measures
to protect this sensitive coastal ecosystem.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much.
Next up, we have Elena Tillman, Nathan Brenner,
and Robin Davidhoff.
Ms. Tillman, please go ahead.
Ms. Tillman, if you can hear me, please go ahead
and unmute yourself.
Hi there.
Thank you for that.
I just wasn't promoted to panelist yet.
Thank you so much.
This is a video that I am respectfully
requesting that you play.
Thank you, commissioners.
They're not paying attention.
Sierra Club Seal Society would like to thank Park Rangers for managing very large crowds
from both staircases.
Unfortunately, there's still work left to be done.
The following scenes occurred before Rangers arrived or at night time.
Unfortunately here, this can lead to pup demise, secondary to maternal abandonment.
This man was told that the beach was opened by a lifeguard and did not heed
warnings from a docent asking him to please stay away from the pups.
Unfortunately, he walked right through them.
Despite our goal of zero human-related pup deaths in the Cove this year, we have
already lost nine. That represents 40% of the pups living in the cove. In brighter news you
may have heard about the very rare occurrence of twins or mom adopting a second pup. We aren't
entirely sure which, but we want to highlight the privilege that it is to share a space with these
animals. This footage was taken by volunteer docents and some of it by local photographers
that really highlights how important it is that we continue to give them the respect and space that
they deserve. On behalf of Sierra Club Seal Society, thank you. Thank you much. And we'll
move on to Nathan Brenner and Robin Davidoff, followed by Carol Archibald. Nathan, please go
ahead. Good morning commissioners. We have a presentation if you'll put up our first slide,
please. And for the next slide, I'm Nathan Brenner with the Sierra Club Seal Society here to present
on the current management of the Lohia Cove and protection of Lohia's sea lion moms and pups.
Sierra Club Seal Society's goal is to share the shore by balancing public access with protections
for newborn sea lion pups. In June 2026, the City of San Diego and the Sierra Club Seal Society
agreed to a management protocol for the Lohia Cove. Rangers are staffed at the Lohia Cove and
make announcements asking visitors to view sea lions from at least 20 feet. Rangers agreed to
redirect visitors to the eastern staircase beach access when sea lions are on or below the western
stairs. Rangers agreed to place cones and tape around sea lion pups on the beach. Rangers agreed
to deploy on the beach to better manage the crowds, increase their presence, and to gain visitor
cooperation. Rangers also agreed to place A-frame signs on the beach to provide a visual cue to stay
back. Next slide please. This photo shows the La Jolla Cove beach and the western stairs.
This recent photo shows 14 pups at the western cove beach circled in red.
Obviously there are usually many many more visitors down on the beach.
Orange cones are placed on the stairs as a visual cue for visitors to stay back.
To protect these pups and manage crowds, here is what's working and has been effective.
Staffing. Rangers are staffed at the cove and making regular announcements to manage
the crowds and keep people at a safe distance from sea lions. Stairs.
When Rangers are present, they redirect crowds away from the western stairs when
sea lions are on or below them and place cones on the stairs to ensure public safety.
Viewing. When Rangers are present, they often urge the public to stay on the upper levels
to view the sea lions and redirect them to use the eastern staircase for beach access.
I will now turn the presentation over to Sierra Club Seal Society chairperson Robin Dabedoff.
Thank you Mr. Dabedoff. Please go ahead.
Okay, can you hear me? Yes, thank you so much. Okay, next slide please. I'm Robin Davidoff,
Sierra Club Seal Society Chair. We believe additional action is needed to fully implement
the Agreed 2 pipping protocol. We need cones and tape on the La Jolla Cove beach around the pups.
These visual cues help visitors determine where they should stand protecting both the public and
and the vulnerable pups.
We need rangers to have a regular presence on the beach.
Their visibility makes a significant difference
not only by providing guidance and education
to the visitors, but also by encouraging safe behavior
before situations become problems.
We also need A-frame signs placed on the beach
rather than on the stairs.
Clear signs with viewing guidelines
and do not touch messages prevent unsafe interactions.
These actions balance public access
and protection of marine life.
Next slide, please.
A major concern is what happens outside of ranger hours,
which are 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Puping and mating season coincide
with our busiest tourist season,
which means visitors are present early in the morning
and late into the evening.
While lifeguards are often staffed,
they don't, they've been told not to intervene,
even when visitors get dangerously close to the sea lions
actively harass them. This is especially important during the mating season in late July and August
when territorial bulls may suddenly charge at one another, sometimes running directly through
a crowded beach. Next slide please. Our requests are simple and straightforward. We're asking for
the rangers to have a presence on the beach, for regular use of cones and tape around the pups,
and for A-frame signs to be placed on the beach. We ask the city to establish a clear protocol for
hours when rangers are not present, including asking lifeguards to intervene when visitors
are behaving unsafely or harassing sea lions. Finally, we encourage the city to prioritize
the installation of a webcam, which can provide public education and allow people to observe the
sea lions without disturbing them. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, we're going to
move on to Carol Archibald followed by John Dow and Jamie DeLuck. All right, Miss Archibald,
you should be able to go ahead. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Okay. Can you put up my
presentation, please? So I am speaking on spraying chemicals on the Hoya bluffs to reduce the odor
on behalf of the bird alliance and on the Sierra Club Seal Society.
There's a photo here that shows where the area on the bluffs are sprayed and the birds who are
high conservation priority nest and the model of state marine preserve reserve sorry a marine
protected area is located directly below you can see it. The city sprayed chemicals in the past
on the bluffs north of the cove without identifying
environmental factors or conditions
that factor into the smell.
Sorry.
The factor into the smell were based
on scientifically measurable parameters.
As marine wildlife forage in the ocean,
chemicals can transfer from the treatment area into the MPA
by fur, feathers, feet, and slippers.
Nucosal membranes of wildlife are
vulnerable to the concentration of chemicals.
Eggs are porous and absorb chemicals, which can transfer by seed and seathers of breeding birds when adults sit on eggs.
Bronze cormoran and western gull chicks are vulnerable for eight weeks and cannot avoid spraying or rinsing off in the water.
Adult sea birds are vulnerable to exposure to chemicals through eyes,
facial skin, orifices, and ingestion by preening seathers.
Marine mammal puffs are vulnerable to ingestion
of chemicals when nursing.
When nursing and exposure may be detrimental
during development.
Surfactant, sodium, laurel, ether, sulfate
is added to biotech to create the foamy action
that increases the dwell time on the bluffs
and reduces running.
Contamination with surfactant causes the surface tension
of seawater to drop below normal.
Water falls, water fails to form droplets
and penetrates the feather lattice structure of a bird's
plumage, and it becomes waterlogged.
There is a safety dash that's very toxic to aquatic life.
All right.
Thank you, Ms. Archibald.
We're gonna move on to John Dow,
Jamie De Luc, and then Susan Kirks.
Mr. Dow, please go ahead and unmute yourself and go ahead.
Good morning, commissioners.
John Dow with Save Our Beaches San Clemente.
I sent all of you an email regarding OCTA's updated
coastal rail resiliency study,
and I hope you will read it.
The central point is simple.
OCTA is again advancing a flawed plan
that dresses up hard armoring as coastal resiliency.
Rip rap, sea walls, and revetments do not create resilience.
They temporary defend the rail bed
by sacrificing public beaches,
including one of California's most treasured.
OCTA's area four plan with San Clemente State Beach,
enjoyed by families, surfers, campers, and visitors,
on a path towards permanent armoring
and inevitable beach loss.
OCTA's own materials acknowledge the real problem.
Dry beach loss and narrowing beaches,
yet they propose cosmetic one-time sand placement
in front of a permanent structure
that will only worsen the very erosion
the plant is supposed to solve.
They call it nourishment,
but it is temporary cover for permanent rock.
Hard armoring does not restore the beach,
solve groundwater-driven bluff failure
or prevent water from penetrating the bluff toe.
It accelerates erosion and coastal squeeze,
destroying lateral access, recreation,
surfing resources, and public trust beaches.
OCT also routinely allows foreseeable risks
to become emergencies,
then uses emergency permits to justify more armoring.
Their playbook is clear.
Defer sand, delay solutions, watch the beach narrow,
and then claim rock is the only alternative.
With the current El Nino conditions,
every month without sand makes the next emergency
more likely.
I respectfully ask the commission
to stop rewarding this delay.
Deny future emergency permits for shoreline armoring
where the risks were foreseeable
or caused by OCTAs in action.
For pending permits require immediate
continuous sand replenishment with enforceable volumes,
deadlines, monitoring, and recurring placement obligations.
The beach is not an obstacle to real resiliency.
It is the resiliency.
is also the public resource the Coastal Act
requires is to make them to protect.
Please do not allow a CTA to destroy that resource
under the false label of resilience.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dow.
All right, we're moving on to Jamie De Luc followed
by Susan Kirks and then Terry Walsh.
Jamie, please go ahead.
Thank you.
I have some slides if you don't mind pulling them up, please.
One moment.
All right, so good morning, commissioners.
My name is Jamie LeDuc.
I am Surfrider's BlueOut Task Force Manager,
and I'm here to tell you about our Clean Water Initiative
and new report.
Next slide.
Our goal is to protect water quality and reduce pollution
so it's safe to surf, swim, and play at the beach
and in coastal waters.
Next slide.
The way we do this is through our BlueOut Task Force
and ocean-friendly garden programs,
local, federal, and state campaigns,
and when necessary, through legal action.
Next slide.
Our national blue water task force provides
critical water quality information
to protect public health at the beach.
Our surf rider chapters use this volunteer water testing
program to raise awareness of local pollution problems
and to bring together communities to implement solutions.
Next slide.
You can see, for example, all the places
are Ventura County chapter test here,
and you can look up all the other locations
at bwtf.surfrider.org.
Next slide. We recently released our annual Clean Water Report which analyzes all the data
our volunteers collected throughout the year and in it we highlighted two case studies from
California. Next slide. One was at Linda Mar in Pacifica where 72 percent of our tests failed to
meet water quality health standards. Next slide. This year because of a new source tracking study
we we had even more insight as to why which is really important as we push agencies and officials
towards solutions. Next slide please. San Luis Creek, Atavila Beach, and San Luis
Obispo is another highly polluted area. Next slide. One of the ways we help
people improve local water quality is through our ocean-friendly gardens which
is Surf Rider Sustainable Landscaping and Education Program. It advocates for
beautiful nature-based solutions to reduce polluted runoff and support
resilient coasts. This slide shows an ocean-friendly garden in Ventura and you
You can check out where all the others are on Surfrider's website.
Next slide.
Next slide.
Thank you.
Nationally we have 70 ocean friendly gardens covering 42 acres and filtering so far nearly
29 million gallons of runoff.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right.
We're moving on to Susan Kirk's followed by Terry Walsh and then Cassandra Cunningham.
Susan Kirk's, please go ahead.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, Vice Chair Hart, commissioners and staff.
I'm Susan Kirks and I'm speaking today in reference to one of your items yesterday,
the Federal Consistency Report and the Deputy Director's Report.
I had submitted a request to speak and had raised my hand, but apparently I'm not sure
what happened.
the project I was interested in asking questions about wasn't mentioned in the report and
the staff indicated there were no comments. So as I said, I'm not sure what happened, but
today I'd like to bring your attention to a project in that report that wasn't mentioned
but still remained in the report as far as I can tell. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes
a project at the southeast Farallon Island. It's described as a phase one of a transition plan,
repairs, and demolition of a water structure, re-installation of some water tanks.
My questions were similar to a written comment that was submitted by California Sierra Club
Coastal Committee, and I didn't see their comment posted either, so I wasn't sure what happened
there, but briefly my questions are what what is this transition plan? What is a transition plan
from and a transition plan to? The equipment that's planned to be used for just demolishing a
water structure includes jackhammers which produce high levels of noise and ground vibration.
What are the methods used to manage that ground vibration
and noise impact level?
Who will do the assessment?
Who will monitor it?
How will it be addressed?
What is meant by quote unquote careful hazing?
And what is encompassed in an incidental harassment permit
that the service plans to?
Thank you very much.
thank you very much. Moving on to Terry Walsh followed by Cassandra Cunningham and then
we have Eric Fleischer. Terry Walsh please go ahead. Hi. This is Terry Walsh. I am the
president of the Coastal Corridor Alliance and I've been talking for the last I'm sorry
there's a little start of my video. One more time. Here we go. Okay. Sorry. My name is
Terry Welsham, president of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, and I've talked the last couple months
about Randall Preserve focusing on 11 acres on the mesa. Now these 11 acres, despite being in
the coastal zone, are actually not part of Randall Preserve. They're under different ownership. They're
owned by the local school district. The Newport Mesa Unified Schools are sick. Next slide, please.
Now the school district has declared these 11 acres to be surplus property, and they're in the
very early preliminary stages of a proposal to build several multimillion dollar Ocean View
Newport Beach homes. Next slide please. Now the school district purchased these 11 acres back in
1965 and as late as 1979 and 1980 they remained largely undeveloped however starting in the mid
90s. Next slide. The school district used most of this property as a storage yard. Next slide please.
Here it is in 2007 now it continues to this day and it is the opinion of our organization that
that were it not for this storage yard activity,
there'd be extensive Esha on these 11 acres.
And we believe this primarily because, next slide,
immediately on the other side of the fence,
on the Randall Preserve fence aside,
it's nothing but Esha.
This is a 2016 Esha map prepared by your staff
for when the then owner of Banning Ranch
was trying to build a large development.
And also if you look at old historic aerial photographs
of the school district property
before they started the storage yard,
it looks very similar to Randall Preserve.
The second thing is, is our opinion
that this is unpermitted development.
We've made a public records act request
to the school district and found no evidence
that they ever applied for,
much less obtain a coastal development permit.
Next slide, please.
Commissioners, I ask, I beg, I plead
to please direct your staff into looking into the question
of whether there is a coastal development permit
for this storage yard activity.
It's really important.
And I thank you so much for your time.
Have a good day.
Thank you. Moving on to Cassandra Cunningham.
Ms. Cunningham, please go ahead.
Hello, my video was disabled, but it doesn't matter.
Should I start?
Should be able to enable it now, there you go.
Hi everyone, my name is Cassandra Cunningham.
I am a local educator in Ventura County
and I also work on Santa Cruz Island
in Channel Islands National Park.
I'm here to vehemently oppose any offshore drilling
that is being proposed by the federal government
in this area.
The Santa Barbara Channel is extremely biodiverse.
It is designated as a whale heritage site.
There is a ton of whale migration,
as well as bird migration, bird nesting.
There are healthy kelp forests off of the islands
off of the coast which is becoming more and more rare in Southern California. Any oil drilling puts
all of that at risk. I strongly suggest that everybody come up to this area of the coast
where this meeting is being held right now. It's beautiful. I grew up in San Diego and I love it
down there. And also, it is a lot more developed than it is up here and we don't have these islands.
And I think all areas of the coast should be protected. But there is a history of these oil
drilling practices causing extreme damage. And the federal government is trying to reopen those
without doing any sort of mitigation or fixing any pipes or doing anything like that. And there
is a big risk here. I am an educator. I work with children every day. I really, really want those
kids to be able to enjoy the ocean and the coast just as much as I have throughout my life. Thank
you. Thank you so much. All right. We were able to find Eric Fletcher, Mr. Fletcher.
No, Mr. Fletcher, please go ahead. I have a presentation. Perfect. Good morning,
commissioners. My name is Eric Fletcher, and I'm here to provide an update to my public comment
last month opposing the permit application to resume the La Jolla Bluff spraying program.
Next slide, please. Since we last spoke, I've learned some staggering facts. The city's internal
logs are on this slide, and they show despite a highly publicized policy halt announced on May 1,
2017, they secretly executed 120 spray applications between 2017 and 2023, with this first spray
occurring just three days after the announcement. In an email, the city administration confirmed
that they failed to obtain a CDP, a waste discharge waiver, or a letter of authorization
from NOAA Fisheries for any of these sprays. The fact that the city is now filing an application
for a permit is a clear retroactive admission that a CDP was required all along, and it is
These proved that these applications are all violations of Section 30600.
As 112 of these applications were executed during critical nesting and pumping seasons,
they are all violations of Section 30240.
Next slide.
I've learned this phrase may be what's damaging our giant kelp.
These surfactants can dissolve the protective mucilage layer and prevent microscopic spore
reef attachment.
I've shared this data with scientists at SIO and UCSD who confirmed that this unknown
variable was not considered in their research.
They noted the geographic correlation matching the canopy collapse localized to La Jolla's
northern beds and intend to study this data further.
On June 24, I recorded video of walkway pressure washing where a crew allowed untreated wastewater
to flow directly into storm drains, dumping a toxic foam plume into the MPA.
These actions create a severe barrier to public coastal access by allowing private commercial
interests to degrade our marine ecosystem, the city is actively diminishing the integrity
of our public waters, limiting the community's ability to utilize these state resources.
I respectfully ask that the Commission issue an immediate enforcement injunction on all
spraying and walkway washes and deny the outstanding permit application.
Mandate the city create a science-based natural resources management plan as required by law.
Initiate formal enforcement action and assess civil penalties for the documented violations
and route any remediation funds directly back into environmental protection improvement
and research here within the middle.
I have compiled the evidence and invite the enforcement division to contact me so I can
and share these files with your team.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fletcher.
There were two people we were unable to find in the webinar.
Scott Babcock and James Hudnall.
Scott Babcock and James Hudnall, if you can hear me,
please raise your hand.
And seeing no one, no more speakers, Madam Chair.
Great.
Thank you very much, and thank you to the public
for your testimony.
Before I turn to the commission, I
will turn to Dr. Hucklebridge.
I think there was a member of the public you were going to give a brief response to.
I just wanted to quickly, yes, thank you, Chair, I wanted to quickly respond to Susan
Kirks who made a comment about signing up yesterday and then wasn't called.
And I just want to acknowledge that is definitely, that's exactly what happened.
We discovered the error, we reached out to her yesterday and let her know that we will
be rereporting the item that she was interested in next month so she will have an additional
opportunity to provide comments and then we can respond in real time.
So our apologies to Ms. Kirk, it was definitely a mistake on our part.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
OK.
Commissioner Kelly.
Through the Chair, I just had a question about the Newport School District item with the
storage yard in that area.
Do we have any information about whether or not they have a permit for the storage yard
or is that something you could report on at a future meeting?
So we have been meeting with Mr. Welch about the issues that he raised at the report museum
if I do school district property and we are looking into those issues that he has raised
but I don't have any more information at this point.
Great.
I think just if you could share back with us once you've been able to ascertain what's
going on there, that would be wonderful.
Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you.
Just have a question maybe for staff and and I really want to
Mention the folks talking about La Jolla buffs and the bio kex spreading spraying
My understanding is that the regional regional board in San Diego some years ago
Mentioned that this would be an activity that they would need a permit for but then more recently
Kind of turned around and said well
We reviewed some information from the city and we included it's not something we need to regulate which actually pretty much surprised me
But sounds like now the city is applying for a CDP for this activity at least that's what some of the folks are saying
one, I just want to ask if that's the case and then you know if they have been spraying without a CDP if
You know, there is a possible violations that need to be remedied. So, thank you
So yes, thank you
Our understanding is that the city is processing a permit with it's a city a CDP right now
They have an LCP so the permit is obviously under their jurisdiction. My understanding is that permit is appealable to us
So it's possible that I'll come in front of this Commission or not
and we are
Looking into the idea this idea that there are there's unpermitted development from before I don't have we don't have any comments on
That it's just something that we've heard recently and are going to look into. Thank you
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart
No, I had the same question. So thank you. Sorry
Commissioner Preciado I just wanted to comment on the city of San Diego and their and their opportunity to continue to work with
everyone
Interested in La Jolla Cove and the surrounding areas related to the seals. I just want to note
50 full-time position
Excuse me
52 full-time positions were eliminated in this recent budget process from the Parks and Recreation
department that includes the Rangers, and I'm just wondering if given the
challenges faced by the City of San Diego, if more extraordinary measures
need to be considered. With all due respect to all those who enjoy going, it
smells a little bit over there, and so, but I appreciate that people love going
there and enjoy watching and seeing the seals, but I'm wondering if we need to
consider in light of challenges to their facing that
maybe during the puppy season there should not be human interaction in that
part of the beach and it may be very controversial but I don't see any other
way I don't know that the docents the Rangers who have authority to find people
from 500 up to $5,000 but it how can they be there 24 hours a day giving the
pressures that that department is facing in the rest of the city, so I'm just interested in seeing
this is the one of those issues that doesn't go away probably won't go away for a while but it is
it just seems that a different approach may be needed given that it's just difficult to manage
natural environment that has fauna, the species there that need to survive, and
the extraordinary pressure of visitors and the residents of La Jolla trying to
enter that area. So I just wanted to comment and see if some pilot can be
imagined for the upcoming seasons where we don't have human interaction in that
part of the beach, and see if that helps improve the situation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
I had the same concerns about San Diego.
I didn't realize that they laid off 50 people.
They're going in the wrong direction, which is unfortunate.
Do we have any recourse?
Do we have any jurisdiction?
I hate it when governmental agencies fight each other.
I mean, I don't think we get anywhere.
So us going after the City of San Diego to me is not the right approach either, but is
there anything we can do?
Can we ask for volunteers to go out there?
Can it be roped off?
Can it, as Commissioner Presiano said, is there anything we can do?
Because it just seems this is kind of a joke almost.
I mean, that poor guy, that poor ranger was standing up there and no one was listening
to him.
I mean, it's really inexcusable almost, so for what it's worth.
Through the chair, if I may, yeah, no, I'll turn it over to Carl in a minute if there's
more specifics.
I think my take...
I missed the presentation last month, but heard about it and understood that the city
had presented along with the SEAL Society and I think we have worked very hard to avoid
the situation where we're fighting, we're trying to find a joint solution with all the
folks that are involved and care about the space.
So my first inclination would be to lean into there.
I mean the nice thing is we have a plan and they presented it to you all about how they're
going to be managing this that allows for some adjustment when things aren't working.
And so I think our next step would be to go back and meet with everybody and say well
what do we do now?
if this isn't working and there's still these impacts,
how do, and I think the Steel Society presentation today
had some ideas about what could,
and I think we go back to the table
and we start talking about those ideas.
And I hear all the recommendations about,
I think we've all talked about all the possible things
that could go on.
My preference would be to keep it all
in a joint collaborative atmosphere.
And so I think it will work very hard to do that
and see what we can do.
And again, I just, I have to appreciate the turnaround
from all parties involved.
We are now in a space where we are trying
to collectively solve the problem, and that's good.
So I want to lean into that and work with the city,
work with the SEAL Society to try to come up
with adjustments to the plan and see what we can do.
That said, as you saw, the city has budget problems
and they can't have staff out there all the time.
And even when they do, people aren't listening.
There are some kind of really difficult problems
that we may not be able to solve with collaboration.
So we'll have to see, you know, we'll have, or we'll have to see what we can come, you
know, what'll come out of that.
But it is, it's a real hard problem.
And when you have people that aren't listening to Rangers, it makes it really hard.
What do we do arrest those people?
You know, it's a, it's a challenging, which you could, but then that's a lot of resources
for the city, right?
Which is, it's just, it's a, it's a really hard problem to solve.
So we're going to, what I really like though is we're in the space with the city where
we're collaboratively trying to fix it.
And they see the problem.
We see the problem.
the best way to use the resources available to us and to them and to the SEAL Society to fix it.
So, or at least try. So you have our word that we're going to continue working with them to try
to address the problems that we're seeing in the videos that continue to see in the videos,
but also acknowledge it's a lot better than it was.
Will you keep us surprised of ongoing in your report?
Yeah.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. All right, any other comments, questions?
Seeing none let's continue mr. Schwing all right that does take us to item 5
which is the administrative calendar for South Coast District items for dock
replacements in Newport Beach staffs not aware of any opposition to these
permits and we're asking whether four or more commissioners object to the
issuance of these administrative items thank you any expertise any public
comments there are none okay do four more commissioners object to either
item in the administrative calendar seeing no objections the Commission can
curse thank you thank you so that takes us to item six this is the consent
calendar for to South Coast district items there's no known opposition to
these items applicants are an agreement staff recommendations so we're
recommending the Commission vote and approve the consent calendar any
Any public comments?
Two available for questions only.
Great.
Thank you.
I guess actually I'll take a motion this time.
I move to approve the consent calendar.
That's a motion by Commissioner Kelly, a second by Commissioner Jackson, and we are all present.
So any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the consent calendar is adopted.
Now Mr. Schwing to those items removed from the regular calendar to consent, please.
Thank you.
So there are 10 items that we're recommending be moved to consent that I mentioned earlier,
starting with item 10A.
This is the Noyo Harbor Dock Project in Fort Bragg, item 14C, the CDP application from
you see parks for doc project in Dana Point Harbor item 16 a the city of
oceansides LCP amendment on their de novo hearing appeals process item 16 B
the city of Carlsbad's LCP amendment on the airport uses item 16 D the city of
San Diego's LCP amendment on the Claremont community plan LCP time
extension. Item 16E, the City of San Diego's LCP amendment on their community enhancement
overlay zone. LCP time extension. Item 16F, the City of San Diego's LCP amendment for
the AVA Pacifica Beach project. Again, a time extension. Item 16G, City of San Diego's LCP
for their Preservation Progress Package A amendment time extension and last item 17A
this is application 633A6 for the surf song project in Solana Beach and I do just have
a few comments to go over on some of these items.
I want to note there is correspondence and an addendum on item 10A the Louderback Dock
Project in Noyar Harbor, which just includes some minor clarifications to the staff report.
There is correspondence and an addendum on item 16B, which is the City of Carlsbad's
LCP amendment related to airport uses.
Yesterday, staff received a letter of objection on behalf of the Carlsbad Jet Center, requesting
the Commission consider the matter solely within its jurisdiction, and as described
in detail in the addendum. The proposed amendment, the implementation plan amendment does not
authorize any physical development or alter airport operations. It is limited to land
use definitions and permit process clarifications within the city's certified IP with no effect
on coastal resources. The commission's action on the amendment does not express any opinion
regarding current or future airport operations uses or expansion proposals.
The airport is located entirely outside the coastal zone and as such portions of the amendment
related to the airport operations have already been approved by the City of Carlsbad.
Therefore the concerns expressed in the letter fall outside the scope of the action being
taken today and do not affect the findings of consistency with the land use plan so
The staff continues to recommend this matter be approved on the consent calendar.
Correspondence was also received on items 16D and 16G which are both LCP time extensions
for amendments submitted by the City of San Diego.
The comments received focused on the content of the amendments and do not raise any objection
to the time extensions.
So there's no action that will be taken today on the substantive content of the amendment
request.
So again we're continuing to recommend those items remain on consent.
Last on the surf song application, item 17A, there's a correspondence from Surf Rider Foundation
in support of the staff recommendation and an addendum to the staff report to indicate
the applicant is now in agreement with the staff recommendation.
So in regard to the remaining items, those applicants are also in agreement with staff
recommendations.
We're not aware of any opposition there.
And staff recommends commission vote and approve this item.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Any ex partes?
Commissioner Presciado.
Driving here on Tuesday night, I had an ex parte on item 16b, the Carlsbad LCP amendment.
My phone call was with Tim Obits, with the Carlsbad Jet Center President and General
Council and Victor Avena, his representative.
He raised issues with me about the challenges they see moving forward with their master
plan and some of the grants that they've received from the federal government that may require
some development on part of the airport and as such they saw challenges with the Carlsbad
LCP amendment.
They thought the Coastal Commission may be, since it's not in the Coastal Zone, they thought
the Coastal Commission's actions were going to impact the airport and its expected federally
supported uses.
So, one of the, and so that's what the communication was about.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any public comments?
We have multiple available for questions.
It looks like there's one individual who wanted to speak on 16D, but we're not seeing him
in Zoom.
It's Ian Grooms, so if there's an Ian Grooms that can hear us, if you can raise your hand.
Not seeing anyone, so no one else.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Returning to the commission, comments, questions, or a motion?
So motion by Commissioner Lowenberg,
a second by Vice Chair Hart.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
OK, I'm going to suggest we take a brief 10 minute bio break,
and then we will return with item 8.
Be back at 10.35, please.
OK.
Everyone, we're going to return to session.
everyone thank you all right now we are on to item 8 so we'll now consider
agenda items 8.1 and 8.2 consent cease and desist order number CCC dash two
six dash CD dash zero three and consent administrative penalty number CCC dash
26-AP-02. The consent order and consent administrative penalties are both
proposed to be issued to Costa del Sol Homeowners Association, also known as Bay
Harbor, in Long Beach, Los Angeles County. Would the alleged violator and or its
representatives please come up and identify themselves for the record.
Push here to talk. My name is Charlotte Hart. I am here on behalf of the Board
Board of Directors for Costa del Sol Bay Harbor,
and joining me today in case he is needed
is Eric Zahn of Title Influence,
who can help discuss the Habitat Matters.
Great, thank you Ms. Hart.
To our staff, can you please identify
what items are already part of the record?
Yes, thank you Chair.
The record consists of the contents of the staff report
and supporting documents,
the addendum that we posted yesterday online,
which contained letters of support
in documents from the City of Long Beach, the Sierra Club,
Gordana Kager, and Penny Alia, as well as the public documents
in the violation file and everything from today's hearing.
Great.
Thank you.
And Ms. Hagee, how long will you need for your presentation?
30 minutes, please.
Great.
There should not have been any ex parte communications,
but do any commissioners have any communications to report?
Seeing none, I'm now going to review
the rules for this proceeding.
Our staff has asked for 30 minutes for its presentations,
So I will give the alleged violator the same amount of time.
And they may also request to reserve some of that time
for their own rebuttal.
After any presentation by the alleged violator,
we will allow three minutes for any other party who'd
like to speak as an interested member of the public,
after which I will allow the alleged violator to use
any reserved rebuttal time to respond to comments
from interested persons.
Our staff will then typically respond to the testimony
and to any new evidence introduced.
Anyone who speaks at this hearing may propose questions,
either orally or in writing, that they would like
commissioners to ask of any other party,
but it isn't appropriate to suggest
to be asked questions to yourself.
Commissioners may, but are not required
to ask the proposed questions.
So with that, we're now gonna begin the public hearing
and I will turn it to Ms. Hagee for the staff presentation.
Thank you so much.
We're ready for our presentation to go up.
Thank you.
In this photo, you can see a walkway and a park bench overlooking Alameda's Bay and Long
Beach.
This photo was taken from the city's Jack Nickell Park looking towards a coastal walkway called
the Bayfront Walkway, which was required to be constructed for the public by a commissioned
CDP covering the construction of a large subdivision and residential development that we'll discuss
in the presentation.
Staff is pleased to announce that respondent Bay Harbor HOA has worked with staff to reach
an amicable resolution of this case by entering into the proposed consent cease and desist
order and consent administrative penalty, which will be collectively referred to as
consent orders for your consideration today.
This matter involves the historic blocking of public access that was required by conditions
of a commissioned CDP, including blocking greenbelt pathways and bayfront walkways that
lead to and along Alamitos Bay.
work together closely and collaboratively with respondent and greatly appreciates their
cooperation and participation in crafting this creative resolution. It's an exciting settlement
proposal because respondent has agreed not only to provide the required public access
and enhance the access on the HOA property, but they have also agreed to fund and construct
a number of major public amenities in a nearby public park that greatly needs them. Respondent
has agreed to undertake a major native planting program to create coastal habitat there as
As well as to construct or fund additional public amenities including benches, drinking
fountain and water bottle refill stations, interpretive signs and a public restroom.
Staff recommends that the commission issue the proposed consent order to resolve the
unpermitted development on and adjacent to property owned by a respondent.
Today's presentation will be given by headquarters enforcement attorney Rob Montelmog and assistant
chief council Alex Helperin is also here to support.
Rob?
Thanks.
Good morning Chair Harmon and members of the Commission. As just mentioned this
case involves public access violations within and along a large residential
development in Long Beach called the Costa del Sol development. I will now
begin by showing some maps of the area. Next slide please.
Alamitos Bay is located east of the Port of Long Beach and northwest of Huntington
Beach as you can see on this map of the region. This slide also really shows how
urban this region is. The Greater Los Angeles area is directly inland of the Bay and the Bay is
therefore an important coastal access resource for those from inland communities. Next slide please.
On this slide you can see an overview of this portion of the Bay. Bay Harbor is located between
Pacific Coast Highway and Jack Nickel Park. To the west is um in the water is Marine Stadium which
was the site of the 1932 Olympic rowing competition and will be the site of the 2028 Olympic rowing
races. The CDP required the permittee to record a public access easement through the development
and along the bayfront which is outlined in yellow and the permittee was required to provide
a 10-foot wide public pathway somewhere within the outlined area. The scale of the public access
easement is very large and includes over 1,300 yards of required pathways. To the left of it in
blue is an adjacent public access easement also required by the commission in a separate CDP
on a different property. Next slide please. On this map, the yellow stars show the locations
of some of Respondent's green belt access way violations. The yellow stars show the areas where
Respondent maintain lock gates and signs restricting public access to the CDP required green belt
access ways, which are within the yellow outlined area. Next slide please. On this slide, the orange
star at the very bottom shows where Respondent maintained a closed gate at the CDP required
Bayfront walkway which obstructed public access there.
The white star at the very top of this slide shows where respondent installed and maintained
Bay Harbor signs at the entrance to the only public road leading to Jack Nookle Park, which
unfortunately also made the public road appear to be private.
On this slide, you can see plans submitted by the CDP applicant in 1976 for 198 housing
units that would become Bay Harbor.
The large project was proposed for 28 acres.
The developer had worked closely with the city
prior to submitting the CDP application,
and the city had already required the developer
to dedicate what would later become Jack Nickle Park
as part of the project.
Next slide, please.
Here you can see the developers proposed plans
for what is now the Greenbelt Public Access Way.
Because this project was proposed to be
partially built on public tight lands,
and because this area is between
the closest public road in the sea,
The commission required that public access be protected and enhanced here.
As shown on this slide, the Greenbelt Access Way was intended to allow the public to more
easily reach the bay and the future city park.
As you can also see, the large greenbelt stretches throughout the entire project site.
Next slide please.
At the 1977 commission hearing for this project, the commission made clear how important public
access is here.
The commission found that the Greenbelt Access Ways would help to promote pedestrian and
bike access to the Bay and to the future park and would therefore help to avoid the need
for parking so there would be more actual park space for the public to enjoy.
Next slide please.
The Commission approved the CDP and Special Condition 4 required a public access easement
over the Greenbelt and across the Bayfront.
This condition is at the center of this case, as we will discuss.
Next slide please.
On this slide you can see a quote from the recorded public access easement.
In 1978, the developer incorporated the Coasted El Sol Homeowners Association, now known as
the Bay Harbor HOA.
That same year, the State Coastal Conservancy accepted the easement.
The recorded easement states that the successor of the grantor, in this case, Respondent,
was obligated to maintain and improve the 10-foot wide public pathway.
Next slide, please.
The developer did build the pathways that were required by the CDP, and we'll now look
at some photos of them here.
This image shows how parts of the paths were built relatively close to the houses.
On this side, you can see another image of the Greenbelt access ways.
This photo is taken near the fork in the paths where you can decide to walk towards the Bayfront
Walkway or onto Jacknechke Park.
In this image, you can get a better sense of the huge length of the public paths.
This photo is taken near the center of the Greenbelt looking towards Jacknechke Park,
which is 200 yards away through the trees.
While the developer constructed these access ways and they were available to the residents,
they were blocked from public use for years by the unpermitted gates.
And now we're going to show a few photos as we walk through it.
Next slide please.
In a few areas of the Greenbelt, you have to cross small roads that are parts of the
HOA development, as you can see in this photo.
Next slide please.
Here's another photo looking towards Jackneckle Park, but which was taken much closer to it.
Next slide please.
On this slide you can see the path as it curves around one of the pools right before you reach
the park.
The pathways provide the pedestrian access along the greenbelt and also provide access
to the park in Bayfront Walkway.
Next slide please.
In this photo you can see the Bayfront Walkway which was also required by conditions of the
CDP and the public access easement itself.
Here the public can enjoy looking at the water, the boats, and the wildlife.
The bayfront walkway is over 400 yards long and connects Jack Nicole Park to another
bayfront public access easement required in another CDP at an adjacent property, which
then connects to a small park at the other end.
Without these public paths and connections between public open space, these large housing
developments would have otherwise blocked off all access to this area and the scenic
views, birdwatching, and strolling would have only been available to the private homeowners.
In addition, the Bayfront Walkway also connects to the Greenbelt Access Ways that you just
saw.
As you may know, one of the Commission's goals is to connect coastal trails and public
spaces together, which make them all more valuable to the public.
This image shows the unpermitted lock gate and signs restricting public access between
the Bayfront Walkway and the Greenbelt Access Ways.
While the developer may have initially installed the unpermitted lock gates and signs, Respondent
did maintain them over the years.
Here's another photo of an unpermitted lock gate, this one requiring an access code.
This gate also blocked public access to the green belt access ways.
This slide shows another one of the unpermitted lock gates and signs.
The unpermitted development was located where Jack Nickel Park meets the green belt access
ways.
Gates and hours of use were not authorized by the CDP or the ESMIT.
This photo is taken from the park looking towards the Bayfront walkway.
The yellow circle shows where respondent maintained an unpermitted closed gate that obstructed
public access to the Bayfront walkway.
So even if the public made it to the park, they would still be impeded from accessing
the walkway.
Next slide please.
On this slide you can see the unpermitted Bay Harbor signs that were posted at both
sides of the public road that leads to Jack Nickle Park and the Greenbelt access ways.
These unpermitted signs give the impression that the road is part of a private gated community,
however, it is in fact a public road that leads to a public park.
In addition, Respondent subdivision is also not entirely private as the large public access
easement process directly through it.
Next slide, please.
Further, Respondent also built tennis courts and pools that encroach partially into the
required public pathways.
In addition, parts of this pathway could not be expanded to the full 10 feet without moving
in this tennis court.
In this case, it appeared that it was more valuable
to have respondents spend their money
on providing public amenities in the park
than to have them move the tennis court by a foot or two,
given that as you can see,
the path is wide enough for pedestrians
and wheelchairs to use currently.
Next slide, please.
In addition, the CDP and public access easement
both specified that the path is required
not just for pedestrians, but also for cyclists.
However, the entire path was built
in a very winding pattern and therefore is not conducive for bikes as you can see here.
Next slide please.
We're now going to briefly discuss the history of the park.
The history is important because as you will hear there was an original vision for this
park that was never fully met.
In this image from the 1990s you can see that what is now Jacknagal Park was still undeveloped
and largely bare dirt at that time.
The area was formerly used for oil industry logistics and it needed a cleanup and a large
amount of construction before it could be used as a park. Next slide please. This
slide shows another angle of the future park. On the right you can see one of the
legacy oil wells there which is still there today. In 1994 the city obtained a
CDP from the Commission to build a public park here that included public
restrooms and ample public parking. However the city encountered budget
issues and the city lost the funding for the park that same year. Next slide. In
In this image, you can see another photo of the future park, this one taken from across the channel.
In 1997, the State Department of Boating and Waterways agreed to provide funding, so that this park could finally be built.
The city got most of the park as originally planned, but the proposed public restrooms were changed to be exclusively for people who rent boat slips there.
Next slide, please.
In 2007, Jack Nickel Park was finally opened to the public.
In this photo looking towards Pacific Coast Highway you can see that includes lots of grass fields.
Next slide please. Here's another image of the park, this one looking towards Alamitos Bay.
Many people enjoy the park by walking through it, fishing, watching the sunset,
or walking their dogs there. Next slide please. This photo shows the view of Alamitos Bay from
the park. In the distance is Marine Stadium. Next slide please. On this slide you can see another
photo this one looking back towards Pacific Coast Highway. On the right you can see the
boat slips that were funded by the Department of Boating and Waterways. Next slide please.
On this slide you can see a screenshot of an article about a new bike lane which we'll discuss.
After receiving complaints, Commission enforcement staff sent a notice of violation to respondent in
2020. We note that while the easement was properly recorded, respondent HOA board members stated to
to commission staff that they had been personally unaware of the existence of the easement until
they received the notice.
Commission staff then explained to respondent that the CDP also specifically required respondent
to provide a bike path through the green belt, and respondent instead proposed to move the
bike path onto the public road leading to the park.
The city liked this idea and promptly built a protected bike lane, however while this
new bike lane is now very helpful to the public, as you can see in this photo, the city built
it not respondent. In addition, commission staff remained concerned about the about the other
violations including the blocked access ways and locked gates so the case was elevated to
headquarters enforcement. Next slide please. On this slide you can see that the unpermitted gates
and signs have now been removed from the green belt. In the fall of 2024, commission staff sent
a notice of intent to commence season assist order in administrative penalty proceedings
as required by our regulations, and respondent immediately removed the
unpermitted gates and signs. Commissioned staff then began
negotiating with respondent and worked efficiently to resolve this matter
in a way that we believe greatly benefits the public, as we'll detail in a
moment. Gates in any form create an
appendiment to public access and especially in cases where the CDP and
easement does not authorize them. Next slide please.
This slide shows a view of Alameda's Bay. These violations disproportionately
impacted people who live in disadvantaged communities,
including inland areas of Long Beach.
Respondents, HOA members were able to enjoy
the Bayfront Walkway and the Greenbelt Access Ways,
and could therefore more easily access the Bay and the Park.
However, for those who could not afford to live
in the neighborhood or did not live nearby,
it would be much more difficult to access
this part of the coast.
In addition, while the Bayfront Walkway
and Greenbelt Access Way were fairly easily accessible
for disabled persons, the sidewalk on the public road
is not wheelchair accessible and the sidewalk leading from PCH is somewhat steep.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows another view of the greenbelt.
There are multiple bases to issue a cease and desist order here.
The development is unpermitted and it's also inconsistent with the CDP.
Next slide, please.
Here's another image of the greenbelt.
There's a basis for issuance of an administrative penalty action for public access penalties
because respondents' violations blocked public access
and were not in compliance with the CDP
or the public access easement.
Next slide, please.
There are five factors
for calculating administrative penalties.
For the first factor,
this case involves large public access easements
that have been blocked for decades.
For the second factor, the pass cannot be undone,
however, public access can be greatly enhanced going forward,
which weighs towards a moderate penalty.
Third, public access is a sensitive resource
across the state, which provides a lot of value to the public, including here.
Fourth, the cost of the state of bringing the action was lower than average here,
as Respondent worked efficiently with staff.
And fifth, with respect to the violator,
Respondent did not seek to economically profit from the violations, and
while Respondent did not immediately open the unpermitted gates after receiving
the initial notice, Respondent did remove them after receiving the notice of intent,
which was extremely helpful.
Respondent has also now agreed to a settlement
that will greatly benefit the public.
So this factor weighs towards a moderate penalty.
Therefore, in total, we would say that the violations here
would give rise to penalties in the high to moderate range
under our regulations if we were bringing this to you
as a unilateral order.
However, here they've agreed to settle
and moreover to work with us to fashion an agreement
that's of greater benefit to the public
than merely complying with their permit
and of greater benefit than a monetary penalty
would be as well.
In the aggregate, we believe that the proposed settlement
elements are worth at least $2.5 million
in cost to the respondent and of greater value
to the general public and is of a measurable value
for those who would use the new public amenities provided
in the proposed order, which we'll now walk through briefly.
Next slide, please.
In this image, you can see the small park
at the other end of the Bayfront walkway.
Respondent has now agreed to a proposed resolution
three main components. A public access component, a native planting component, and a public amenities
component. Next slide please. One of the most important things that Respondent has agreed to do
is immediately begin work to install over two dozen public access signs all over the area.
The sign in this photo was required by a recent CDP that authorized renovations of the boat slips
adjacent to the Bayfront walkway. The signs that Respondent will install will likely look similar,
but without the construction language. Next slide please. On this image you can see a fork
in the public pathways. As you may have noticed, the green belt is very large and includes many
paths, many trees, and a few buildings. However, the CDP did not specifically require any public
access signs, therefore even though the green belt access ways have been open since the lock gates
were removed in 2024, they're not getting as much use as they could be. Thus, we're excited that
that Respondent has agreed to install many new public access signs in the greenbelt.
This also helps inform the public on where the path is and where private property is
located to avoid potential issues in the future.
In addition, Respondent has agreed to ensure that the greenbelt access ways can accommodate
wheelchairs.
As you can see in this image of the sidewalk along the public road, street signs and other
obstructions make that narrow sidewalk difficult to use with wheelchairs.
Thus, we appreciate that Respondent will ensure that persons with disabilities will not need
to use the area that you see in this photo and can instead use the green belt access
way or Bayfront walkway.
In this image, the yellow star shows one of the pedestrian entrances to the green belt
access ways.
The vehicular entrances have gates on them because there's no public access to the private
interior roads of the subdivision, and at another vehicle gate there's a gate guard.
Therefore, respondent has agreed to implement a training program to ensure that any contractors
do not inadvertently violate the consent orders.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see a map of important coastal native habitats in the area.
Starting at the top and going clockwise, the Sims Pond Biological Reserve was required
to be created and protected by Special Condition 2 of this CDP.
In addition, the Los Cerritos Wetlands on the right are a large and regionally important
wildlife area and are not far from Jacknickel Park.
At the bottom left, there's a similar park built between residences in Olamitos Bay called
Jack Dunster Marine Biological Reserve, which we'll discuss.
As you can see on this image, Jacknickel Park is right at the center of these native habitat
areas.
And so this presents a great opportunity to provide another habitat connection.
Next slide, please.
This photo shows Sims Pond, where conditions of the HOA's CDP required it to be protected
enhanced as mitigation for the subdivision project. Today it attracts
many native birds and provides important freshwater wetland habitat. Next slide
please. On this slide you can see Jack Dunster Marine Reserve and Park which
is just across from the Bayfront Walkway. This park and reserve provides a great
example of how a native coastal habitat park can exist in the midst of a
relatively developed area. Next slide please. Here you can see a map of the
proposed native planting zone that's required by the proposed orders located
within the currently landscaped areas of Jack Nickle Park. As you can see, there's
plenty of room for respondent to provide a lot of important habitat here that
native wildlife can enjoy and humans can enjoy as well. Next slide please. In this
photo you can see a lot of drought tolerant grasses but because they are
non-native they're not providing good quality habitat for wildlife. Respondent
has agreed to remove this non-native landscaping and replace it with native
plants. However, we do also want to note that the palm trees in this picture may be providing
bird nesting habitat, and Respondent will not be removing any of the trees in this park,
and therefore the palm trees you see here will be staying. Next slide please. In addition,
in several areas of the park, there are highly invasive pride of Madera plants, which you
can see in front of the legacy oil well. Respondent has agreed to remove these harmful plants
and replace them with natives. Next slide please. In this image, you can see the only
shade tree in the entire park, which is a sycamore.
Respond has agreed to plant 21 native trees, which may not immediately provide as much
shade as this tree does, but will help to provide important habitat and more shade for
members of the public and wildlife.
Next slide please.
Respond has also agreed to install seven interpretive signs in places like this in the park.
These signs will help to educate the public about the importance of the coastal habitat
that's being planted, as well as other issues like sea level rise.
All of these signs will include a notation that acknowledges the role of the Commission
in providing these public amenities.
Next slide please.
Responders also agreed to provide a drinking fountain and water bottle refill station,
likely in this general area.
Next slide please.
Further Responders agreed to install four additional benches and additional dog bag dispenser,
likely in this area.
This park is known for being a good place to bring your dog and to watch the sunset.
And more benches and dog bag dispensers will help out the current users of the park.
In this image, you can see that the only restroom in the park is currently behind a locked gate and is only accessible for persons who rent boat slips.
Respondent has agreed to construct or fund a public restroom here, which we're very excited about.
Public restrooms are not the most glamorous public amenity, and so are often not the first project to attract funding.
However, they make a real difference in ensuring that persons who don't live nearby can still enjoy a public area.
area. In addition, we're also very excited that Respondent has agreed to fund five years
of maintenance here. We often get asked by local governments and agencies if it's possible
to fund maintenance, but again, people don't always get excited about funding maintenance,
which is even less glamorous than the restroom itself. We are very appreciative that the
HOA has agreed to fund all of this. I also want to note that the construction of this
public restroom will finally complete the original vision of this park from
1994. Next slide please. To conclude here's another temporary sign required by the
recent CDP for boat dock renovations but which really is a sign of a brighter
future ahead. In closing I want to thank Respondent for working so hard with us
to provide this agreement for the public. I want to particularly thank Charlotte
Hart the president of the HOA who put in a lot of work here to bring this before
for you today.
I also want to thank the City of Long Beach
who have coordinated closely with us
and really helped to make this a reality.
We recommend that the commission approve
the proposed consent cease and assist order
and proposed consent administrative penalty
as set forth in the staff report.
The motions can be found on page 10 of the staff report.
And now Lisa's going to.
I just wanted to conclude with a couple of thoughts.
This is yet another example
of how we can fashion a creative resolution
If we have a willing party willing to work to resolve the situation, it allows us to
do things that we couldn't have legally unilaterally required and avoids all litigation for all
parties.
We were able to work out something here that we believe is the benefit of both the residents
and the outside users who would benefit from the amenities.
So we greatly appreciate the work of the HOA leadership in helping shape this.
And that concludes our presentation and we're available for any questions.
Great.
Thank you very much.
OK, Ms. Hart, it's to you.
You and your team may address the commission.
Thank you.
Just turn that mic on.
Thank you so much.
Commissioners, thank you for allowing
us to talk today to this matter, which our community has
been very concerned about.
And I can tell you that now we are, as a community,
happy with this resolution and grateful to staff
for helping us to work together to find something that
is really beneficial to the public.
It is not.
And it was no one's intention for this, so you know.
But the resolution is super productive, I think,
is a good word, because it will go on in perpetuity,
and not all things that we do in our lives do that.
So we are grateful for the opportunity
and really grateful to our partners, which
Represented by Rob has made this process as good as it could be. So thank you and we're available for questions
Wonderful. Thank you so much. I'll reserve 29 minutes for rebuttal in the event
Necessary
With that, thank you. We will now take public comment on this issue
Galen to you. All right. So we have Charlotte Hart Eric is on and then
moving to
We're starting off with Jennifer Savage, followed by Anna Christiansen, and then just the initial
is its first Sonoma copy.
So Jennifer Savage, you've been promoted to a panelist.
You should be able to go ahead.
Hi, thank you.
Hello again, commissioners, and Jennifer Savage, Surf Rider Foundation, speaking in
support of the staff recommendation.
For more than 40 years, the public access has been blocked by locked gates, no trespassing
signs, tennis courts and pools built into the easement as well as pathways to narrow
for the required bicycle access.
This has kept the public from the coastal access ways connecting Marine Stadium, Jack
Nickel Park and the Los Cerritos Wetlands.
This is exactly the kind of prolonged access violation the Coastal Access Enforcement provisions
exist to remedy.
We're pleased that staff negotiated a strong resolution rather than a cash penalty alone,
that the HOA has agreed to an in-kind package valued at over $2.5 million, including two
dozen new access signs, ADA accessibility improvements, a five-year native habitat restoration
program linking three important coastal habitats, and those important new public restrooms with
five years of maintenance funding.
I heartily endorse the importance of public restrooms,
and despite the un, you know,
they're not always the sexiest project,
but they are so important.
This outcome restores real physical public access
that corrects decades of harm,
including to environmental justice communities
who deserve equal access to the shore,
and signifies that permit conditions are not optional.
I further encourage the HOA to reach out
to Surfrider's Long Beach chapter
regarding our ocean-friendly garden program
to assist with the native habitat restoration program
in hopes of fostering a positive relationship
in this new and better chapter.
We appreciate your enforcement teams' dedication
to creative, mutually agreeable solutions
that improve public access and safety in these cases.
And SurFighter urges the commission
to approve this consent order.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
And just wanted to make a point that Mary Ann Cronin
is available for questions.
And then we're moving on to Anna Christiansen.
Ms. Christiansen, please go ahead.
Yes, I'm joining the panelists as a panelist
representing the Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force
of Sierra Club, as well as Sierra Club's Coastal Committee.
And we support this measure.
We're sorry that the homeowners didn't know about it.
It seems like an innocent mistake.
And now we appreciate their willingness
and their friendship with the community.
And that's really special.
It doesn't always happen that way.
So we wanna thank both enforcement and the homeowners.
Regarding your response to our letter in the addendum,
stating that because the palm trees are there,
the birds all have nesting sites,
not all birds nest in palm trees.
While certain kinds of palm trees can provide nesting
if they're properly maintained for great blue herons,
they will not work for other coastal birds,
such as the black-crowned night herons
who need shorter trees.
So once again, we stick with our recommendations,
which we did not necessarily expect
to be part of this resolution,
but we hope with the cooperation of the homeowners
and the planners, be followed,
because they're very, very simple.
They're very, very critical recommendations.
You did not respond to our request
that the coastal plan for the coastal zone
rather than the Thailand's plan be followed.
So we simply ask that trees not be trimmed,
the palm trees not be trimmed annually
as they will be eliminated then as nesting trees
for the great blue herons.
As far as the history and the signage,
you gave a nice history of this issue.
We would like to remind everyone who, of course,
we say it all the time,
so everybody here probably already knows
that this is part of Pavugna.
This is an ancient place, and that maybe deserves,
we would like that to be mentioned
in the history of this site.
So thank you very much for everything.
That's it for me.
Thank you so much.
Moving on to Anne Cantrell,
and then we're gonna be looking for Sona Coffee.
Ms. Cantrell, please go ahead.
Good morning.
Anne Cantrell, Sierra Club Coastal Committee,
and the Los Ceritas Wetlands Task Force.
Thank you to enforcement staff
for finally requiring public access to Jack Nickel Park.
I am a 93-year-old resident of Long Beach
and have visited every other public park except this one.
Since it's within a private community,
I was unaware the public were allowed.
I also wish to thank staff for responding
to Sierra Club's suggestions
regarding not removing existing palm trees
and requiring tree plantings be the optimal size
for ensuring success.
Although staff is not requiring tree trimming,
we request the city follow the Long Beach Coastal Zone
tree trimming policy if trimming is done.
As I now use a walker,
I appreciate the ADA accommodations being required.
We are still very concerned
about the allowed use of herbicides in this park,
which is adjacent to Alameda's Bay
and the Los Cerritos wetlands.
Please require weed pulling
emulging weed management as an alternative to herbicides.
I look forward to be able to visit this park soon.
Thank you for your work on this.
Thank you so much.
All right, we have, it looks like a representative
from SONA coffee signed up,
but we're not seeing anything associated with that
in the webinar.
So if there's, oh, looks like they raised their hand.
All right, yeah, we've got all right from Sona Coffee.
Please go ahead.
Morning commissioners and staff.
My name is Sona Coffee, and I'm calling in
as a resident of the Bay Harbor community in Long Beach
in support to the resolution of this issue.
We moved to Bay Harbor six years ago.
And as was mentioned, nothing was on record
about the easement for this property.
And when we contacted the city about the neighborhood,
the only thing that came up was the existence
of the oil drilling pump in the adjacent Jack Knuckle Park.
As a resident and as a longtime surf rider volunteer,
a former sustainability commissioner
over the city of Long Beach
and a sustainable policy professional,
I really am looking forward to seeing a native habitat
installed at Jopnikal Park.
To our knowledge, as it was noted by the speakers,
the HOA wasn't aware of the public access issue
and didn't willfully block access for these last decades.
It really is the strangest case
and we're appreciative of the commission staff
and our HOA board president
moving forward to a resolution. Just to some context here, we have a community made up of
so many people that want to give back to the City of Long Beach. We're first responders,
public school teachers, retired individuals, and public servants like myself. We have people in
our community that are mobility challenged that use the pathways on the green belt every day,
including a neighbor who takes his wheelchair bound adult son out to the community every day.
Now each of us is going to work together to find a way to pay for these improvements and
make these improvements a reality in the community and in the park.
As a sustainability professional and a long-time volunteer with Surfighter,
we are supportive of native habitats and especially seeing that restoration at Jack
Nickel Park. We volunteered on many ocean farming gardens along the marina front and the city of
Long Beach has been a great partner in that effort as well. So thank you for your consideration and
for your support. Thank you very much. And then just for clarity for Marianne Cronin,
We just wanted to see if you were available for questions or whether or not you wanted to speak on the item
You've been promoted as a panelist. So please go ahead
Good morning. I'm available for questions. I do not have a presentation at this time. Thank you very much
That is our last comments are no more speakers
Okay, thank you very much
And I will turn to you miss heart to see if you want to make any responses with your remaining 29 times 29 times
Twenty-nine minutes you don't have to but giving you the opportunity. Okay
Thank you very much. Okay staff. Would you like to respond? Yeah
We'll just take a few seconds to respond to some of the public comments
With regard to the tree trimming nothing in the order requires tree trimming and in fact
It doesn't particularly authorize it and in fact the orders require them to comply with all existing rules and regulations
and so there's there's no exemption in the order from the
local coastal zone tree trimming and in fact the trees that would be trimmed are
on a public area not the area owned by the HOA and they aren't planning on
doing any trimming to the best of our knowledge and then and then quickly I
just wanted to respond also to the question about herbicides we agree that
herbicides are a disfavored technique and the orders say that they're only to
be used if nothing else works and we really do and if they are to be used have
to be minimal, and they have to be approved.
So we certainly share the concern about that, and we would like very much to avoid pesticide
use, herbicide use.
Sorry.
Do you want to add anything, Rob?
Okay.
Thank you.
We're happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
With that, I know we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for our
deliberations.
Are there any questions for staff or the alleged violator or comments, Commissioner Jackson?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our speakers today.
It's heartening to see what happens.
The result of cooperation and collaboration, it avoids conflict and gets us to a consensus.
So bravo to all the parties in what appears to be a favorable outcome.
Just a couple questions for my edification.
So if I'm driving down Highway 1, PCH, is there anything that indicates that there's
a park from Highway 1?
So I can see the park, and is that when I turn into the road where, because I saw the
signs that had the bay front bay harbor signs on the walls is that what I see as
I'm driving by where I see the park no that's um that's near the access road
off of loins Drive which abuts pch but from pch from the bridge you can
actually if you look out over the bay you can see the park down there and
there is a sign I believe on the bridge as well but it's just a little smaller
And I guess what I'm getting at is, do I know without knowing that there's an
access opportunity for me as I drive by with my kids wanting to stop for lunch?
The HOA is required to put up signs on the land that they own near the only
road to the park. If you drove by you would you would see it on PCH. I can't
remember that respondent might know better than me what signs are out there
currently on PCH because they live in the area and maybe not and so so
there's assuming there's no sign on PCH then then there's the public road that
enters into the complex where there are the walls on either side that's correct
okay and they're required to put up a very large sign right there that
Advertises the park and the public accesses bit. Okay, so I see that
Goody I can drive to the park then I get to the
entrance way
which is where the gates are and that's the private gate for the HOA and
First of all Bravo to you know, we know how difficult HOA's can be
So the fact that the HOA agreed to all of this is is very commendable. So thank you for that
So you get to the the private gate now
entrance and exit for the
HOA and then there's a
pedestrian gate
And so there's there's no pedestrian gate
It's just open and they're required to put up signs near the pedestrian entrance that are
Large and explain that the area is a public easement and public pathway so that if anyone's walking by
They they will see it and know that they can walk right on it because that's only accessible walking by I can't drive there right
Yeah, yeah, so there's no so the way it works is that there's there's no
Parking in the HOA itself if that makes sense now
I understand so on the other side of the trail is the public parking space
Correct in in the park itself there is public parking and in the public park itself
Respondent is required to put up signs
advertising the existence of the public access easement so that people know oh
I can walk over towards the HOA and walk through the easements or next time I come I can do that
So if I'm biking or walking since I can't really drive through the HOA there'll be a sign
At the Bay Harbor where the signs were on either side of the road
There'll be a sign that says public access point and then when I turn into where the current gates are
There'll be a sign that says public access. That's exactly correct
Because yeah, and the reason I bring that up is because when you know if you're walking you're driving by you see a big
brick wall with gates
that tells me
So I'm just trying to understand that
access
component there is
But the vehicular access is on the public road
So the so I I don't want to leave the impression that you can only walk
It's just that there's no vehicular access through the HOA itself, but you just go around it on the public road and park by the
By the public park. Right? So but on the
No, no, I appreciate that but on the on the slides where it showed the
Bay Harbor signs
that's the
That's the access point to the private entrance and the public
Way well, so right am I understanding that correctly? No, so the the slide. I can't remember which slide. I think it was 43
Yeah, so yeah, if you if you could bring that up slide
Yeah
So that slide shows the entrance to the public road
Which is why we were in the public road leads to both the HOA with the access ways but also to the park
And so the reason we were concerned about their HOA signs out there is because it makes it look private
They have already taken down the HOA signs there and they would they are required to put up a big sign
that says public park and public access easement, okay, so that's
That's okay. I can't or can't drive my car through there. That's I cannot right you can it's a public road
It is a public road. It's a public road
Which is again the concern was that it's a public road that has been made to look private because of the signs
so the that would that said the name of the community so they've taken those off and now it'll be very clear it's
Just to clarify the road that's going past this from left to right as a public road and that's the road you can drive
On right from loins all the way to the park. You can't drive through these gates that okay
That's that was my question, but you don't need to to get to the park. You just drive past them
Um, okay. So my options are I drive past this private entrance. I
I park or if I'm biking or walking, I'm on the public road, I see this and there's a
private entrance where the star is currently located.
That's the public path.
The stars, public pedestrian path, yes, that's correct, yeah, and they're required to put
signs near it.
This is not the only entrance, there's like four I believe.
You can go to slide six maybe.
Yes, slide six is the overview map, which I think will be helpful.
It's confusing.
There's a lot of things going on and it's a really, it's 28 acres, it's a really big
property, frankly.
But yes, slide six has, so the whites, so slide six, so the white star at the very top.
That's where the public road entrance is off of Loins Drive.
The big street on the right of this slide
that goes north to south is PCH.
And loins drive goes east to west.
But so PCH does have a sign for Jack Nickel Park
near the bridge, which is at the bottom right of this photo.
The white star shows where they had
the unpermitted Bay Harbor signs
in front of the public road.
As you can see, the public road leads to two things.
It leads to the yellow star just below it,
which is the entrance to the green belt access ways.
But it also, if you keep going down to the bottom,
it leads to the park itself,
which you can see at the bottom of this slide,
where the green grass is.
And so I hope this helps to explain the situation,
but they're required to put public access signs
really everywhere, yeah.
No, I appreciate that, that is very helpful.
So which of those stars is located
where the gates are, or are they not?
So there's vehicle gates at the two top stars,
the two top yellow stars.
There's vehicle gates, but also pedestrian gates,
or sorry, pedestrian entrances, there's no gates there.
The two-
And those are, I'm sorry, those are the HOA gates?
Yeah, yeah.
Two top yellow stars are the homeowners association gates.
Yeah, if you're an HOA member and you're driving
to your house, you're gonna go in
through the two top yellow star entrances.
there's also the public pathway pedestrian entrances there
for the public.
And both of those.
In the same areas, yeah.
And then the bottom two yellow stars,
there's no one's driving from anyone there,
but there are pedestrian pathways there
that are open to the public.
And my concern only was, if I'm walking or driving
and I see a big brick wall with gates, I'm less inclined.
even if there's a small sign at the pedestrian gate,
I probably, I probably wouldn't even notice that, so,
but it sounds like that is being adequately addressed.
Yeah, we completely agree.
And that's why we're requiring quite a lot of large signs.
Like the one on where the white star is,
is required to be nine square feet, so big.
And we think also that as people drive by or walk by,
they'll become familiar with this stuff as well.
Okay.
And the signs have to be there to propose language to us and we're going to approve
it, and we can take these concerns into account when we're designing the language on the signs
to make sure that the one at the White Star indicates the various options to get to the
park.
I think that's a very good idea.
Great.
Thank you.
And maybe we can talk to Long Beach and they can have a ribbon cutting or something to
Promote this great collaborative effort between the two parties. So thank you. Thank you for that explanation. Appreciate it
Commissioner Wilson
I'm happy to make a motion if there's no more comments or questions
Okay. Great. Uh, I just want to say that I love the the conclusion of this. I also want to say that
my
Family has a place that's next to a public park that was once not
And the sounds that come from a more public park are just the most joyful things.
So I just want to say birthday parties and people having fun and doing those sorts of
things that people do, especially interacting with folks that aren't necessarily from the
neighborhood coming together.
And I just think that it's just going to bring joy and happiness to your neighborhood.
And so I'm just happy to make this motion.
I move that the commission issue consent cease and desist order number CCC-26-CD-032 Costa
Del Sol Homeowners Association pursuant to the staff recommendation I recommend a yes
vote.
Second.
That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner O'Malley, and before
we vote to the motion, I also want to reiterate my appreciation for what a successful collaboration
and, excuse me, collaboration this was.
It's all too rare that we come into these enforcement hearings and say that the outcome
is not only representative of a specific monetary penalty but will have positive impacts into
the future in such a long-term way.
So I really do want to highlight that and thank our staff for their work and thank Ms.
Hart, you, and your HOA team.
It's really special, and it's a really wonderful thing to be part of an effort that is just
a win-win.
So, I couldn't let the vote happen without expressing my appreciation.
With that, we have a motion by Commissioner Wilson, a second by Vice – or excuse me,
I just promoted you, Commissioner O'Malley, a second by Commissioner O'Malley.
Is there any objection to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries, and we'll move to the second motion, please.
Number two I move that the commission issue consent administrative penalty number CCC dash two six
Dash a P dash zero two to the coast Adele sole homeowners association pursuant to the staff recommendation. I recommend a yes vote second
motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner O'Malley any objections to a unanimous yes vote
Seeing none the motion carries. Thank you very much. It's much appreciated. Thank you so much Peggy and your team
Okay, yes, great job. Now we will continue on if that's okay. We are on item nine, the deputy
director's report for the North Coast District. Just give you a second to change over. Thank you.
Are we ready for me? Oh, yes we are. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Item nine is the deputy director's report for the North Coast District, which today includes
only one reportable item related to an emergency permit in the city of Eureka.
We have an emergency Caltrans project that is active and still evolving and we
know members of the public have raised important concerns. There are several
factors contributing to the complex the complexity of the situation and I'm
going to walk through those with you now. To begin I'd like to provide a brief
update on the emergency permit that is summarized in today's directors report.
This emergency permit has been issued to Caltrans for emergency repairs of the
southbound Eureka Slough Bridge which is a critical segment of highway 101 where
it crosses Eureka Slough on Humboldt Bay north and east of Eureka's developed
core. At an inspection of the bridge in late April of this year, Caltrans
identified deteriorated bridge piles which have compromised the bridge
structure, posing imminent danger to the traveling public.
As a result, Caltrans had a responsibility to take immediate emergency action.
These initial actions, designed to help mitigate the risk, are described in the posted emergency
permit, which specifically involved shifting vehicle traffic away from the damaged portion
of the bridge, installing monitoring devices, and constructing a bicycle detour, as well
as other traffic management measures.
As noted, however, the situation has continued to evolve.
In June, Caltrans determined that parts of the bridge footings for the South Brown Bridge
are also compromised, demanding additional immediate emergency actions and investigations.
Caltrans has issued an emergency declaration to make significant emergency repairs for
for this bridge, including planned construction
of a work trestle to the north of this bridge segment.
This work trestle will span the full length of the slough
parallel to the bridge to allow for these bridge repairs.
This work will include in-water,
in-water work and pile driving.
Caltrans submitted notice
of additional necessary emergency work on June 10th
and work on this second phase of the emergency repairs
has been ongoing since then.
On-site staging began June 15th,
and in-water work began earlier this week on July 7th.
While the executive director has not yet authorized
the second emergency permit,
staff are meeting regularly with Caltrans
to understand the extent and scope of the emergency
to ensure that the work is the minimum necessary
to abate the emergency.
The mission staff will continue to work with Caltrans
to ensure that the necessary work is completed
in a manner that also minimizes impacts
to sensitive coastal resources.
Once we have a full understanding of the situation
and the requisite information from Caltrans,
the executive director will make a determination
on authorizing this emergency work,
and we will report out more
on this potential second emergency permit
at the next hearing.
In the interim, I would note that Caltrans has closed
through access along a segment of the Eureka Waterfront Trail
at the location of Trestle Construction,
as this ongoing construction poses a danger to trail users.
This closure is anticipated to last through mid-October.
All other parts of the Waterfront Trail remain open,
including the Humboldt Bay Trail segment
that runs between Eureka and Arcata.
Public comment was submitted by a Humboldt Waterkeeper
and has been included in the correspondence packet
for this item.
The comments express concern about the closure
of the Humboldt Bay Trail and that construction activities
may result in impacts to Harper Seals.
Caltrans has indicated that they are actively
implementing avoidance and minimization measures.
These measures include marine mammal monitoring
in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
which includes having qualified biological monitors
visually scan the water around active construction for marine mammals. If marine mammals approach
to within a 700-foot radius of the work, work will cease until the marine mammal has left
the area. Caltrans is also performing hydroacoustic monitoring during pile driving activities
and stop work when hydroacoustic noise approaches certain protective thresholds. Caltrans will
also be submitting a weekly report disclosing any marine mammal observations,
the proximity of that to any of the work operations, and any noticed
behaviors or other relevant information. Caltrans is in active communication with
the National Marine Fishery Service and commission staff on these protective
measures for seals, including the need for additional avoidance and
minimization measures. Staff are working closely with Caltrans on the
emergency situation and we plan to report any further emergency actions to
the Commission on the public. That concludes the briefing on this item.
Staff are available for questions. We do have some public speakers for this item
and I believe Caltrans staff are also available for questions. Okay, thank you.
Apologies, thank you Ms. Gray. Any ex partes? Okay, any public comments? We have
the representative for the applicant and Caltrans available for questions, Steve
and then Tim Nelson, and then we have three speakers available on Zoom, Jennifer
Savage, Jennifer Colt, and then Patricia Don Goley, and we're going to go ahead
and start with Jennifer Savage. You've been promoted to a panelist. You should
be able to go ahead. Thank you, and I have a slide, excellent, there it is. Thank
you Jennifer Savage, Surf Rider Foundation, speaking on this emergency
permit for the Caltrans Eureka Slough Bridge Prepare. So we understand the
emergency that there's deteriorated bridge piles requiring immediate safety
action but we do share the concerns that Humboldt Waterkeeper raised. I live a few
miles from this bridge, I kayak near that slough, I walk my dog on the adjacent
trail so I know the area really well and I appreciate staff's update on the plans
as was just reported but I still want to highlight that two Harbor Seal haulouts
sit within one kilometer of the work site in Eureka Slough. The
picture that you see of the Harbor Seals, I just took that a couple weeks
ago and I was randomly kayaking around. I zoomed in, I was farther away, I want to
be clear, no harassment happened but you can see like there's, you know, they're
very cute and they're there and there there's a lot of harbor seals right
around in that area. The pile driving, the cord drilling, the heavy machinery, it
all generates acoustic and seismic disturbance that travels quickly
underwater and this work coincides with the start of the harbor seals molting
period when sight faithful animals most depend on undisturbed haul-out time.
Coincidentally, my stepmom is visiting and she's camping at the RV park which
is right next to the project site and she confirmed that the pile driving
noise is indeed intensely loud and near-constant when it is happening.
So I just really want to ask the Commission to ensure that the follow-up regular CDP does
require monitoring by qualified marine mammal observers during all disruptive activities
paired with in-air and in-water noise assessment for the full July through October work window.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We've got Jennifer Kult and then Patricia Dawn Goli. Jennifer is on a phone. You should
be able to go ahead now. Jennifer Kult, you should be able to unmute and go ahead.
Hello, everyone. Jennifer Kult with Humboldt Waterkeeper. So although we understand the
emergency nature of this situation it's been very concerning because the harbor
seals as we mentioned in our public comments are in the very sensitive
molting period where if they get disturbed they need to go back into the
water continuously or frequently more frequently than they should which risks
and section and the the draft environmental impact report for this
project the actual bridge replacement project includes a marine mammal
protection plan and hydro acoustic monitoring plan to prevent level B
harassment which is changes in behavior although Caltrans seems to rely on the
seals moving to unaffected suitable habitat in the Bay which in itself is
level B harassment so just expecting the seals to relocate to get away from the
noise that is harassment and it's really concerning so I realize the pile
driving has already begun under an emergency permit that the Commission has
not considered yet but I really appreciate all of your efforts to look
closely at how these hydro acoustic monitoring plan and marine mammal
protection plan can do as much as possible to minimize the impacts to the
herber seals. Their haul-outs are not within the slu as I understand it but
they're very close to the slu mouth to two haul-outs and you know the haul-outs
my understanding is that seals have fidelity to the haul-outs that they use
they don't just go and use another haul-out somewhere else because there are
seals in those haul-outs so it's like anything with nature it's not just you
know it's a big vacuum and you can just move
the final environmental impact report has not been certified yet, so thank you very
much for your attention to this important issue to protect the seals.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Moving on to Patricia Don Goli.
Please go ahead.
Hi, my name is Don Goli and I'm a faculty member at Cal Poly Humboldt, I'm a rheumatologist.
I'm concerned about the potential impacts
of the Eureka Slough construction project
on harbor seals that haul out on the mudflats.
As others have mentioned,
I understand the emergency nature,
but I strongly encourage the commission
to consider how impacts the harbor seals could be minimized.
Using heavy machinery, driving new pilings,
drilling core samples,
create both seismic and acoustic signals
that travel quickly in marine environments.
And these harbor seals, as mentioned,
are within a kilometer of the construction site
within range to be impacted with loud inerrant,
in water sound and seismic disturbance,
even if it's not within the 70 foot radius
that people are observing.
Harvest shields are residents of the Bay,
have high site fidelity
and one of the most sensitive marine mammals
to human disturbance.
They're particularly sensitive
to both acoustic disturbance and air and water.
And I understand that the Caltrans draft EIR
and request for emergency NIMS consultation
that a hydro acoustic monitoring plan
was going to be prepared by qualified specialists
before construction and that NIMS would be provided
a draft in advance.
wondering if that has occurred. And it's critical for Caltrans to provide the hydroacoustic monitoring
plan for this project, and specifically addressed how these monitoring efforts have taken into
account re-memoral sensitivities to acoustic disturbance. In particular, what's the frequency
of acoustic monitoring? Where will the hydrophones be deployed? What is the method being used to
gather and analyze the data? Are the data being made available to monitors in real time and able
to be related to construction crew in real time? And what are the reporting protocols? Have sound
attenuation systems been implemented for fish and marine mammals. And can you specify the types
of systems being used in the parameters of these systems? When I understand it's an emergency,
it seems that construction will be continuing, and these questions need to be urgently addressed
to avoid disturbance and potential abandonment of important habitat for federally protected
marine mammals, in this case, harbor seals. Thank you. Thank you so much. No more speakers.
okay thank you i'll see if miss gray would like to respond if not i'll return to the commission
i can't see you so i would like to uh just say a few comments um i really appreciate
all the current concerns laid out by the public and we share those concerns and we are actively
working with caltrans to try to make sure we are um on the same page with the minimization
measures. We don't, I know there was a question about the hydroacoustic plan. I know that there
has been one that's under, that is under development. We have, our staff has not received it yet,
but I suspect we will be getting that shortly and that will help us make the determination about
the impacts. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. So I will return to the commission
Comments questions or seeing none. I'll ask if there are any objections to the deputy directors report
seeing none
The Commission concurs. Thank you very much. All right. Now we are on to item 11 the DDR for the South Coast District
Please mr. Swain
Thank you chair Harmon and in this report we have six waivers or residential projects in San Clemente
We're also reporting an emergency CDP to fill sinkholes that form behind an existing seawall
at 1771 Ocean Way in Laguna Beach.
Follow-up CDPs will be required through the City and or this Commission depending on the
scope and location of the final project.
This is just a report out.
There's no action for the Commission to take on the emergency matter.
We're also reporting that the city of Newport Beach completed the adoption of their LCP
amendment related to implementation of their sixth cycle housing element.
Executive directors determined the city's actions are legally adequate to complete the
certification process on that item.
So without risking whether three or more commissioners object to any of the waivers in the report.
Thank you.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
We have one individual available for questions only.
Great.
Thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to the item in the Deputy Director's report?
See none.
The commission concurs.
Okay.
I'm going to suggest we continue on to item 13A, please.
This is the George's Family Trust Appeal.
Thank you.
Sounds great.
And Jeff Palm with our Long Beach office is doing this staff presentation on that matter.
And there is a staff PowerPoint, if you could bring that up.
And Jeff, when you're ready, please begin.
All right, thank you, Carl.
Good afternoon, almost afternoon, commissioners.
Item 13A is the substantial issue determination
and de novo action for appeal A-5-LGB-26-0004
of a local CDP approved by the city of Laguna Beach.
The applicant is George Family Trust
and the Appellants are Vice Chair Carol Hart
and Commissioner Raymond Jackson. The standard of review in determining whether the appeal raises
a substantial issue is the City Certified LCP and the Public Access Policies of the Coastal Act.
If the Commission determines that a substantial issue is raised as recommended by staff,
the de novo hearing will follow immediately. Next slide please. The project site is a rectangular
ocean fronting bluff top lot located at 154 Thalia Street in the city of Laguna Beach in
Orange County. The site is located above Thalia Beach and is located between the first public
road parallel to the sea and the sea. Public access to the beach is available via Thalia
Street to Thalia Street Beach located immediately down coast of the project site. The existing
structure is a two-unit, two-story historic structure constructed prior to the enactment
of a coastal act that consists of approximately a 1600 square foot primary unit and approximately
400 square foot attached second unit a 328 square foot attached two-car garage and an
approximately 400 square foot seaward deck. Next slide please. The city approved project is described
as additions to and remodel of an existing duplex including lower and upper level additions
and elevated deck additions within the front rear and side setbacks a new spa landscaping and
hardscape. The city staff report found that the proposed lower and upper level additions new patio
and Spa would all be located landward of the 25 foot bluff top setback as well as the applicable
deck and building string lines with no development proposed on the bluff face including the proposed
Seaward edition outlined in blue on this slide. Next slide please. The primary issue raised by
the appeal is the locally approved CDP's consistency with LCP policies regarding
development on an oceanfront bluff site, bluff edge setbacks and the Seaward expansion of the
structure. The city approved project identified the bluff edge at an elevation of approximately
34 feet. According to the commission staff geologist, this interpretation of the bluff edge
is located on the bluff face and is not the correct bluff edge pursuant to the city's certified LCP.
Based on a correct interpretation of the bluff edge definition according to the information
available to the commission's geologist, the bluff edge will be located at an elevation of
approximately 62 feet which is substantially upslope of the city's approved bluff edge delineation.
The correct identification of the bluff edge affects what is approvable consistent with the LCP
and as a result the proposed addition spa and patio do not comply with the applicable building
setbacks. Additionally the appellants contend the city approved project included a pile and
grade beam foundation system to support a proposed spa is inconsistent with LUE action 7313 prohibiting
the use of protective devices for the sole purpose of protecting an accessory structure.
Furthermore, the Appellants Contended Local Findings did not provide sufficient evidence
to substantiate the City's conclusion that the seaward expansion of this structure would
not result in impacts to visual resources from adjacent public viewpoints.
For the reasons discussed in this presentation and in the staff report, staff believes the
City did not substantially support its approval of the project as being consistent with all
of the applicable policies of the certified LCP and the public access and recreation provisions
of the Coastal Act, and that the development could have a significant, cumulative adverse
impact on coastal resources, and therefore staff recommends that the Commission find
substantial issue with regard to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed.
Unless three or more Commissioners wish to hold a hearing on that question, substantial
issue will be deemed to exist.
If substantial issue is found to exist, we will move on to the Commission's de novo
action and I will send it back to you chair Harmon for a moment. Great, thank
you very much. So at this point I'm gonna ask if there are any ex partes. All
right, seeing none, we will go to the appellant. No, you go to the
substantialist. Oh, oh, oh, okay. Excuse me. Thank you. Do three or more
commissioners object to the finding. No, very. Do three or more commissioners
object to the finding of substantial issue. Seeing no such objection, substantial issue
has been found. Thank you. Back to you. All right. Thank you. Next slide, please.
Since the appeal was filed, the applicant has worked closely with the Commission staff
and has significantly revised the project and removed all new development proposed Seabird
of the Bluff Edge delineated by the Commission staff geologist outlined in blue on this slide.
The applicant has elected to remove the proposed addition
on the Seabird side of the structure,
spa, patio expansion, deck addition,
and new hardscape and associated exterior improvements
from the proposed scope of work,
which are the portions of the project presenting
an inconsistency with the LCP policies.
As such, the revised project is a minor remodel
to an existing historic home built prior
to the enactment of the Coastal Act
with improvements to the existing Seabird deck
and is consistent with the LCP.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the De Novo permit with four special conditions
that require the applicant to submit final plans, implement construction best management
practices, require all proposed landscaping to be drought tolerant, non-invasive plants,
and protect archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources through monitoring
of ground disturbing activities.
The motion and resolution can be found on page 15 of the staff report.
Staff would also like to note that an addendum was posted to update the staff report by revising
Special Condition 4 in response to tribal consultation, and the applicant is in agreement
with the staff recommendation.
This concludes the staff presentation and staff is available for questions.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you very much, Mr. Palm.
So now we will go to the project applicant.
Perhaps they're online.
So we have a Lance pollster available for questions only.
Okay.
Great.
Then with that, we will go to public comment.
We have one individual, Mitch Silverstein.
You have been promoted to a panelist.
You should be able to go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Good morning, commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein with Surfighter Foundation.
I very much regret not being able to attend in person this month.
Surfighter supports the staff recommendation,
and I want to thank Vice Chair Hart and Commissioner Jackson
for filing this appeal.
The city approved this project with the bluff edge at 34 feet.
The commission's geologist puts it at 62 feet.
That is more than a rounding error.
It's a 28-foot difference that turned bluff face
into buildable bluff top that would have allowed an addition,
a spa, and a patio jutting out over the bluff
and with unauthorized armoring.
This is the pattern we see.
A property owner's geologist draws the bluff edge,
the city accepts it, and the line always seems to move seaward.
The people who lose are beachgoers
because hazardlessly sighted development
then leads to armoring the bluff in the beach in front of it.
Setbacks are the only real protection the public has,
and they only work if the bluff edge is drawn honestly.
This case is a good argument for sustained monitoring
of local permit decisions.
One request, staff finds this project
is under the 50% redevelopment threshold,
44% of exterior walls, 37% of foundations,
but those percentages are measured against the house
as it stands today,
which already includes previous improvements in the 1980s.
It seems there's no real baseline in this record
and no cumulative total, and nothing the applicant is required to accept.
So who's really keeping count?
Right now it sounds like nobody.
Your own 2024 sea level rise policy guidance says cumulative improvements should be counted
from a fixed state, like the effective date of the Coastal Act.
Laguna's LCP doesn't do that, and this permit could.
We asked for two conditions.
First, record this project's percentages against that baseline, and have the property owner
agree to that.
And then second, a future improvements condition, as in the Raina appeal a couple months ago,
which was also Laguna Beach.
So the next remodel requires a permit and gets counted as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Silverstein.
No more speakers.
Great.
Thank you very much.
I'll return to our staff or Mr. Palm if you want to make any closing comments.
Yeah, Jeff, if you're available, do you have any comments in response to the questions
raised?
Yeah, just briefly, we just mentioned, you know, we do look at the percent calculations as it relates to, you know, demolition, additions, etc.
The city's LCP defines major remodel as any structural change that would exceed 50 percent, additions that exceed 50 percent, height increases, etc.
In this particular case, it does not meet the threshold for a major remodel. We do account for permit history in that as well.
would also just briefly note that this particular residence is a historic
structure so the cumulative change is in a particular concern as relates to
coastal resources but beyond that I don't have any further comments. Okay
thank you very much. Returning to the Commission for comments, questions or a
motion, Vice Chair Hart. Thanks I'm happy to make the motion. Okay I move that the
the commission approved coastal development permit number
A-5-LGB-26-0004 pursuant to this staff recommendation.
Ask for a yes vote.
Second.
Okay, that's a motion by Vice Chair Hart,
a second by Commissioner Kelly.
They're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Thank you very much.
Okay, for time management for my colleagues,
we are going to try to finish out today's agenda
before taking a lunch break.
So if you need to use the restroom or step out, please just be mindful of quorum.
With that, we are going to continue on.
It brings us to item 14B, please.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
And there is a staff PowerPoint presentation on this item.
And for any side with our Long Beach office is going to make the staff presentation on
this item.
when you're ready please go ahead. Excuse me. Good afternoon commissioners. Excuse me. Item
Thursday 14b is an application by Saint Anne Church for development consisting of the demolition
and reconstruction of the religious facilities parish hall, chapel and parish offices and the
demolition of the existing priest residences and construction of a new priest residence building
which will also be part of the church campus, all located at 326, 328, and 340 10th Street in the
City of Seal Beach. The project also includes hardscape and landscape improvements, as well
as reconfiguration of the existing parking lot and realignment of existing curb cuts.
Surrounding land uses include residences, a car repair facility, and a sandwich shop.
Next slide, please. The slide on the screen shows the existing site plan. The existing
priest residences, again, Parish Hall, Chapel and Parish offices will be demolished. Also,
the existing 62 space parking lot will be modified. The existing one-story 3,350 square foot church
structure located on the right of the slide will remain and be unaltered by the proposed project.
Next slide please. This slide shows the proposed site plan. The new parish hall is proposed to be
two-story approximately 25 foot tall 8,293 square foot structure. The new parish office building is
proposed to be a two-story approximately 25 foot tall 4,091 square foot structure. The new chapel
is proposed to be a one-story and consists of 352 square feet. And the proposed two-story
approximately 25 feet tall, police residents will consist of five units with an attached two-car
garage and two exterior parking spaces. Our escape and landscape improvements again are proposed
and the parking lot will be reconfigured and again the curb cuts will excuse me the curb
cuts will be realigned. Grading will consist of 250 square feet and 260 excuse me 260 square feet
of cut and 260 square feet cubic excuse me cubic yards of fill. I apologize. The proposed project
has been designed to address sea level rise through flood proofing measures. The proposed
water quality management plan incorporates use of a modular wetland system to capture and treat
site runoff and resident residential capacity is maintained and improved on site by replacing the
three existing priest residences with the five unit residents and shared amenities for the priests.
as such no residential units will be displaced. Staff did receive one comment letter which is
posted under correspondence on our website. It raised a variety of issues only a few of which
are related to coastal resources. One such comment suggests that the pros on-site parking conditions
are inadequate however the proposed parking meets local parking standards and does not remove any
on street public parking. The commenter also offered some suggestions on opening the on-site
parking up for public use when a church facility isn't operating in order to facilitate coastal
access. Staff would generally support a shared use like this, but the applicant hasn't proposed
this and staff didn't identify any access impacts created by the project that would justify making
this type of requirement. The commenter also takes issue with some of the project's design,
but staff concluded the proposed buildings are similar in mass and scale to the surrounding
development that consists of one or two story residential and commercial structures and would
be consistent with the visual character of other structures in the area. Further there are no
public views within the vicinity of the project site either across or above. Next slide please.
Special condition 5 has been imposed which requires any proposed landscaping only to consist
of drought tolerant and non-invasive species. However, the applicant has requested that
two proposed palm tree species, the king palm and queen palm, which are of moderate water
use, be allowed due to their association with the religious facility. Additionally, three
existing queen palms along 10th street are proposed to remain. The applicant has stated
that the remaining 96% of the proposed plantings will be of low water use. To protect existing
and proposed palm trees for religious reasons, and since the remaining landscape onsite will
consist of low water use, with no impacts anticipated to any resources, the use of these
two palm species refills should be allowed. Commissioned staff modified the special condition
below the use of these two palm tree species as shown on the slide on the screen. The proposed
language change can be seen in the yellow highlight. Next slide please. In addition
to the special condition already discussed, several other special conditions are recommended
as noted on the slide. If approved with conditions to address development located in hazardous areas
and to preserve marine resources, water quality, water quality, archaeological, tribal culture
resources, and visual resources, the proposed project will conform the Chapter 3 policies of
of the coleslaw act. Therefore, staff recommends the commission approve CDP number 5-25-0863
with seven special conditions. The motions and resolutions are on page 4 of the staff
report. And that concludes staff's presentation.
Great. Thank you very much. I will return to the commission, ask if there are any ex
partes. I had an ex parte this morning from 845 to 850 max with Don Schmitz representing
in the applicant, where he just indicated
that they were in agreement with staff recommendation,
mentioned the low water use plants, or landscaping rather,
and that this was a wonderful project.
With that, we will, oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I also wanna report an ex parte with Don Schmitz as well
at six o'clock on Tuesday, covering all the issues
you just highlighted, Madam Chair,
and commending the collaboration and cooperation.
Again, highlighted between the applicant and staff.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much.
OK, with that, we will go to the applicant, Mr. Schmitz.
It's your time at the mic.
And we'll put seven minutes on the clock, please.
Good morning.
Good afternoon.
Before you start the clock, I'd like
to show you what we're not going to do today.
Would the people that drove a couple hours
be here to testify, please stand up.
Everybody here is in support.
And that's going to move the agenda along, I do believe.
So you bet.
If we can get my PowerPoint presentation up, please.
Again, for the record, my name is Don Schmitz.
It's my great honor to be here representing St. Anne's Church,
except no clicker.
Are you going to advance it for me?
OK, next slide, please.
So yes, we are in agreement with all
the special conditions. We want to show you the history of this church which
goes way back. Next slide please. Back to 1936, the original church was right
across the street. Next slide. And the property, next slide, was originally
purchased for the construction of the church. You're gonna have to be quicker on
the clicker, man. They got me in a short time frame here. What you can see is 1937.
It's a beautiful church. Next slide please. Additional parcels were purchased
by the church. Next slide. This is 1938. Next slide please. And the parcels which were purchased
were converted into a parking lot. Next slide. And then the two small houses next door were
purchased strictly for the use of the church itself. It's never been public housing. Next
slide. And the rectory, excuse me, the parish hall was expanded back in 1967. Next slide.
So this is the master plan layout, next slide, this is shown to you by staff and I want you
to dwell for a moment on this rendering.
You can see that what is being proposed is well in keeping with the surrounding community
character in regards to the commercial and residential development.
Next slide.
This is agonizingly slow.
I'm feeling the pressure chair.
Okay, so this is a rendering of the church campus.
slide, please. And you can see that the architect Chuck Kluger, who specializes in church architecture,
he's done a magnificent job in carrying forward the architectural theme from the church which
was constructed in the 1930s. Next slide. This is the parish hall and offices rendering.
You can see the original church in the background. Next slide. And this is the priest house. Next
slide. This is essentially a spiritual center for Old Town Seal Beach. Next slide. It just
This kind of happened this way, the Methodist beat the Catholics into the area, their church
was constructed in 1915 and this is where all the churches in Old Town Seal Beach are
located.
Next slide please.
You can see this is an aerial of the existing facilities and you can see where everything's
going to be placed.
Next slide.
And this also shows you the community character.
There's a large commercial shopping center across Pacific Coast Highway, next slide.
substantial commercial development on all sides of us. Next slide. And the
residential development in the area and the commercial development, this will not
have deleterious impacts to the viewshed from Pacific Coast Highway or have
negative impacts on the community character. Next slide please. This is
looking to the north and you can see in the foreground the residential
development is actually as tall or taller than what it is it is being
proposed by the church. Next slide. So the staff has appropriately determined
that the project is consistent with section 30251
of the COSALAC.
Next slide.
This speaks towards, and the next slide please,
what is being proposed here is a very long-term dream,
so this church can fulfill its core competencies
to serve the spiritual needs of the community.
Next slide.
And I'll just keep it moving.
Next slide please.
We are expanding the amount of units
which are currently available.
There will be five units on this consolidated,
larger residential building.
Next slide.
This is important as is referenced in the staff report,
there will be no displacement of residential use
and the priest house will be strictly for the clergy
and for a caretaker there on the property,
which is a long tradition of the Catholic Church
in regards to having retired priests
as well as the active priests
to serve the spiritual needs of the parish.
Next slide.
The curb cuts will be modified, but there will be no reduction
in the amount of off-site parking.
There will be no reduction to the street parking.
This is something that staff looked at it with us
very carefully.
There's eight now.
We have to modify the curb cuts so that the parking lot, which
is being expanded, will flow according to code,
but there is no reduction of the eight spots
along 10th Street.
Next slide.
As referenced in the staff report, next slide.
The parking lot will actually be expanded.
There will be 69 spaces, which is an increase.
We do meet the parking requirements
as promulgated in the Seal Beach codes.
Next slide.
The requiring parking is actually
exceeded from the code requirements.
Next slide.
So therefore, the project has been
found to be consistent with the coastal access standards
of the chapter three policies, and that
is referenced in your staff report as well.
Next slide, please.
We did a sea level rise study all the way out
at the end of the lifespan as required by that study.
There's a potential for some minor flooding.
It's statistically unlikely.
Nevertheless, we worked with staff
to make sure we incorporated appropriate measures
for the future, including, next slide, waterproof foundations.
And additional steps could be taken,
and it is already engineered that should there ever
be a significant sea level rise where there could
be flooding on the property, we can drop in dams
into the apertures of the buildings.
Next slide.
And so the staff has found the project
to be consistent with 30253 and 30270 of the COSLAC.
Next slide.
We do have a very complete water quality management plan.
Next slide.
Where currently we have a very antiquated parking lot.
It's not filtered, it's not maintained.
The new parking lot will be properly engineered.
All drainage will be collected and will be taken through
a bioswale for water polishing before discharging the streets.
Next slide.
And we are found consistent with section 302.3.0 and 301
of the Coastal Act accordingly.
Next slide.
The construction staging is something
that staff asks us to take a look at.
There will be no displacement of any parking or traffic flows.
Next slide.
In fact, 95% of all the construction
access for the development of the property
will be coming in off the alleyway in the back.
It will have no impacts on coastal access.
It'll have no significant impacts
on the surrounding neighborhood.
Next slide.
We have agreed to an archaeological monitor,
both a professional archaeologist
and a Native American monitor, on the site.
We've already hired the archaeologist.
He's already determined there's no map sites within a half
a mile to a mile of the property.
Nonetheless, in time, there's any disturbance of the ground,
any grading, that the site will be monitored.
Next slide.
and the staff report references, therefore,
consistency with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act.
Next slide.
And next slide.
Just also to re-emphasize the issue of the landscaping,
yes, there's a slight tweak on the special condition.
But we are 96% is low or very low.
So overall, the net water demand for the landscaping plan
is consistent with the way that the condition was originally
crafted.
So I want to conclude with this.
I want to thank your staff in particular
on this particular project.
They spent a lot of time with us before we
finalized this design and had constructive criticisms which
we incorporated into the report.
And they really went the extra mile with us
to work on coming up with a winter project.
And one other comment or observation
that comes from the public comment
that you heard this morning, I've
been making presentations as commissioned for close to 40
years, and every once when I finished on time,
did anybody say, honey, that was perfect.
So thank you, and I'm available for any questions
that you may have.
I was going to say, unfortunately, Mr. Schmitz,
today is not the day.
All right, thank you very much.
Much appreciated.
OK, with that, we will go to public comment.
All right, so assuming that was everybody standing up,
but just to double check, we're going to take Kathy Smith.
They could just raise their hand if they're here.
Just want to make sure that was all the people.
But Kathy Smith, John M. Shimoto Su, sorry, Donald Miller,
Mary Ann Barnes, Mark Arnold, Julie Enriquez, Phil Jones.
Is that everybody?
OK, that completes public comment.
Great, wonderful.
And thank you all so much for being here and joining us
today.
We really appreciate it.
OK, with that, I will return to the commission.
Comments, questions?
Commissioner Jackson.
Just a quick comment.
Thank you all for being here.
Driving two hours to be here speaks volumes.
So your presence, three hours for the gentleman
in the far left.
So Don will buy you lunch for driving the farthest.
And special condition.
And real quickly, obviously, no one's
going to say that was perfect, Don.
But thanks to our father here, I think it shows it.
The fact that he kept his comments relatively short
proves that miracles do happen.
So thank you, father, for that.
And that's all I had, Madam Chair.
I'm sorry.
I couldn't help myself.
Understood.
Commissioner Wilson for the motion.
All right.
I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development
Number five dash two five dash zero eight six three
Pursuant to the staff recommendation and I recommend a yes vote
Second it's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion carries congratulations. Thank you all very much
Okay, we're gonna keep on keeping on item 15 the deputy directors report for the San Diego Coast District, please
All right thank you. So I'll start by reporting that the City of Oceanside
completed adoption of their LCP amendment with suggested modifications
related to their inclusionary housing ordinance and the executive directors
determine those actions are legally adequate to complete the certification
process. Next we're reporting five waivers for projects in Imperial Beach,
Solana Beach in San Diego and one CDP time extension for the Santa Lieho State
Beach campground improvements. There's no known opposition on those items. Last
though I do want to report on one immaterial amendment for an extension of
time on the city of Carlsbad's loss and seen as revetment. We do have an
objection so I do have a few comments that are perhaps a little bit long-winded
winded, but we have a lot of good information to share. So for CDP 616-450a2, the Carlsbad
Boulevard revetment, we received a written objection from Surfrider Foundation arguing
that the requested seven-year extension should be treated as a material amendment. The original
CDP authorized retention of an approximately 500-foot long revetment installed to protect
southbound Carlsbad Boulevard while the city prepared a long-term hazards
management plan. In 2023 the Commission approved an amendment to extend the
authorization for an additional year through 2024 and the subject amendment
would extend the authorized lifespan of the revetment by an additional seven
years to 2031. Surf Rider argues that extending the authorization material
changes the original permit because extending the timeline delays triggering the mitigation
and alternatives analysis to the revetment required by the original permit or any continued
retention of the revetment beyond its initial authorization period.
Of course, we do appreciate these concerns.
However, we continue to recommend the amendment remain immaterial.
the original approval. Commission staff has worked closely with the City of Carlsbad on developing
the long-term hazards management plan contemplated in the original permit. During this period the
City has completed several technical studies including a cliff erosion assessment, habitat
restoration analysis for the Los Encinas Creek, and an interim design alternatives analysis that
developed three preliminary realignment concepts addressing resilience to coastal flooding,
cliff erosion and other sea level rise impacts.
That initial planning effort was funded by the Coastal Conservancy in 2020 and although
the City's made measurable progress toward meeting the requirements of the permit, it
is not yet secured funding necessary to advance the project to final design, environmental
review and preparation of the CDP application, which is required under the original permit.
So over the last two years, the city has pursued multiple state and federal grant opportunities
for this next phase, but it has not yet been awarded any additional funds.
The requested time extension will allow the city to obtain the funding necessary to go
from feasibility level analysis to full project development.
The next phase will include refining the preferred roadway alignment and environmental restoration
alternative, conducting a constructability analysis, and completing environmental documentation
and permitting.
These deliverables will form the foundation of the future CDP application required by
the underlying permit, including the required alternatives and mitigation analysis.
So this is indicated that once funding is secured, it anticipates about three years
of work before submitting the CDP application and the seven-year extension therefore provides
sufficient time for both secure funding and to complete the required technical work before
the revetment authorization expires in 2031.
So staff agrees that progress on the long-term solution has taken longer than originally
anticipated when the commission approved the five-year temporary authorization.
So the proposed amendment does not authorize new development, it does not expand or alter
the existing protection, it doesn't modify or relax any condition on the underlying permit.
So all requirements of the permit including the obligations to prepare and submit a long-term
CDP provide an alternatives analysis and provide mitigation for any proposed continued retention
remain fully in effect.
Again staff continues to recommend that amendment qualifies as an immaterial amendment
if three or more commissioners object to the
designation we would
Bring the matter back
As a regular calendar matter. So with that I'll conclude my comments. Great. Thank you any expertise
Any public comments? Yes
We have Kathleen Steinberg. She should be here in person and
Then after that we'll go to zoom. We have about four speakers on zoom Brandon Miles, Mitch Silverstein, George Broadway and Tom Frank
We'll be moving you guys to panelists shortly
Good afternoon coastal commissioners and coastal staff. My name is Kathleen Steindelberger. I'm a resident of Carlsbad
So I also drove quite a bit to come up here and and I'm also the former chair of the city of Carlsbad Beach
Preservation Commission I'm here because I love our beaches and Carlsbad my family grew up surfing and swimming here there
And I am hoping with good decision-making our beaches remain for the next generation
Please decline to approve CDP amendment number six sixteen zero four five zero eight two as immaterial amendment
extending the authorization period for this
2015
2016 emergency permit rocker eventment place north of Encinas Creek by seven years would have
Adverse impacts on coastal resources public access and recreation
despite strong and forcible
Conditions imposed by the coastal staff since 2024 this project has had zero progress
Further storm-induced erosion and damage along this highway is foreseen not unforeseen
This stretch of road already over tops during King tides and large swells at high tide
Forecasts of another El Nino this winter raised the realistic
Prospect of further bluff failure road closures and potential additional
Emergency permit requests for more rock
Revettment along this stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard. How much time do I have left? Ah, okay. The June
826 Carlsbad budget passed with an excess of
144 million dollars yet zero
dollars were allocated for this project this permit extension allows the project to remain stagnant with the continued promise of
Studying feasibility and design alternatives without definitive plans
Adverse impacts of delaying this permit are not
Ethetical if we continue this action for another seven years before finding solutions
We will lose the beach at this location in Carlsbad. Thank you
Thank you, Brandon Miles and Mitch Silverstein. So Brandon Miles first
Good afternoon commissioners Brandon Miles City of Carlsbad
Over the last several years the city has advanced planning and adaptation work
We've completed sea level rise vulnerability assessment in 2017 identifying South Carlsbad
all about is high risk. Since 2020 the City has accepted State Coastal Conservancy grant funding,
retained a consultant, developed a public engagement plan, advanced a community vision,
and completed a 30% roadway design. In 2023 the City Council approved a two-lane road concept to
move forward under the Conservancy grant. The estimated construction cost was approximately
280 million dollars. The City does not currently have that level of budgeted funding and must pursue
additional grant opportunities to finance the project. To date, the City has submitted seven
grant applications, including a recent two million ocean protection council requests and an invitation
to submit a full application to the state coastal conservancy grant, which we plan to submit soon.
The City has also implemented active transportation and parking improvements and traffic calming along
and the city of Toronto. We're
access today. We appreciate the partnership with local districts, value
public input, including Surwriters participation, and support the district's
recommendations on this item. With me is Tom Frank and we're here to answer any
questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you and next is Mitch Silverstein
he has a PowerPoint which we have ready and then you have George Broadway who's
also available available for questions and Tom Frank like Brandon Miles that
are available for questions as well.
Mitch Silverstein.
Mitch, I see you on-
Thank you, commissioners.
Thank you.
Mitch Silverstein, the surf rider.
I live in Carlsbad and know this stretch well.
This revetment protects a road with no viable future,
a road that must and can be realigned out of harm's way.
Next slide.
I want to credit Carlsbad city staff
for their initial work here.
That work happened in part because of the conditions
of this permit.
They made incredible progress from 2020 to 2024
city staff just detailed and this photo shows some of those some of those works and progress.
Also say that that design and permitting of this realignment project is a priority project in their
current strategic plan. Next slide. Here's the picture. The southbound road is threatened
and the beach is disappearing accelerated by the armoring permit in front of you today.
The fix is to move southbound traffic onto the existing northbound road just follow the arrow,
demolish the old road, and free up all that space for a natural beach, resilient to six and a half
theta sea level rise. In 2024, progress stopped. The city states it cannot advance design or
permitting without new grant funding. But its 2026 budget says otherwise. Carlsbad sits on a massive
reserve and has spent tens of millions on nearby Carlsbad Boulevard sidewalk widening that is
welcome but not critical. For this project, nothing beyond a $2 million grant it hopes to win.
This is a matter of priorities not funding. Next slide. This is from a month ago. High tides and
swell produce this result every time. Next slide. This is two angles of the same area. This is
flanking erosion at the north of the revetment in front of you today. More emergency armoring
requests are coming this El Nino winter. Look at how close that is to the road. Next slide.
We created a word cloud from the city's public survey which asked the question,
what do you want to see here in the future? Beach is the word I do not see armoring or road. Next
slide. This amendment means 13 years in place with no mitigation for sand supply impacts and no
long-term hazards management CDP. Both are required by this permit. Almost finished. That required CDP
doesn't require immediate implementation. It allows an event-driven schedule that can't account for
funding constraints. What is required is commitment. The city has the studies, the alternatives, and the
money. So SurFighter asks that you approve a two-year extension only or reject the immaterial
amendment and require material material review because the longer extension will cause adverse
impacts to access and resources. Thank you. Thank you. No more speakers. Only the ones
available for questions. Great. Thank you very much. So Mr. Schwing I know you responded to that.
I'll see if you want to make any comments before I turn back to the commission. Okay. Great. Thank
you so much. So returning to the commission questions comments or looking to see if any
commissioners object yeah just for the record I you know I'm convinced by what
Mitch and the Surfrider folks and I actually just only only read this this
morning and I was in my mind thinking oh two years sounds reasonable and then to
hear him say it I just think for immaterial in seven years given where we
are it's something that I'd want to hear more about one way or the other so I'm
just gonna put for the record put my objection on thank you
Commissioner Lowenberg followed by Commissioner Jackson I agree I just think seven
years is too long. And obviously, this is eroding and this winter is going to be, by
all accounts, very, very bad in 27. So I think if there's a way to maybe shorten this up
a little bit or have it up for review at some point, we can keep pushing would be maybe
a different way to go.
Through the chair, if I could respond. Yeah. I mean, I'll leave it to Carl to get a little
more specific, but I think that the issue here is that we have a project that we're
all moving towards. There isn't a retreat plan here that everyone is moving towards
and that's unusual, but that's where they're headed. The challenge is getting enough, getting
the right set of funding to move the project forward. And you all know how long it can
take a project to move forward. So we worked with the city to try to come up with a reasonable
amount of time so that we didn't have to bring this back. Now, I appreciate the desire to
to push and keep things moving
because it is clearly a dangerous area.
That is very true.
I don't think we felt comfortable telling the city
how to spend their money in the sense that, you know,
the budgetary issue, that's not our issue, right?
That's something the city needs to figure out
how it's gonna fund this project.
And so we felt it was reasonable given they have
no funding now, or no identified funding,
I should say right now,
that seven years to us felt reasonable given the time.
It's a significant project moving this big road inland.
It's going to take a while.
So I just wanted you to understand
why we agreed that seven years felt like a reasonable time
frame.
That said, if it is the will of commission to hear this
or to dig into that number a little more,
that's, of course, your option.
But from our perspective, we felt seven years
with the city in conjunction with the city.
But let me turn it over to Carl.
the political will to do this? I mean, sometimes, you know, people have the best of intents and
they ask more time, more time, oh, we don't have the funding, we don't have this. But
when there is the political will to get something done, I don't know, it's all of a sudden money
materializes has been my experience with local governments over the years. So I would just
think that we need to figure out a way to keep the pedal down here. And if they do have
surplus. We can't tell them how to spend it, but we can put pressure on them to
find the do-re-mi somewhere. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the sides
to this. You know, picture speaks, says a thousand words in that photo that was
showed by surf riders. I mean, speaks volumes. And that just shows urgency. Seven
Seven years is not in my mind as a local elected to note anything that's urgent.
That kicked the can down the road in my world.
And I don't think we have that time because seven years means okay, we don't have to...
And hope is not an option here.
Hope is not a strategy.
So there needs to be a strategy and a prioritization in my mind, consistent with what my colleagues
we're saying in terms of, you know, maybe not pressuring, but certainly nudging to make
something happen sooner versus later.
And I don't think seven years is sufficient enough nudge for that.
And if I may, through the chair, just to be clear, we're at this point, we're talking
about five years going forward.
So the seven covered two past years.
So what we have remaining is five years.
31 is the current the deadline with the changes staff recommended Commissioner Lopez. I mean, yes
So I just want to come at this from the perspective also of a local government official. We're here
Obviously as commissioners, but we're assigned via some of those roles so that we can bring that perspective to the table
I just want to share I've got a community that's going 16 years without clean drinking water and the state is responsible for that
So I appreciate the concern around seven but being realistic about what it's going to take
in a partnership to solve something like this,
I just see realistically five may not be enough.
I'm supportive of the seven, which becomes five,
just acknowledging that even getting a stretch
of a different project, the stretch of highway 101,
where I have deaths every year closed off,
I'm at year eight and being told seven more
for actual construction.
So we're looking at 15 years on that.
And that's literal life and death in my community.
So with those two projects as perspective on timeframe,
I can appreciate the five and IC5 as a bit of a priority
given the realistic timeframes that I've experienced.
And so you would use that to back
what our staff is recommending here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I have a list of folks,
but I'm gonna take my prerogative briefly
to just align myself with Commissioner Lopez's comments.
And I was thinking throughout this conversation
as a local government representative,
Five years seems pretty darn fast,
which I know is hard to wrap our heads around,
but in the local government context, it absolutely is.
That said, this is a great conversation to be having,
and I am sure, certain that everyone is listening
and understanding what a priority it is,
not just for the community, but also as a commission,
that these types of really dangerous conditions
are resolved.
So with that, I'm just aligning myself
with Commissioner Lopez but think that it's an incredibly valuable conversation to continue.
So Commissioner Smith.
Thank you.
Can I get clarity of what has transpired in the last two years?
Do we have CEQA completed?
Is there 65% design?
What's the status?
I don't believe CEQA has been completed.
I'm not sure about the status of design.
But we do have city staff available for questions.
So perhaps they would be willing to answer that question.
Okay.
And what if the road is completely blown out in an El Nino situation and we have emergency
repair?
I come at this fully appreciating the timeline it takes for a local infrastructure project.
listening to the Eureka project earlier
and what it takes for emergency repair,
who the city would be responsible for that, obviously.
But an additional five years seems a little long
given the condition of the roadway right now.
We do have the city on Zoom.
If you guys like to talk to them, Tom Frank.
I'd love to hear their calendar, sorry, their schedule.
like to respond and perhaps let us know what actions have been completed or underway as
today. Thank you, you're available. Tom Frank, you should be unmuted or Brandon Miles.
Yeah, good afternoon. My name is Tom Frank and I'm the transportation director and city engineer
for the city. And first off, I wanted to thank the executive director and deputy director for
framing up the project very well. And then I heard you did clarify that it's actually five
years for moving the project forward and delivering the design and environmental studies
from this date forward. Again, what has been done? Well, you've heard that we completed the
study to evaluate the hazard along the coastline. The last report was submitted to the city in
in 2024. And in that, the City Council selected a 30% design for a one-way roadway in each
direction. And it was, as Mitch said, with Surf Rider parallel or along the current
northbound direction. But I just wanted to frame up that the City realizes that this
is a priority project. We actually have two capital improvement projects already established
for this road segment.
And we have $2 million appropriated
for furthering this project.
But just to mention, the project that
was approved conceptually at the 30% design
level by city council in the 2023 time frame,
that cost estimate was $280 million.
And so while the city is responsible with their finances,
there's a lot of different responsibilities
that the city needs to budget for,
and we don't have that type of money
to move this project forward at this time.
So we are committed to moving the project forward.
The question was asked, like, what can we do
if we're limited with our funding options
and we're committed to moving the project forward
within this five-year period
through the design and permitting phase?
If we're not able to secure that level of funding
to fund a $280 million version,
we will look at options on what we can afford
to deliver for this significant project.
And if I didn't mention beyond the $2 million
that's currently appropriated,
the city has already spent to date over $5 million,
or excuse me, $2 million,
and including the half million dollars
that was expended during the last Conservancy grant effort.
So hopefully that answers your question.
I think there was also a secondary question
about the active erosion spots along this road segment.
And like one of our residents explained,
this is a wonderful coastline, a wonderful coastal road.
I travel it every day on my way home.
And I also love the beach
like so many other people in the city.
I monitor the hotspots.
We actually addressed an emergency earlier this year
just to the north of this area.
And we worked with our partners
with coastal commission staff,
as well as state parks to address that emergency.
So we're very well aware of the hotspots
that we need to monitor.
I review it all the time
and appreciate Sir Frider's commitment
to being a part of this discussion.
We want a really well-vetted project
and we appreciate their participation
in the budget discussions,
which they did participate in.
And we encourage them to continue
to participate in to help the city establish its priorities.
So hopefully, that answer to your questions,
and I'm happy to answer any other questions.
Thank you.
OK, Commissioner Smith.
All right, great.
So I'll turn to Commissioner Williams
and then Commissioner Preciado.
Yeah, I was just going to comment.
I mean, a lot of it's already been covered.
But just with the whole project scoping process
and environmental process, that takes a lot of time.
Five years does seem pretty aggressive to me.
So just circling back within that time frame,
hopefully we'll have an actual project before us.
And of course, $230 million is a lot of money
that will just need to be acquired
in some way, shape, or form.
I know, I'm not sure how the federal government
is participating in climate change type work right now.
So, you know, we'll just there are programs that are available,
but it's just not where it was before.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Commissioner Preciado.
Earlier today, I commented on the City of San Diego's financial situation,
which is maybe not unique in this day and age in the county or in the state.
but I too agree that the five-year period seems aggressive thank you for that word because it's
it's quite a project and I'm glad the city was able to illuminate to us that it's a 230
by the time it gets ready to be done probably a 300 million dollar project so
it does seem like it's beyond the city's reserves to take this on immediately or to prioritize it over anything else that
concerns the city so
So I appreciate Commissioner Lopez's comments and Commissioner the chairs comments as well. Thank you
Thank you. Okay, it's been a really good discussion
So with that I'll ask whether three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report chair
I continue to and I just want to briefly just speak to that and we can move on I
Don't disagree with any of you all especially those in government that that five years, you know
Trying to get this would be very difficult if not impossible. It's aggressive a
Third to half of us won't be on this Commission in two years. And so I my ideas. What about giving?
You know those people time to actually revisit the discussion of you know, seven years now
I get it's five years and that's really my main objection. So I'll just leave it at that. Thank you commissioner. Okay
Vice chair Hart, yeah, I just feel that the problem is that this is on a DDR and
There's obviously a lot of concern about it. We're hearing large numbers
Potential state and
Assistants there's just so much going on here with this project and I think for me anyway
And I think a lot of people share this in serf writer the the problem is this the emergent
You know the emergency context of bringing this back over
multiple times and with what we're expecting and is being anticipated this year with
the El Nino the chance of the road blowing out completely and then having to replace the entire road, so I
Have one question if it's an emergency repair. How is that paid for?
Where does that money come from if it's in the emergency context?
Is it different than if the city were to have to come up with the money separately?
As not an emergency. I think we would have to ask the city or maybe one of our other local government
Representers think of a better answer to the question that we do. I have way too much experience in this
I will share typically the way that it works if it's an emergency
Declared by the governor then FEMA has the ability to step in or they often do and fund a project after it is fixed
They will not pay for improvement or movement of that project for a long-term fix.
And I give the example of the community of San Ardo who two years ago had their wastewater
plant wash away in a river and we were able to point out that the river has changed course
and we needed to move it inland.
They said, no, put it back where it is or we will not fund it.
So we built that sewer plant right back in the river again.
So again, the restrictions on how they're spent and where really confines how our jurisdictions
are allowed to respond to disaster by placing things back where they were.
But if it's a big enough emergency declared by the governor, then the federal government
will fund it to the mass extent.
Yeah.
Right.
So that is a great explanation of, I think, my concern and what a lot of people have concern
is over and over putting more and more hard armoring, rebuilding, you know, all the costs
that are going into trying to fix this thing.
So in my mind, we need to do something rather than just approve it as part of the DDR.
Either approve it as part of the DDR and ask that the city return with an explanation of
the game plan here.
How is it going with the planning?
What grants have they applied for?
How is Caltrans involved?
So it's either pull it off the DDR for a more thorough response to these questions, whatever
director Hucklebridge you think is appropriate.
process wise if it's pulled off the DDR we would bring it back probably next
month as a material amendment and we would have a full hearing on it and so
there would be more opportunity for discussion and an ability to make
changes for example or or have this discussion a little bit more in depth
with the city if you so choose if we keep you know I think if we kept it in
the DDR we would leave it as is and I mean obviously we will continue to work
with the city and push and do all the things that we would normally do, but we don't have
an ability to add that at this point to the amendment.
I'm supportive.
Thank you.
I'm supportive of pulling it from the DDR and scheduling it for a full hearing.
Okay.
So, two objections.
Is there a third objection?
Yes, and I just want to add that it would be nice to have, with that report, a financial
plan from them to just outline what it is that they're proposing, what the framework
as to actually move it forward in sources of funds or other types of projections.
Okay.
Thank you.
So three commissioners have objected to this item.
So we will need to bring it back as described by Director Hucklebridge.
As to the remaining items in the DDR, are there three or more commissioners object to
any of these items?
Seeing no objections on those items, the commission concurs.
And now to our final item of the day, it is 16C.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
So the City of San Diego's land use plan amendment to the Barrio Logan community plan
was filed on May 7th of this year as part of an LCP package containing four other separate
LCP amendments.
The City of San Diego recently submitted an objection to the time extension for the Barrio
Logan LCPA requesting faster processing of the amendment.
Staff acknowledges the city's interest in expediting the amendment.
However, the city currently has seven LCP amendments in process and staff has been reviewing
them in the priority order the city has communicated to us.
At this point, the city staff have indicated that the De Anza Natural Land Use Plan amendment
is their top priority.
Because that amendment carries a statutory deadline in September and is a large high
interest item, staff is planning on bringing that to the commission at the August meeting.
So staff is requesting approval of the time extension for the Barrio Logan amendment today.
We'll bring it forward as soon as possible given the statutory deadlines associated with
cities other LCPA requests and we do anticipate returning with it later this
year you know perhaps even as soon as September okay great thank you very much
any ex partes any public comments just available for questions on zoom two of
them awesome thank you very much I'll return to the commission comments
questions or emotion I'll just comment that I know that this is like has
significant significant public interest from the folks in the community and
You know hoping that staff can
Work collectively even though we're doing the extension that we would not take the full time and work in partnership with the city to get
It complete and I was able to have a conversation with staff about that
So I feel confident that we're able to move this forward and support staff's recommendation
Would you like to make the motion?
Vice chair heart I move the Commission extend the 90 day time limit to act on the city of San Diego
LCP amendment number LCP-6-BRL-26-0018-1 for one year
And also subject to the discussion here that we anticipate it'll be brought significantly sooner. Thank you. Second. I
Understand I'm just confirming that that motion is acceptable with our council. I
Would prefer that so you said subject to the discussion that we had and the discussion was very nebulous
That was a comment accompanying the motion.
So I'll limit the motion to that the time extension
will be for one year.
I'll second still.
Thank you.
That's a motion by Vice Chair Hart,
a second by Commissioner O'Malley.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
OK.
Wonderful.
Great job.
Thank you so much.
And we'll see you all tomorrow.