Good morning everyone. Welcome to the Thursday session of the California Coastal Commission. We're very happy to have you all here
We'll begin with a roll call, please
Mr. Romali
You're here. All right
Commissioner Hart
She's here
Good. Mr. Jackson
Commissioner Kelly here Commissioner Lopez here
Commissioner kalmic here
Commissioner not off here
Commissioner presciado here
Commissioner Wilson
Commissioner Wilson
Missioner Wilson
100% here
Commissioner Brownfield here
Commissioner Williams is not here yet. He'll be here later
Chair Harmon here
We have a quorum great. Thank you very much with that
With that, we will move to the virtual meeting procedures, please.
Good morning.
This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through Zoom.
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at cal-span.org.
If you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item, we recommend you use the CalSPAN website.
Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person, through Zoom or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the Commissioner's webpage.
Paper forms and a Scannable QR code for paper lists in the middle are available on the Commission's
staff table just outside of the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda
webpage, which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up to 2 minutes
to speak at the discretion of the chair.
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after
9 a.m. on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation, you
may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comment are typically allowed
two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the
link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission
staff at 562-477-9089. Again, that number is 562-477-9089. Staff will provide you with
a telephone call-in number and instructions for how to participate and provide testimony
by phone. We will message 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. Thank you
very much. Okay are there any agenda changes today?
Sorry Mr. Twifo. Just bear with me for one moment. I'll just start by saying the
agenda changes are posted in the online agenda. I believe there are eight items
move to consent and to withdraw on if you give me one moment I will walk you
through the specifics okay okay thank you appreciate your patience so as I
said we have eight changes to today's agenda all of which are noted in the
agenda changes posted online first item 8b has been withdrawn that's a
consistency determination by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Next, item
8C has been moved to consent. A consistency determination by the National
Park Service for reconfigure and restoration of a parking lot at Stinson
Beach. Next, item 8D has been moved to consent. A consistency determination by
the National Marine Fisheries Service for fisheries research activities. Next,
Item 11 a has been moved to consent for a county of Santa Barbara to minimize LCP amendment for an ADU ordinance
Next item 11 B has been moved to consent for a county of Santa Barbara to minimize LCP amendment for a mobile home overlay
Next item 14 a has been moved to consent for a city of Redondo Beach LCP amendment for electronic displays
Next item 14 be has been moved to consent for a city of Long Beach LCP amendment for home kitchen enterprises and
Finally item 16 a has been withdrawn for a dispute resolution involving an application filing requirements
As the dispute has been resolved
That concludes the changes to today's agenda. So that brings us to item for general public comment and I'll turn the mic back over you
Thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Joyful. Okay now
This is our opportunity to hear from the public on items that are not specifically listed on the agenda
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 panelists as we bring you in your zoom will reload
This may take a moment to speed up this process. We will bring several people in at a time
But please remain muted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak
After your time is up. You will be moved back to attendee mode for members of the public present in the room
I will call your names in the order that they appear on our signup list when you hear your name
Please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you approach to speak
There is a raise hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list.
If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by downloading Star 9.
If you are participating by Zoom, you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so, please raise your hand
now.
When it is your time to speak, we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
First up in the room, we have Maggie Hall followed by Ashley Draeger and then Ivan Lopez.
Maggie Hall.
I'm Maggie.
Could you press the button on the thank you.
Good morning.
I'm Maggie Hall, Deputy Chief Counsel at the Environmental Defense Center based in Santa
Barbara.
And we represent Get Oil Out, the Sierra Club buy and through with Santa Barbara Ventura
chapter.
Channelkeeper and Santa Barbara County Action Network regarding Sables operations of the
San Ines unit, including the onshore pipelines that were restarted in March in violation
of state and federal laws.
I'm here today to support the Commission's recent notice of intent to commence cease
and desist order and administrative penalty proceedings and to urge the Commission to
schedule the hearing as soon as possible so that Sables unlawful operations can be addressed
in a timely manner.
EDC and our clients urged the Commission to require a coastal development permit prior
to Sable's restart of the pipelines since last year.
We supported SB 237, which clarified that a permit is required prior to restart of idle
pipelines such as Sable's.
Following the enactment of this law, the Commission has repeatedly notified Sable of the requirement
for it to obtain a permit prior to restart.
Nevertheless Sable blatantly violated the law when it restarted the pipelines in March without first applying for a permit
We agree with Commission staff that this action is in clear violation of state law and must seize immediately
Thank you for your attention to this important issue and your commitment to protecting our coast from the risk of another major oil spill
Thank you
Next we have Ashley draeger followed by Ivan Lopez and then less kishler
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners. My name is Ashley Blake. Oh draeger
I'm the field campaign manager with Oceana on behalf of our more than
137,000 California members. I would like to thank you for your leadership both commissioners current and past and upholding public trust values
environmental and cultural resources
diversity local economies through dedicated analysis and input and federal consistency determinations in this
unprecedented and unwarranted review of California's coastal management program by the federal administration
I would like to take the opportunity to express our gratitude and support for the Commission's role in evaluating coastal projects
through the lens of conservation public access and our blue economy
It is essential that the Commission retain the authority to weigh in as necessary, particularly
when projects pose unacceptable risks to extraordinary biodiversity off of our shores, the viability
of our local economies, and the health and safety of our communities.
Oceana is proud to join alongside other nonprofit organizations, state agencies, and Californians
across the state providing formal public comment to NOAA urging that California's coastal management
program be upheld both for the benefit of our state's ability to co-manage our
coastal and ocean resources and for the dangerous precedent it may otherwise set
for other coastal states across the nation. Thank you again for all that you
do. Thank you. Next we have Ivan Lopez followed by Les Kishler and then
Margalit Ezekiel. We have Ivan Lopez in the room. Okay we can come back. Les
Kishler. So I need to press the button. It's on sir, please go ahead. Hello my
name is Les Kishler. I'm a retired high school science teacher in Silicon Valley.
I'd like to say one of my former chemistry students wrote Bill and Ted's
Excellent Adventure. He said he started to write it while in high school. I once
The students took a few students to Berkeley to see the scientist named Charles Keeling
give a lecture on the data he was collecting at a research station in Hawaii.
The most famous equation in science, almost everyone knows, is Einstein's E equals MC
squared.
Most people aren't familiar with what some call the most famous graph in science named
after Charles Keeling.
This graph is called the Keeling Curve.
There's a line on the graph that goes across the years
without much slope.
And then there is a time when it spikes upward.
The spike upward is called the Keeling Curve.
The spike upward occurs after the Industrial Revolution,
when coal is being burned to make steam to run machines.
Over the years, the burning of oil and natural gas
has been added to the burning of coal.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,
there has been an exponential increase
in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which
increases global temperature.
This exponential increase in carbon dioxide
has resulted in and continues to result
in tens of billions of metric tons of carbon dioxide added
the atmosphere each year. It's best that the California Coastal Commission doesn't
add even more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere by approving more natural gas
extraction from California. Thank you and please consider the meaning of the
Keeling carbon dioxide curve and be excellent to each other. Thank you. Still
looking for Ivan Lopez, if you're in the room? Seeing no one. Margalit Ezequiel.
Hello, good morning. My name is Margalit Ezequiel and I'm here both as an
individual. As an individual, I'm a mom, a retired teacher, and a long, long-term
resident of Santa Cruz County. I've lived in Santa Cruz, California since 1982 and
and almost every day I go and walk along the beach,
or jog, or ride my bike,
and it is an incredible, incredible resource
that you all have helped to protect for all these years,
and you preserve our public's access,
and you preserve the clean oceans
that we all love and depend on,
and I taught kindergarten.
I brought 33 years worth of children
down to the ocean to look and to learn
and to value the ocean and all that it gives to us.
I taught my daughter to love the ocean
and she's a 32 year old woman now
and she comes and jumps into the cool clean ocean
every time she comes to visit.
I'm also here as a member
of the Indivisible Santa Cruz County organization
that has thousands of members in our county
And we wanna say that we very much support you helping
to keep our coast clean.
It's important for each of us as individuals.
It's important to us as a community that much, much, much
of our livelihood depends on tourism,
which depends on keeping our coast clean.
And it's important to our whole marine ecosystem.
We really hope that you will continue to work
to protect our oceans at a time when it's under attack.
Thank you very much,
and we appreciate your years of service, thank you.
Thank you.
For Jan Schreiner, if you're in the room,
we're unclear if you wanted to speak for a public comment
or for item 8A, looks like public comment.
I had requested 8A.
Okay, we can call you back up.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have Katie Thompson.
Is that Katie Thompson?
Hi, good morning.
I'm Katie Thompson.
I'm executive director of Save Our Shores.
We are a grassroots nonprofit based here in Santa Cruz
and have been protecting Monterey Bay for nearly 50 years.
And I'm here today to express support
for the Coastal Commission
and the California Coastal Management Program
during this current review of the program
by the Federal Administration.
Right here in Santa Cruz County, where we are now,
we are lucky enough to be next to the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary, which has a vibrant waterfront.
It is a place people build their lives around.
It is deeply personal.
Families walk the beaches, surfers paddle out before work,
and kids explore their first tide pools.
A protected, accessible coast is daily life here.
Save Our Shores has been close to this community
since our founding.
We know how much residents want a coast they can visit
and enjoy.
We receive about 5,000 volunteers annually
who show up for beach cleanups.
And they do it because they're adamant
about what this coast means to them.
And we have this relationship with our coast
thanks to California's successful
coastal management program.
For decades, the program has approved
the vast majority of projects,
objecting only to those with documented harm.
The program is working as intended,
and it is not an obstruction.
I'm constantly impressed with how the Coastal Commission
delicately balances economic development
and environmental conservation.
It keeps beaches accessible and healthy
for future generations and for everyone.
The commission is fair, keeping all stakeholders in mind.
So on behalf of Save Our Shores
and our thousands of volunteers and Monterey Bay residents.
We stand in support of the California Coastal Program.
Thank you very much for your leadership.
Thank you.
We'll be moving to Zoom for Steve Worthington, followed
by Nathan Starkey, and then Ian Pollack.
First up, we have Steve Worthington.
Please go ahead.
Sorry, good morning, commissioners and members
of the public.
My name is Steve Worthington.
I have provided Coastal Commission staff and commissioners with written materials identifying
concerns regarding the East Beach mooring field expansion, particularly the replacement
of existing western seasonal anchorage with year-round mooring use.
The loss of the high public use access is not a minor or incidental issue.
The Commission's own 2022 record describes the seasonal anchorage near Stearns Wharf
as accommodating, quote, up to 45 boats,
the most convenient place for visitors to anchor
and free of charge, end quote.
Sadly, the 2025 amendment does not merely add 17 moorings.
It replaces the existing Western seasonal anchorage
with exclusive year-round rental mooring field.
That changes the form, conditions,
and economic accessibility of public coastal water access.
For traditional boaters, especially day users,
rental costs, additional time, fuel consumption,
and harbor traffic will discourage use.
I have identified specific factual and legal concerns
with the Commission's prior immaterial determination.
I asked that the underlying facts and legal basis
be independently examined against actual consequences of this project.
My Public Records Act request remains pending, so I did not claim to possess the complete
administrative record.
I also ask that the Commission independently verify information supplied by other agencies
concerning the project's scope, public access, environmental effects, and legal characterization.
This project has been piecemealed without much, if any, public analysis.
It is time to clean this up through the appropriate CEQA process, including an EIR, given this
clear change in use.
Please provide the analysis in the public.
Retain the high-use seasonal anchors.
Do not convert Area C. Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up we have Nathan Starkey, followed by Ian Pollett, and then Graham M. Martin-Citaro.
Nathan Starkey please go ahead.
Good morning commissioners and members of the public my name is Nathan Starkey.
Please take a look at this map of the East Beach area of Santa Barbara.
No sterns warp on the left or west side of this map.
Just a moment.
Just a moment.
We're going to have you hold just a moment.
The image you sent us we have to rotate it.
Just a moment please.
Thank you Mr. Starkey you can go ahead and continue please thank you.
Good morning commissioners and members of the public.
My name is Nathan Starkey.
Please take a look at this map of East Beach area of Santa Barbara.
Note Stearns Wharf on the left or west side of this map.
If you look at the map of state of California, at least 868A, there is one point I want everyone
to understand.
Areas A, B, and C are not the same.
Area B is the year-round permitted mooring field.
It was established in 2006 as part of the East Beach mooring anchoring program.
Area A is a year-round anchoring area, and area C is a seasonal anchorage area.
The trapezoid area just north of area C is what is known as the seasonal anchorage.
The state lands commission original lease documents specifically distinguish these uses.
Then further to the east is the area commonly referred to as the graveyard or county line.
That location is critical.
The graveyard county line area is more than two miles east of Stearns Wharf out in the
open Santa Barbara channel.
This area is not protected by the sheltering effect of the harbor breakwater, wharf, and
lead better point.
It is directly exposed to open channel wave and storm conditions.
We have made a public records act request to the city of Santa Barbara asking the city
to verify the data showing that 35 and possibly 37 of the 37 boats reported as coming ashore
since 2008 originated from the graveyard county line area. We are asking the city to verify that
number so that everyone can understand what is true and what may be an inaccurate narrative.
The map matters because the truth matters. Before we make policy decisions, we need to understand
exactly where these incidents are occurring and what conditions exist in each area. That is the
the first question we were asking.
Let's separate these areas, verify the data,
and look at the actual evidence.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Ian Politt,
followed by Graham M. Martin-Citaro,
and then Don Blahoyak.
Ian Politt, you should be able to speak now.
Good morning, commissioners and members of the public.
My name's Ian Politt.
I want to focus on two conclusions that deserve scrutiny.
That is the change is immaterial
and that there's no change in public benefit.
This is not simply adding 17 moorings.
The proposal would eliminate this high use seasonal
public anchorage and replace it entirely
with a year round field of rental moorings.
Today, area C remains a seasonal anchorage
serving recreational boaters, fishing boats
and other watercraft conveniently located
near Stornsworth and Harbor facilities.
this is an important distinction in the state lands commission's own records in 2021 the state lands commission identified area B as individually permitted mooring while areas a and c were open to the public at no cost with areas a and c designated for public use and benefit quote unquote.
now the 2026 amendment proposes 17 mooring buoys in area c changing the public
anchorage to rental moorings that is a change in use public access economic access for recreational
boaters especially day users rental costs additional time fuel consumption and harbor
traffic can discourage use instead of anchoring directly a boater must enter the harbor navigate
confine waters go to the harbor patrol register and pay it's actually a very difficult harbor to
to navigate.
The city confirms that visiting vessels must check in
at the Harbor Patrol Accommodation Dock,
provide vessel registration and documentation,
and pay visitor fees in advance.
That matters under Santa Barbara's 2019
Coastal's Land Use Plan, which states,
the harbor shall be a working harbor,
with priority for commercial fishing and recreational boating
for all users and income groups.
So I ask, where is the documented analysis
supporting no change in public benefit?
This information has been requested
through a public records act request.
We have heard narratives,
but hearsay and assertions are not evident.
The project has been piecemealed
without a comprehensive public analysis.
It is time to clear this up
with professional honest transparent analysis
through the appropriate CEQA process,
including EIR, given this clear speech.
Thank you.
By this analysis to the...
And next we have Graham Martin Sataro, followed by Don Bloeck and then Cindy Belkowicz.
So Graham Martin Sataro, please go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay.
Madam Chair, Mr. Pursuant to the Public Resource Code Section 30801, I formally object to the
executive director's determination that the CDP Amendment 421-0204A1 is immaterial.
I have submitted a formal written demand to the commission
documenting these violations.
I period before you today to present that demand.
This amendment converts area C Santa Barbara's
only free public seasonal anchorage capacity 45 boats
into 17 fee-based commercial moorings.
This determination is erroneous as a matter of law
under 14 CCR 13166B.
If the applicant or objector so requests
the commission shall make an independent determination
as to whether the proposed amendment is material.
any written objection automatically triggers
material treatment.
The amendment is undeniably material.
It lessens or avoids the intended effect
of the original 2005 CD, which expressly preserved
area C as a free anchorage.
Most convenient place for visitors to anchor
referring to the nine moorings on cities,
grant land inside the protected area.
This project violates three core coastal provisions.
Section 30210 eliminates maximum public access,
replacing it with minimum access for maximum revenue.
Section 30211 interferes with the acquired rights of access
established over centuries of continuous use.
Section 30213, the Coastal Act mandates protection
of lower cost reserves and recreational facilities,
replacing the free anchors with fee-based moorings
directly violates that mandate.
I formally demand that the commissions
accept this objection, make an independent materiality
determination under 13166B,
rescind the immaterial determination
and agendize a public hearing.
The commission's own 2025 notice
claims no adverse impacts to public access
and promises to continue seasonal anchoring
opportunities.
Both claims are directly contradicted
by the commission's 2005 staff report, which
documented area C as an important recreational resource
serving visitors not wishing to pay the harbor's daily use fees.
The amendment eliminates the very anchorage
the commission can situate formal notice
to the commission of these specific violations.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Next, we have Don Blahoyak followed by Cindy Belkowitz
and then Penelope Lapom.
Don Blahoyak, please go ahead.
Good morning, commissioners.
I'm Don Blahoyak of Marina with a familiar issue,
the crisis in safe coastal access to Point Lobos.
While reading the Coastal Act,
I was struck by this significant fact,
law requires that maximum access to the coast must be safe access. Access to Point Lobos is not safe.
Next slide please. Through July as many people visited Point Lobos as in all of 2025 according
to state parks. That was another record year after many record years. Exponential visitation
is what we're seeing. The result, hundreds of thousands must park on the highway. Then families,
the elderly, mobility challenged, are forced to walk dangerously in highway traffic, not along
the highway, in the highway, risking their lives, dodging cars and trucks, speeding just inches
from them. That is not safe access to the coast. Unsafe conditions deny access. That violates the
coastal act. Maximum access must be safe access. Next slide please. Respectfully, I ask two things
of you. One, support the reservation and shuttle system four-point lobos known as parkit. Two,
understand that a more comprehensive solution such as new parking lots is a good 10 years
away 10 years. With two minutes I have more details than time but in short the planning,
reviews, approvals, construction easily will take a decade. Such a project also costs tens of
millions of unfunded dollars. Next slide please. Meantime we need the reservation and shuttle
system. Please support park it. Waiting for a perfect solution condemns millions of Californians
to unsafe or no access to the coast. Thank you for what you do.
Thank you. Next we have Cindy Belkowicz followed by Penelope Lapam and then G. Vincatesh. Cindy
Belkowicz, please go ahead. Good morning, commissions. My name is Cindy Belkowicz,
the director of the Pennington Marine Science Center at Camp Emile Bay on Catalina Island.
Thank you for the opportunity to briefly share more about the work happening at Emerald Bay.
Camp Emerald Bay is a special place. For over 100 years, we've helped young people
connect with the ocean and develop a deeper understanding of California's coastal ecosystems.
Each summer, thousands of scouts and youth from across California come to Emerald Bay
to explore the ocean, conduct marine science experiments, and experience firsthand what it
means to be a steward of our natural resources. Today, that mission continues through hands-on
marine science education in active conservation efforts. Our students don't just learn about
marine biology in a classroom, they experience it in the wild firsthand, observing restoration efforts
and leaving with a deeper appreciation for our ecosystem. At the Pennington Marine Science Center,
we're expanding several important restoration initiatives in partnership with leading
conservation organizations. One of our newest efforts is the White Abalone Recovery Project
in partnership with NOAA Fisheries. White abalone are one of California's most endangered marine
species, and we're proud to support their recovery, monitoring, and long-term conservation efforts.
We're also launching a white seabass restoration project with Hubs Research Institute through
which students and emerging marine scientists will participate directly in aquaculture and
conservation work. They'll gain hands-on experience in fish husbandry, water quality monitoring,
sustainable fisheries, and marine ecosystem restoration while contributing to the recovery
of an iconic California species. Together these programs are inspiring the next generation of
marine scientists, conservationists, and environmental stewards while contributing
to the long-term health of California's coastal ecosystems. Emerald Bay is proud to be a partner
in protecting and understanding California's coastal resources. We're grateful for the
opportunity to continue this work on Catalina Island and to show the commission what we do.
We'd love the opportunity to show you our work in action by hosting members of
the commission at Emerald Bay so you can see firsthand this impact and role
the island plays in connecting people. Thank you.
Next we have Penelope LaPalm followed by G. Venkatesh and then Anastasia Kamarovask.
Penelope LaPalm please go ahead. Miss LaPalm please go ahead.
Here, let's try this. Now you can hear me. Is that correct?
Yes, we can please go ahead. Oh, thank you. My name is Penelope Lapone. Thank you for letting me
speak to you and I commend your efficiency. I want to support the Coastal Commission and thank
you for all of your work. I oppose efforts to start fracking in the Pacific Ocean. I believe
the equipment is old and in poor shape. It would open new pockets of oil and gas and create
risk for oil excuse me ma'am global warming uh forming our oceans and mama I believe that you
would like to speak on item 8a today so we'll move on to the next all right uh we have g van keshe
followed by anastasia camara vosk and then lina bravo so then if you could start your video and
And then go ahead.
Hi, my name is G. Venkatesh Ren.
Different from other topics people have been speaking about.
Thank you to the commissioners
to giving me the opportunity.
I want to talk about a car leak event
that is planned at 1 Sun Force Pinder Road
in the Carmel Highlands.
Next slide.
Yeah, this property is a low density neighborhood.
It's next to a protected cove.
organizer and the owners have tried multiple times to get a permit to host a large event
and they've been denied multiple times. Setup started Sunday without a permit,
suddenly a couple of days ago Coastal Commission jumped in one of the staff said no permit was
needed and instructed the county to issue the building permit. When I called I was told by the
the CCC staff, you know, suck it up.
This is the house where the next slide please.
This is the house where the event is being held.
This is not a commercial event site.
Coaster commission may have been told
they were going to host a small dinner party.
Next slide.
Here's a narrow road and you can already see
the amount of traffic congestion that is going to happen.
No parking signs all over,
just so that they can have a three or four day event
for a commercial entity.
Next slide, please.
This is the setup that's going on in the backyard.
There's gonna be huge TV screen, thousand amp speakers.
Lalo Tequila is serving booze at this party
and lights on all the time.
Is this a corporate, I mean event,
or is this a family dinner party for a small group?
Next slide, please.
And this was the light show we've been seeing
the last couple of nights.
red lights all over.
I mean, this shocks me with the fire going on in Big Sur
that they don't even have the good taste
to pick a different color.
I mean, it looks like the trees are on fire
and this is just awful.
Next one, please.
Thank you.
I request, there was no hearing,
I request that this thing be resisted.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right, for Ann Kamaravask,
we're trying to promote you to a panelist,
please go ahead and accept for Ms. Kbarva.
Okay.
You hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Please go ahead.
Hi, I'm sorry.
I think I got the wrong item.
I think I want to do item 8a
because it's about the fracking.
Yep, understood.
And you have the officer,
you have the drill baby drill stuff.
Yes, we'll be happy to move you to item,
we'll be happy to move you, yes.
We'll be happy to move you to item A to A
and you can speak on that item.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Greetings from Malibu, by the way.
Take care.
All righty.
Next up we have Lina Bravo.
Lina, you should have been promoted to panelist.
Please go ahead and accept.
You should be able to speak.
I inadvertently signed up for the wrong agenda item.
I also am on 8A.
Not a problem.
We'll move you to 8A.
Okay, thank you.
You're very welcome.
Next up we have Pamela Alejandra Galaz Valdez
I'm pretty sure it's for public comment. All right. You should be able to speak now. You
should go ahead and unmute your microphone please. Hello, can you hear me? We can, yes
please go ahead. Thank you. So Art Stories, my free educational program that teaches families
and children about wildlife conservation and historic preservation throughout the world.
I'm in La Jolla right now and I have been for the past five years where I have repeatedly
receiving citations on high risk while conducting my educational work. I have received more than
40 citations primarily displaying or displaying my artwork outside of a designated area and the
retaliation I have received has been detrimental. One incident escalated to illegal detention from
my ranger and police involvement giving me a traffic violation ticket but police officers
did not appear in court and the entire case was missed. The citations continued after us if nothing
had happened. After years of being told where to go and not conduct my educational work, vendors
are back now at the park. Next slide please. Then after the giving of the tickets was banned,
oh next slide, oh the slide is scrolling. Then after giving of the tickets was banned,
a day camp person started allowing him to camp right next to where I teach and he started
harassing me and I reportedly reported this to the park rangers and emails have
have gone unanswered when they tell me they have seen them,
that they have removed them from the park multiple times.
They have called the police.
The police have removed them from the park,
from the harassment that I have experienced,
and still emails go unanswered.
They ask me to call, I text them.
Next slide, please.
That's a little bit of the information
that I teach at the park.
I've documented all of these incidences,
and meanwhile the stress has been devastated.
The consequences of my health and livelihood
have experienced a nervous system collapse
from all the prolonged stress.
I've been hospitalized in and out of the hospital
and life support.
I've developed an autoimmune disease from all of the stress
and I don't know which one because I don't have the time
or money to go back to the doctor to know which one it is.
I'm asking for accountability, equal access
and protection of the additional work.
This may not be your fault, but it is your responsibility.
Next slide.
My GoFundMe is there, please help.
Thank you.
Okay, we have one individual we're not able to find
in the room.
Ivan Lopez, if you're here.
Ivan Lopez, no.
Okay, and then we have two on Zoom.
So if you can hear me, please go ahead and raise your hand
in the webinar so we can find you.
We have Tina Dickison and G. Barry.
Tina Dickison and G. Barry.
Seeing no one, there are no more speakers, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. And thank you to the public for your testimony. I'll return to my colleagues. Are there any comments or questions?
Okay, Commissioner Lopez, just briefly on the spindrift issue. Just want to share with Mr. Venkatesh that I'm aware of the issue. It's been brought to my attention and I've shared a lot of the communication with staff and look forward to getting to the bottom of the jurisdictional question that we have here. Thank you.
Okay, great. Thank you very much. With that, we will close public comment and go to the consent calendar, please.
Thank you, chair.
The agenda is consent calendar.
There are three items, agenda is on the consent calendar
today.
Item 5A, CDP application for a major remodel in Venice.
Item 5B, CDP application for a project involving retail space
remodel in Hermosa Beach.
And item 5C, a CDP application for an apartment complex
remodel in Hermosa Beach.
Staff is not aware of any opposition to these items,
and the applicants are in agreement with the staff
recommendations.
Therefore we're recommending the commission vote
and approve the consent calendar.
Great, thank you, Mr. Toifel.
Are there any ex partes?
Any public comments?
Only available for questions.
OK, great, thank you.
Comments, questions, or a motion?
Move to approve the consent calendar.
Thank you.
That's a motion by Commissioner Kelly,
a second by Commissioner Lopez.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, none.
Excuse me, the motion carries.
The consent calendar is adopted.
Now we'll move to those items that
have been removed from the regular calendar to consent, Mr. Toyful.
That's item six and it provides for applications moved from the regular to the consent calendar.
There are six such items that we're recommending to be moved to consent and those are item
8C, that's for the consistency determination by the National Park Service, for the Stinson
Beach parking lot, item 8D, the National Marine Fisheries Service, consistency determination
for fisheries research item 11 a County of Santa Barbara LCP amendment for an
ADU ordinance item 11 B County of Santa Barbara LCP amendment for mobile home
overlay item 14 a city of Verdunno Beach LCP amendment for electronic signage
item 14 B a city of Long Beach LCP amendment for home kitchen enterprises
The applicant's are in agreement with the staff recommendation for these items.
We have received a written opposition to one item, the National Marine Fisheries Service
consistency determination for fisheries research and survey activities.
We received an email from Nina Beatty and it's posted on to the online agenda.
Staff has also prepared an addendum responding to Miss Beatty's comments and the concerns
she raises.
summarize. Many of Miss Mete's concerns relate to the proposed use of acoustic survey equipment
and the underwater sound it would generate. Staff has evaluated those concerns and provided
in the addendum additional information received from the applicant regarding the equipment
and sound levels it would be used. Our review indicates that the equipment is commonly used
low energy survey equipment that is not anticipated to adversely affect marine mammals or other
wildlife. I believe Miss Beatty is signed up to speak as well this morning but
based on the information she has provided so far staff continues to
recommend that the Commission vote and approve the consistency determination
and other consent calendar items. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any
ex partes? Public comments? Yes we have Isabel Dawson and Nina Beatty is
signed up to speak. We're not seeing her in the Zoom webinar so Miss Beatty if you
can hear us please do raise your hand so we can find you. First up, speaking on
item 8C, we have Isabel Dawson. Ms. Dawson you should be able to go ahead.
Good morning, I'm speaking on 8C. My name is Isabel Dawson with the Environmental
Action Committee of West Marin. We're based in Point Reyes station representing
around 1,200 community members. Our mission is to protect and sustain the
unique lands waters and biodiversity of West Marin. We support coast consistency
determination CD000825 which would restore native habitat, repair flood
damage, and improve coastal hazard resiliency at the Stinson Beach
parking lots. Stinson Beach is heavily impacted by sea level rise and the heavy
winter storms and storm surge that will become more common with climate change.
In 2018, East Coot Creek overflowed and caused significant damage to the parking
lot, washing out spaces. Winter Storms version 2023 caused widespread damage to the community
and also contributed to erosion at the parking lot. These events required costly repairs
to make the parking lot functional and accessible again. We're pleased to see nature-based
restoration and the enhancement of native dune, floodplain, and riparian habitats. This
project will improve climate and coastal resiliency and maintain public access to one of the most
popular coastal recreation areas in the North Bay. The loss of 10% of the parking spaces
This does present a challenge for the community and public access on the days when lot capacity
is reached, as cars often spill over into the community where they shouldn't.
However, we understand that the remaining parking spaces will be better protected from
inundation, erosion, and other flooding impacts.
Thus, we support NPS's effort to coordinate with Marin Transit, including wider promotion
of bus routes to the beach.
We also suggest NPS reach out to local organizations to help amplify that message.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Once again for Nina Beatty, if you can hear us, please go ahead and raise your hand in
the webinar.
Okay.
Still seeing nothing.
The other individuals are available for questions only.
No more speakers.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will return to the Commission.
Begin with Commissioner Wilson.
some questions about the lighted digital sign amendments. So the first is I, you
know, I'm always trying to compare these to the standards for the dark sky
standards and the first one of these is in terms of typically they require some
sort of shielding that doesn't seem to be in this ordinance. Also the ordinance
doesn't seem to have any and maybe I'm wrong but when I looked at doesn't it
doesn't have it's it doesn't have a loons or like a brightness limitation it
just says shall not result in unacceptable light intensity and glare so
that's there's no measurement for by which then that where that is and who in
and who decides that I guess and then there doesn't seem to be any so for the
maximum color temperature just as white light.
And typically in, especially in resource areas
or just even for humans in general,
it's really unhealthy for us to be consuming
those brighter lights in general.
And so 3000 Kelvin is the typical number.
We're using it often, it's a standard now
in terms of lighting.
So I'm just kind of wondering where do we go from here
on this, on this?
I for me it's like we I think we can do better thank you yeah those those are
all good questions it does not include any special shielding the LCP amendment
did not include a cap on lumens it does include the provision that you mentioned
and it shall not result in unacceptable light intensity and glare impacting
surrounding property I would also note a few additional factors that that we wait
as part of our analysis. One is that it does limit it to the warmer colors in
order to minimize adverse impacts, but it chiefly accomplishes that through
requiring any signs to to obtain authorization from their design review
committee. It also requires black background with primarily white
lettering, with the exception that it allows colors also only through their
design review committee. Now we did not require or discuss with the city dark
sky compliance in this particular case and the Commission and staff have
supported that and pioneered the use of dark sky compliant signage in other
areas and we do do so on a case-by-case basis primarily in areas where we're
concerned with the urban rural interface. In this particular case we did not go
that deep, given that this is an urban area in Redondo Beach, so sort of in the
heart of the LA, the amendment also limits these signs in this this
particular case to only public institutional sites, so only projects that
are within a public institutional area. And this particular amendment is only
for up to five signs, so replacement of an existing non-electronic sign at the entrance
to their harbor, but not highly visible from water areas or beach areas, and then for sort
of way-finding signs within clusters of buildings also within the harbor.
So we do not believe that these signs have that same potential for adverse impacts, although
we do support the concept of dark skies.
The way we weighed this particular amendment is that given the background lighting that exists within
Redondo and the urban nature of the area we do not feel is necessary in this particular case
Appreciate that and I will note that
cities in Florida and cities in other places that have
Urban lighting that adjacent to the ocean
Take these things really seriously. It's not I
I get it that it's like this is one in the mix of all,
but the question is when Redondo Beach comes
for an amendment in the future for, say,
their lighting ordinance, and we encourage them
to consider dark skies to protect the coastal resources,
then this is sort of left out there, right?
Because you're doing every project, every new thing
that's coming along.
So from my perspective, it's like even though it's
that this is where you start, right?
And if this passes today,
which probably Wilkes is on consent
and I'm not proposing to pull it necessarily,
I would request that we at least send a letter
to the Design Review Committee for Redondo Beach
to let them know that there's concerns around this
and there's an opportunity,
because all you have to do is specify this
and all that equipment exists
and it doesn't cost any more,
It doesn't cost any more to protect our night skies
from this type of pollution, and not just the skies,
but the critters and the humans
that have to interact with these lights.
So that's my request.
And just to highlight, I'm gonna, you know me,
I'll just keep pushing on this
because I think it's important, so thanks.
And through the chair, I would just note,
staff would be more than happy
and would plan on sending that letter to the city,
requesting them to take into account these dark sky complaint although not
true dark sky compliant these exact issues in order to minimize impacts to
abuse lighting thank you appreciate it thank you
Commissioner Nada yeah I wanted to address the underwater noise pollution
issues and I appreciate the public for bringing that to if highlighting that
And it looks in reviewing the addendum in particular that appreciate that staff has
gone the extra step to incorporate additional information and data in the, in our documents.
And I can support this at this time, but I do appreciate, you know, put a pin in making
sure that we're taking a close look at acoustic impacts to marine life, which has really got
But there's a heavy burden for them to bear and this is, you know, something that we need
to keep an eye on.
So thank you for that.
Thank you.
Any further comments, questions, motion?
I'll move approval of the items removed from the consent calendar.
Thank you.
That's a motion.
Can I just be clear?
You said she moved the items.
I moved from the regular calendar to the consent calendar.
Excuse me.
For the record, I'll be voting no just for this one item. Thanks. I understand. Thank you
That's a motion by Commissioner not off a second by Commissioner Lopez any objections to unanimous? Can Oh, sorry
I'll do a roll call
All right, and that was motion by look not off and second by Lopez correct, okay
O'Malley yes O'Malley. Yes heart. Yes
Are yes, Commissioner Jackson. Hi Jackson. Yes, Commissioner Kelly. Yes
Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes
Yes
Commissioner Kalmick. Hi Kalmick. Yes, Commissioner not off. Hi
Not off. Yes, Commissioner. Press the auto. Yes
Press the auto. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. No
Wilson, no chair Harmon. Yes
Harmon yes, the vote is nine. Yes one. No. Thank you very much. The motion carries. Okay now we'll continue on item seven, please mr. Toy
Thank you. Item seven is the deputy director report for the energy ocean resources and federal consistency division
We have twelve negative determination concurrences to report this month and one immaterial permit amendment a proposal by the grassy bar oyster company in
Morrill Bay to install and operate an upwelling raft. I
I want to note that one of the native determinations was first reported last month in July but is being reported again today to provide an additional opportunity for public comment.
The native determination was submitted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for a project on the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge intended to upgrade water catchment cistern and facilitate the transition from year-round to seasonal staffing.
It's our understanding that federal budget cuts have triggered the need for staffing reductions,
and the Fish and Wildlife Service is planning to secure and protect buildings on the island
for when staff are not present.
We've received two email comments on this project, raising a variety of questions.
Staff has met with the commenters to provide additional information and confirm the scope
of the proposed work with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
We continue to support the services determination that the project would not adversely affect
coastal resources.
I believe that we have several members of the public signed up to speak on this item.
Beyond that, staff is not aware of any speakers or opposition to these items and following
the public comment, we would ask whether three or more commissioners object to the immaterial
permit amendment.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes?
Okay.
I will turn to Galen for public comment.
Okay. We have two available for questions. Then we have on Zoom, Susan Kirks, Anne Cantrell
and Nancy Okada. Susan Kirks, you should be able to go ahead. All right. Here she comes
down. Susan Kirks, you've been promoted to a panelist. You should be able to unmute and
go ahead.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair Harmon, Vice Chair Hart, and commissioners. I'm Susan Kirk.
I'm here today on the Carillon Islands project for this involved life service. I appreciate
the staff bringing this back this month and indeed some of us via Zoom with staff members.
Couple questions do be unanswered.
This project proposal should trigger a NEPA review.
The general description by the Fish & Wildlife Service
includes several potential negative impacts
to marine life, to the seabirds, and wildlife
on the city on one island.
We still are unclear about the transition
plan and the phases that are described,
and equipment to be used, including
jackhammering, which produces ground vibration and noise,
both of which have not been evaluated.
And there really should be a third-party biologist
to conduct error prior to this being initiated.
And in any case, to determine the impact
on this so-called personal hazing, which
has not been delineated or really understood,
for the permit to harass marine mammals all out
on this northeast Carolan island helicopter incident,
and from the other identified marine life
and ground life on southeast Carolan island
that was never identified and evaluated
in a prior project two years,
some of which-
Thank you ma'am.
Thank you.
Next up we have Anne Cantrell,
followed by Nancy O'Connor,
and then we're looking for Leslie Purcell,
if you can raise your hand.
So next up, Anne Cantrell, please go ahead.
Good morning, commissioners.
Anne Cantrell, I'm with the Sierra Club Postal Committee,
and we are concerned about this project,
not having adequate
Deepa and bird studies, marine life studies,
jackhammering and helicopters are certainly going to create
a lot of noise and vibration.
And we questioned whether this is necessary
to secure these buildings.
I would appreciate if the commissioners
would take a closer look at this and thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Nancy Okada.
OK, you can hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
I spoke at the recent NOAA hearings
about the Coastal Zone Management Act, the CZMA,
and its importance in forming the public about what
going on with federal projects on our coast. Thank you, coastal commissioners, for protecting
our right to know. What I didn't get to say was regarding the Faroe Islands. Off San Francisco's
coast, they are unique, craggy, and are home to an exceptional assortment of birds, pinnabeds,
and other wildlife who live in their isolated and harsh climate. The recent negative determination
the commission approved last month this for repairs to housing structures, demolition,
and replacement of a water structure. Helicopters will be used instead of the usual boat transit to
the island. This, the Fish and Wildlife applicant says, is part of a quote unquote transitional plan
that is not well defined. In fact, the letter to the Coastal Commission says
to staff that quote, they do not require a consistency determination. The CCMA and staff
information helps us, the public, better understand the federal government's plan for this remote
island. We submitted questions to coastal staff in hopes of answers. We haven't received written
answers and would appreciate that document. Whether this federal request involves installation
of military equipment, protecting oil leases, or expanding government-funded research,
the Coastal Commission can provide this information to the public. Thus, the public is given access
to the information it would otherwise not have available. The Coastal Commission partnership
use of the CZMA means effective government engagement, meaning that all parties are heard,
the public, the local and state and federal government. Thank you again for protecting our
coast thank you and we're still looking for Leslie Purcell miss Purcell if you
can hear me please go ahead and raise your hand in the zoom meeting seeing no
one no more speakers madam chair okay thank you very much see mr. Toyful
would you like to respond or shall I bring it back to the Commission just
I just quickly appreciate the commoners and their attention
and focus on this.
Appreciate the questions that they've raised.
I just want to provide confirmation
that this is not part of a military activity or oil
and gas.
We've confirmed that multiple times
with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
This is purely as described in the negative determination
to secure these structures.
Thank you.
That's very helpful.
I'll return to the commission.
Comments, questions?
Seeing none, do three or more commissioners object
to any item in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no such objection, the commission concurs.
Okay, let's continue on please, Mr. Joyful.
Thank you, that brings us to item 8A.
The staff presentation will be provided
by the commission's oil spill program coordinator,
Jonathan Bishop.
Madam Chair.
I'm gonna have to recuse myself from this item.
received a settlement as part of a class-action lawsuit filed against
decor after an oil spill from its pipeline that impacted Huntington Beach
and Seal Beach in 2021 therefore in abundance of caution I'm recusing myself
from this item Thursday 8a decor due to potential conflict of interest under
government code section 87 1 0 0 thank you thank you commissioner back to you
mr. Bishop before mr. Bishop begins I'd like to make a couple introductory
comments. The first is that we had agendas this item as part of a
combined hearing with item 8b as I noted during the agenda changes earlier. The
two items are for the same offshore fracking projects, but one was submitted
by Decor, the company proposing the activity and the other was submitted by
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, one of the federal agencies
responsible for overseeing it. As described in our staff recommendation in
response to the BOEM submittal, the appropriate review process for this
project is through the consistency certification prepared by DECOR. The
project is not a federal agency activity and it would be inappropriate to review
it as such. We appreciate that BOM has acknowledged this and withdrawn its
consistency determination. Today's hearing will therefore focus solely on
DECOR's consistency certification. The second note I would like to make is in
regard to the scope of the proposed project under consideration today. While
While the analysis provided by T-Core and its consistency certification is limited to
only the proposed fracking process, as you will hear in our presentation and acknowledge
in the staff report and recommendation, the fracking process and its reasonably foreseeable
subsequent effects need to be considered.
Specifically, this means that the effects of increased oil production and intensified
and extended operations of D-Core's offshore facilities that would result from the proposed
tracking activities also need to be evaluated.
That's what we've done in the staff report and we'll summarize for you in this presentation.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my appreciation to both DECOR and BOEM staff for their forthright
engagement and cooperation during the course of our review process.
While we didn't arrive at the recommendation I expect they were hoping for, their open
communications with us and information sharing was critical to allowing us to complete a
a complicated review process well in advance
of the regulatory deadlines.
And with that, I'll hand the mic over to Mr. Bishop.
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
As noted, item 8A is a consistency certification
submitted by DECORE LLC, or DECORE,
for a proposal to increase and extend oil and gas production
in the offshore Santa Clara oil field
by conducting hydraulic fracturing,
commonly known as fracking,
on 16 existing wells at Platform Gilda.
Platform Gilda is an oil platform
that was originally installed in 1981,
approximately nine miles offshore of Ventura
in federal waters.
It has been operated by DECOR since 2005.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows the location of Platform Gilda
in the Santa Barbara Channel.
Oil and natural gas produced from the platform's wells
are transported to the shore through C4 pipelines installed
in the early 1980s, shortly after the platform was
constructed.
The pipelines transport oil and gas
to decors of Mandalay, Onshore facility, and coastal Oxnard.
The platform and its associated pipelines
have been operating continuously since the early 1980s.
The project does not propose construction
of a new platform, new pipelines, or new production wells.
Instead, the proposed increase in production
would be achieved through the fracking of existing wells
and intensified use of existing infrastructure and facilities.
The proposed fracking program would
occur over a five-year period and is intended
to increase production from approximately 1,100 barrels
of oil per day to approximately 4,000 barrels per day.
The environmental impact statement
prepared for the project by BOEM
projects that the decors fracking
will result in the extraction of approximately 4 million barrels of oil and 3 million cubic
feet of natural gas over the next 20 years while extending the economic life of the platform
and associated infrastructure.
The project area and surrounding Santa Barbara Channel region includes some of the most ecologically
significant and protected ocean waters on the entire west coast of the United States.
This area includes a national marine sanctuary, national park, state and federal marine reserves
and conservation areas, critical habitat for threatened and endangered species,
federally designated biologically important areas for whales, essential fish
habitats, highly productive fishing grounds, and one of the country's two
internationally recognized whale heritage areas. Many of these protections
were established in the years following Platform Gilda's installation in 1981.
Next slide please. For those who may not be familiar with offshore hydraulic
While fracturing, this diagram prepared by staff shows the basic process.
This diagram is a general depiction only and is not meant for specifically to represent
this project.
During a fracking treatment, filtered seawater is mixed with sand or ceramic material and
chemical additives.
That mixture is then pumped through an existing well at very high pressure to create fractures
and the targeted underground rock formation
several thousand feet below the seafloor.
The sand or ceramic material remains behind
within the fractures and helps hold them open,
creating improved pathways for oil and natural gas
to flow into the well.
In this case, specialized closed-loop equipment
is proposed to be temporarily mobilized
to Platform Gilda for these operations.
The proposed program includes 38 fracking stages
across 16 existing wells in alternating years
over the five-year program.
Fracking operations would not be continuous
and would be carried out on up to six wells per year,
taking roughly 14 days per year to complete.
Fracking fluids are proposed to be routed
through the closed-loop handling system,
retained on the platform,
and then disposed of below ground
by injecting them into the existing wells.
Some fracking fluids would also be extracted along with the oil,
separated from that oil at Decor's onshore facility,
and then sent back to Platform Gilda to be discharged into the ocean,
along with other separated water.
After the fracking treatments, all the equipment would be removed from the platform,
and the flow of oil would be expected to increase.
That oil would be directed to Platform Gilda,
and then through its associated seafloor oil pipeline
to the offshore processing facility on the coast of Oxnard.
Platform GILDA and its associated pipelines
and infrastructure are among the older operating
oil platform and facilities in California waters,
having been in continuous use for roughly 45 years,
more than twice the duration expected
when originally authorized by the commission.
At the time of the original approval,
the platform and its associated infrastructure
were anticipated to have been operating
for approximately 18 years.
Reduction of oil and gas from the Santa Clara unit has already far exceeded the total volume
originally expected to be available.
Platform GRACE, the other platform historically used to access the Santa Clara unit, has already
ceased operating due to declining production and is now being decommissioned.
Production from Platform Gilda has fallen to approximately 1,100 barrels of oil per
day, a level that may not be sustainable if oil prices decline and the cost of operating
the aging facility increase.
As acknowledged in BOEM in the Project EIS, without fracking, production at Platform Gilda
would continue to decline and eventually cease.
Fracking is not new to Platform Gilda.
Information submitted by DECOR indicates that previous operators, including DECOR, carried
out 28 fracking treatments on 14 wells between 1986 and 2014.
Commission staff is not aware of records indicating that those previous fracking projects underwent
either Coastal Zone Management Act or NEPA review, or that notification of them was provided
to the Commission or the public by the platform operators or BOM.
Commission staff is in the process of gathering additional information about those fracking
efforts and their potential effects on coastal resources.
I'd also note that there was significant litigation surrounding some of these prior
fracking operations and their authorization by BOM.
The Commission was party to some of this litigation and it resulted in a decision by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals that prevented BOM from authorizing additional fracking until
both NEPA and federal consistency reviews were completed.
We understand that DECOR submitted its current consistency certification in part to respond
to this court decision.
Next slide please.
staff is recommending that the Commission object to the AGORA's project today based
on its inconsistency with several enforceable policies of the CCMP. These include policies
protecting marine resources and water quality, commercial and recreational fishing, public
access and recreation, and addressing coastal hazards. But the central focus of our analysis
is the CCMP's Hazardous Material Spill Policy, Section 30232. This section applies to any
project that involves oil and gas development or transportation. It establishes two independent
requirements. First, that protection be provided against the spillage of crude oil, petroleum
products, and hazardous substances. Second, that effective containment and cleanup of
facilities and procedures be provided for any spills that do occur. The second requirement
recognizes that accidental spills may occur even where preventative measures are in place.
In order for a project to be consistent with this policy, both requirements must be met.
Before applying these two tests, however, it's important to identify the reasonably
foreseeable effects that could occur because of the proposed fracking activity.
Next slide, please.
Under the Federal Consistency Regulations, the Commission is to consider not only the
immediate effects of the proposed project, but also the reasonably foreseeable direct
and indirect effects that may occur
as a result of that project.
Here, those reasonably foreseeable effects
include increased oil production and transport,
intensified use of existing wells, platform equipment
and pipelines, and extended period
of operation of Platform Gilda's oil production
infrastructure, and consequently, an increase
in the likelihood and severity of potential spills.
That increased spill severity comes
from the four times greater volume of oil
that would flow through DECOR's facility and pipeline
as a result of the project.
DECOR has proposed a substantial range of measures
to protect against spills.
Those include continued structural
and pipeline inspection and maintenance,
corrosion monitoring and mitigation,
leak detection and emergency shutdown systems,
the closed loop handling of stimulation fluids
and flow back, operating procedures and personal training
as well and well-specific integrity testing before individual stimulation treatments.
Staff recognizes these as important prevention measures in that they meet the first requirement
of Section 30232, that protection against spills be provided.
However, even when these measures, with these measures, the risk of a spill would only be
reduced and not eliminated.
Spills could still come from wells and wellheads, pressure control equipment, pumps and valves,
platform equipment, flow lines and C4 pipelines,
transfer operations or supporting vessels.
Potential causes include corrosion,
equipment malfunction, loss of well control,
pipeline failure,
operated error, maintenance activities,
vessel incidents and severe weather.
Recent spill incidents,
including several involving decor facilities
also demonstrate that inspection,
integrity management and safety systems
cannot eliminate the risks of oil spilled.
Given that spill risk cannot be eliminated,
section 30232 contains a second independent requirement.
Effective containment and cleanup facilities
and procedures for accidental spills that do occur.
Next slide, please.
Decor spill response strategy relies primarily
on its regional oil spill response plan.
This plan includes trained response organizations,
pre-positioned fast response vessels
with boom and skimming systems,
shoreline protection strategies, aerial surveillance,
and other response techniques.
However, the question is not simply whether equipment
would be provided or whether responders
could be mobilized.
The question is whether the cleanup and containment
provided would function to effectively contain
and clean up spills under realistic ocean conditions.
Those include the challenges posed by currents,
winds, waves, sea state, and visibility,
as well as those presented by nighttime operations,
detection and mobilization delays, changing spill trajectories, and the limits of mechanical
recovery once oil has entered the open ocean.
One way to understand those limitations is to look at the potential magnitude and geographic
scope of a major spill from the project facility.
Decor spill plan evaluates several worst-case discharge scenarios based on different release
mechanism, including the release of 1,501 barrels or approximately 63,000 gallons of
crude oil from Platform Gilda. This is the maximum volume of oil spill identified by
federal regulatory agencies and is comparable in magnitude to previous large oil spills
that have occurred in California. The spill trajectory modeling results, shown on this
This slide from Decor Spill Plan simulate the spread of a worst-case discharge under
conditions yielding the greatest amount of shoreline oiling assuming no effective spill
control or response.
In that sense, it illustrates the consequences that Decor Spill Plan is intended to prevent
or substantially reduce.
Under this simulated no-response scenario, floating oil affects approximately 895 square
miles of ocean surface and approximately 134 miles of coastline, with shoreline contact
occurring within 73 hours of the spill. However, a spill from the project's oil pipeline could
occur much closer to shore and would likely reach the shoreline much more quickly and
be more difficult to locate and detect than a spill from Platform Gilda. This type of
spill was not fully evaluated in ECOR's consistency certification.
The point of describing this worst case spill is not because staff predicts that a spill
will occur as a result of the proposed project, rather it demonstrates the potential geographic
scale of a major spill from project infrastructure and the size and the area that response operations
could be called upon to address.
While Decor's spill plan describes the substantial response resources it can access to address
a spill of this size or smaller, effective containment depends on much more than the
availability of these resources. It also depends heavily on how quickly a spill is detected,
how rapidly resources can reach the site, whether those resources can operate effectively in the
prevailing ocean conditions, and whether sufficient recovery capacity can be sustained as the spill
spreads.
Decor's plan identifies some equipment that could arrive at platform Gilda within hours,
but much of the equipment needed for a large or prolonged spill would take between 14 to
over 200 hours to arrive, and depending on the location and size of the spill, its pattern
of spread is likely to arrive too late to prevent shoreline contact.
Even if equipment reaches a spill quickly, it must be capable of operating effectively
under actual ocean conditions.
The mechanical recovery techniques relied on in D-Corps spill plan are known to be limited
by wind, waves, currents, visibility, darkness, the spreading of weathering oil, and the logistical
difficulties of sustaining a large response.
Thus, the availability and arrival of response equipment does not by itself demonstrate that
a significant spill could be effectively contained and cleaned up under the conditions that may
be encountered in the Santa Barbara Channel.
In addition to oil spills, the proposed project poses a risk of spills of fracking fluids
and other hazardous substances as well.
During active fracking, the well bore could contain nearly 60,000 gallons of toxic chemical
containing slurry being pumped at rates of 12 to 25 barrels per minute.
Ecor has prepared a project-specific spill prevention control and countermeasure plan
for these materials that would help prevent and address many localized spills, however
it does not establish a worst-case release of fracking fluids or demonstrate how effective
containment cleanup would be provided for a larger release.
If a spill does reach the ocean, DECOR's response appears to rely on natural dilution
and dispersion rather than on active containment and cleanup.
However, dilution and dispersion are not the same as active or effective containment and
and cleanup required by Section 30232.
These processes simply redistribute contaminants
rather than removing them from the marine environment.
Staff's analysis of DECOR's ability to provide effective
cleanup and containment is also informed
by actual experience from oil spills
offshore of California in recent years.
These incidents provide real world evidence
of two key points relevant to the proposed project
and the requirements of Section 30232.
First, they demonstrate that significant failures can occur despite the same types of inspection,
maintenance, spill prevention programs, and regulatory oversight that would be carried out
as part of the proposed project. And second, they show that once oil enters the marine environment,
effective containment and cleanup is extremely difficult. Although many of them have relied on
the same types of techniques and equipment proposed to be used by DECOR, no major oil spill
Oil in California has been contained and remediated before resulting in adverse impacts
to coastal resources.
With a Plains Pipeline spill at Refugio in 2015, external corrosion of an aging pipeline
resulted in the release of over 120,000 gallons of oil, with nearly half reaching the coast
and ocean.
Despite implementation of a certified response plan, shoreline cleanup was only partially
successful.
affected more than 25 miles of Santa Barbara County coastline and was
ultimately documented more than 100 miles from the release location. The
spill resulted in fisheries closures, wildlife mortality, habitat impacts, and
significant impacts to coastal access and recreation. The significance of plain
spill for the current DECOR project is not that the response was mismanaged, it
was that even a highly resourced response did not prevent widespread
coastal resource impacts. The 2021 Amplify Pipeline spill off of Huntington Beach provides another
example. Approximately 25,000 gallons were released following damage to a seafloor pipeline
from an anchor strike. Nighttime visibility prevented confirmation of the initially reported sheen
and later severe weather forced active cleanup operations to be suspended.
The spill resulted in beach closures, fisheries closures, wildlife impacts,
and substantial cleanup challenges. And finally, Decor's own pipeline 0919 incident offshore of
Huntington Beach in 2021 is also relevant. Though smaller, at approximately 170 gallons,
this spill involved a leak from a seafloor oil pipeline triggered by internal corrosion that
had gone undetected despite existing inspection and monitoring. The large oil sheen was detected
on the ocean's surface and skimming operations ensued.
Adverse weather delayed, divers attempting to burn the source of the leak and hampered
the repair of the pipeline.
Staff considers this incident relevant because Platform Gilda's export pipeline is also
an aging seafloor oil pipeline operated by DECOR under a comparable integrity management
regime.
In summary, to help ensure that the damage and disruption to coastal resources and uses
of such accidental spills are avoided and minimized, Section 30232 requires effective
spill cleanup and containment to be provided, for projects such as the current one.
However, research and direct experience with oil spills in recent years shows that this
standard cannot be met using oil spill response strategies typically deployed and proposed
here by DECOR.
In practice, the effectiveness of spill response and containment efforts is severely limited
by weather, currents, visibility, and wave conditions, and the equipment and techniques
proposed by DECORE and its spill plan have been shown to be unable to adequately address
these limitations.
Thus, the proposed project is not consistent with Section 30232.
Proposed fracking program would materially increase the risk of a spill of crude oil
and other hazardous substances by extending and intensifying the use of aging infrastructure.
This increase in oil spill risk in turn increases the potential for downstream impacts to coastal
resources and uses in the Santa Barbara Channel and leads to its inconsistency with multiple
other CCMP policies.
The project would not maintain the quality of coastal waters or provide special protection
for the areas of biological, economic significance in the Santa Barbara Channel and vicinity
as required by the CCMP's marine biological resource protection policies.
It also put at risk important fishing grounds and immediate proximity to platform Gilda
that generated nearly $12 million in commercial landings from 2015 to 2024, as well as other
fishing grounds in the broader region, inconsistent with the CCMP's Commercial and Recreational
Fishing Protection Policy.
Further, the project would be inconsistent with the CCMP's policies requiring coastal
access and recreational resources to be protected because it was increased the risk of oil spills
and related beach and ocean safety closures. Protection for coastal resources is provided
by eliminating or reducing risks, not by increasing them. Additionally, the project would be inconsistent
with the CCMP's hazards policies, as it would involve the intensified and extended
use of the platform, wells, and pipelines located in an area subject to seismic and
coastal hazards. The applicant has not demonstrated that project infrastructure
is designed to minimize hazards and assure stability and structural integrity
against strong ground shaking during a major earthquake, a large tsunami, or
coastal hazards such as storms and shoreline erosion over the life of the
project. Similarly the applicant has not demonstrated how the project would
minimize fire and explosion hazards at Platform Gilda during the proposed
expanded oil and gas production. Next slide, please. In closing, staff recommends
that the Commission object to DECOR's consistency certification because DECOR
has not demonstrated that its proposed spill response measures and spill plan
would provide effective containment and cleanup under the realistic environmental
and operational conditions of the Santa Barbara Channel. As a result, the project
would also be inconsistent with policies requiring the protection of marine
resources and water quality, commercial and recreational fishing, and public access and
recreation.
Further, D-Corps has not demonstrated that the project's continued reliance on aging
infrastructure would minimize hazards and assure structural integrity with respect to
seismic ground shaking and fire hazards as required by Section 30253.
That concludes my presentation.
The motion and resolution can be found on page six of our staff report.
Okay. We'll just use hands today please. Thank you everyone. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.
Before I request the decor representative to come forward, I'll turn to my colleagues
and see if there are any expertise to report. Commissioner Lopez.
Not sure if it qualifies here. Back in March I did meet with folks from decor down in Ventura.
I submitted that form to staff in March. I haven't heard from them since and it was just
sort of a meet and greet.
They gave me some background on the project,
which that was it, thank you.
Thank you, I have an additional ex parte to report
in addition to the one on file.
On Tuesday morning, at around 10 a.m. by phone,
for just a few minutes, I spoke to Jared Ficker,
the DeCore's representative,
and he just expressed that he wished
there had been more time to sort of go back and forth
about some of the issues that staff raised
their report, but again appreciated the collaboration. Okay with that I will see
if the representative from DECOR would like to make a presentation. Hi. Good
morning my name is Marc Chaconis. And how much time would you like Mr. Chaconis?
About two minutes. Certainly. Good morning my name is Marc Chaconis, I'm the
director for external affairs with DECOR. I want to thank the Commission for
taking the time today to consider DCORE's request for consistency
certification related to the update of our development and production plan for
conducting well stimulation activities at Platform Gilda. I'm here today with my
colleague Dale Bradley, DCORE's chief operating officer who helped develop the
original application materials. As background, DCORE is a private company
headquartered in Oxnard, California. We own and operate 20 of the 27 offshore
platforms, including nine that DECOR manages for the major oil companies and
on behalf of the state of California via the State Lands Commission. Before I
adjust the application, I want to take one minute to describe the process
DECOR initiated with staff. We engaged in early discussions which allowed DECOR to
share background information about our general operations and the specific
application. We are initially very encouraged and appreciated staff's
engagement. Our goal was to provide staff with an understanding of DECOR's
dedication to safety, our commitment as a reliable operator, and our belief that
the application will be carried out in a manner consistent with the California
Coastal Management Program and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Despite
providing staff with detailed responses to their formal information requests,
which included DECOR's oil spill response plan approved by CDFW, which was
subject to previous review by the Commission staff and already suitable
for the proposed facility. Highly detailed information regarding our current
operations in the proposed program. State and federal certifications verifying
the structural integrity of platform GILDA and its pipeline systems which
identify no deficiencies preventing current and future operations. Highly
detailed information showing how the method we are using does not involve
pressure rising any of the existing pipelines and casings and making it
clear that the proposed project does not alter the expected lifespan of
platform Gilda. Unfortunately your staff recommended an objection to the
application. However, E-Corps believes that the project application is in fact
consistent with the objectives of the proposed CZMA and necessary in the
interest in national security. We request that the Coastal Commission approve the
consistency certification and find the application is consistent with the
policies of the CCMP and the CCMA. Thank you for your time. Thank you sir.
I'll move to you Chris for public comment. Alright we do have two elected
officials signed up to speak. We'll start with Justin Cummings here in the room
and then we'll move online to Salvador, Tooma Mite, and Vries.
Good morning. My name is Justin Gummings, third district county supervisor, Santa Cruz County.
I'm also the co-chair and founder of the Save My Coast Coalition, which is a coalition of
cities and counties throughout California who have joined forces to protect our coastal
environments, protect our coastal economies in particular against offshore oil drilling
and seabed mining.
And I'm here today really to express my appreciation for the staff's recommendation and I'm asking
you all to support the staff recommendation here today.
This isn't a question about whether we support offshore oil drilling or not.
What we're here today to talk about is whether the proposal and whether the mitigations are
consistent with the Coastal Act.
And what is clear from the staff's presentation here today is that the mitigations necessary
to prevent oil spills, to protect our coastal environments, to protect our fisheries are
inadequate.
As we've seen and as was presented here today, we have seen that oil spills have significant
negative impacts on our coastal environments and when they occur they can be very challenging
to clean up.
fact that you know they're relying on dispersion and dilution it just seems
insane given what we've seen in the past when it comes to oil spills. I know that
you all today and as we've been hearing in the news maybe under pressure given
that BOEM is trying to decertify our coastal management program here in
California but I'm just asking that you all stay strong and not be intimidated
by that and that you uphold the staff's recommendation. There is the opportunity
for D-Corps to put in place the mitigations and and to commit to making
sure that if they move forward with these actions that they are not going to
have oil spills and that they're going to have everything in place but what
they've what we've heard today is that they are not committed to doing that in
which case they should not move forward with these activities. Thank you very
and appreciate you all. Thank you. Now moving to Zoom, we have Salvador Tumomaid Andriz from the
Barbaraino Venturaino Band of Mission Indians. Hello can I hear you? Hi, we can hear you. Great.
Aku Haku, greetings everyone. I'm the Travel Secretary for the Barbaro-Venturano Band of Mission Indians, and I'm here supporting the staff decision to
reject decors proposition to establish fracking on our coast. On the Channel
Islands Harbor of Coast Ventura is where our tribal hub sits where our cultural hub is.
I am part of a tribe of 200 members strong and all of our members project
fracking and all oil extraction from our sacred waters in our coast. Currently here
decors demonstrated that they are not ready or willing or able to at the time
at this time prevent and have mitigations bring oil skills and we've
have already seen along our coast different hazards and spills, including oil itself.
I thank the Public Commission and I'm grateful for all their work and evaluating the information
that President DeBore is not ready at this time for these preparations, and I'd like
to thank the public as well for continuing to support the tribe and their first long-cycled
submission to while water is safe and clear.
These waters are home to very sensitive marine life and different plant species under water
and also contain some very significant importance to our people as well.
I'd like to thank you all for your participation in this game today and to the protection of
our coastal land.
Thank you.
Moving on, we have a group presentation from the Environmental Defense Center and the Center
for Biological Diversity. There are five speakers, both in person and on Zoom. We'll start with
Maggie Hall, Ryan Smith, Kristin Moncel, Lauren Parche, and Brady Bradshaw. And we have your
presentation. Bring it up. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Harmon and Commissioners. I'm Maggie Hall,
Deputy Chief Counsel at the Environmental Defense Center based in Santa Barbara.
Our group will collectively comment on behalf of EDC, Center for Biological Diversity, Santa Barbara
channel keeper and Wishtoyo Foundation. We urge the Commission to object to
DECOR's consistency certification following staff's well-supported
recommendation. Next slide please. As a preliminary matter this project should
not even be on the table. Our organization is litigated to keep
fracking out of our ocean for nearly a decade. Alongside the Coastal Commission
we secured a federal court injunction in EDC versus BOM that prohibits the
federal government from approving offshore well
stimulation treatments, including fracking,
until it complies with environmental laws,
and it has not done so.
We nonetheless agree that the Commission should act
on this agenda item and object.
Next slide, please.
DECOR's proposal to frack from Platform Gilda
is inconsistent with numerous coastal act policies,
as staff described.
I will address the first two on this list.
Next slide, please.
First, staff correctly concludes that the project
would materially increase the risk of a spill of crude oil
and other hazardous substances by extending
and intensifying the use of aging infrastructure.
On top of oil spills, the project introduces a new risk,
the release of highly toxic fracking fluids
into our marine environment.
And DCORE is ill-equipped to deal with these risks
because it does not have effective containment
and clean up measures in place,
which gives rise to an inconsistency
with Coastal Act Section 302-32.
Next slide, please.
These spills also threaten marine life and coastal waters.
The Santa Barbara Channel can readily be considered
an area of special biological and economic significance,
and our region has seen time and again
that the impacts of oil spills are devastating.
Even de-course planned discharges from the platform
are a threat because they could contain
remnant fracking fluids.
These spills and discharges may be sequenced,
threaten sensitive wildlife like sea otters, birds and whales,
and would degrade coastal water quality.
Accordingly, the project is inconsistent
with Coastal Act Section 30230 and 30231.
I'll hand it over to Ryan, thank you.
Good morning, my name is Ryan Smith,
and I'm a legal fellow with the Environmental Defense Center.
My comments will focus on two policy areas,
fishing and public access and recreation.
Next slide, please.
Section 302.34.5 of the Coastal Act
requires that the economic, commercial,
and recreational importance of fishing activities
shall be recognized and protected.
This is especially important in Santa Barbara County,
where fishing generates tens of millions of dollars
in landings each year
and supports the broader coastal economy.
An oil spill or fracking chemical release
could devastate this industry.
The 2015 Plains oil spill,
which is comparable to the worst case spill scenario
platform Gilda, close 138 square miles of fishing grounds for six weeks, caused at least 184
million damages to the fishing industry, and created lingering stigma around local seafood.
Decor knows this risk firsthand. In 2021, one of its subscene pipelines ruptured,
spilling oil and temporarily precluding commercial and recreational fishing.
Blue Tomorrow, an environmental consulting firm, EDC, retained to assess fracking risks,
found that fracking fluids are highly toxic, that accidental releases could harm the marine
environment, and that mixing multiple fluids could increase those impacts. Yet, D-Corps proposal
fails to address the risks its fracking operations pose to fishing. Next slide, please.
In addition, sections 30210, 30213, and 30220 protect public access and coastal recreation.
Oil and chemical spills can shut down beaches and prevent activities like surfing,
swimming and other forms of recreation. The 2015 Plain Spill alone resulted in an
estimated 140,000 lost recreational user days. By prolonging the risk of oil spills and introducing
the additional risk of fracking chemical releases, B Corps' proposal threatens public access and
coastal recreation and is inconsistent with the Coastal Act's enforceable policies. Thank you.
The Center for Biological Diversity and my comments will address the project's inconsistency
with the Coastal Act's hazards policy. Next slide, please.
Decor has failed to demonstrate that this project, which relies on 45-year-old platforms
and its associated aging infrastructure, would minimize hazards and assure stability
and structural integrity over the life of the project as required by the Coastal Act.
Platform GILDA and its infrastructure are located near several active faults capable
producing significant earthquakes, yet the structures were not even designed
to withstand the anticipated level of ground shaking that could occur at the
project location during an earthquake, and recent studies show that fracking
can trigger earthquakes miles from the injection site. Moreover, the staff report
points to additional hazards such as coastal flooding, erosion, and tsunamis,
and shows that Dittor has not demonstrated that the project would
to minimize fire hazards.
Accordingly, we support the staff's conclusion
that the project would be inconsistent
with Coastal Act sections 30253A and B
because DECOR has not demonstrated
that the project would minimize hazards
and assure stability and structural integrity
over its lifetime.
Next slide, please.
In addition, section 30244 requires reasonable mitigation
where development could adversely affect
certain archeological and other cultural resources.
DECOR's consistency certification
dismisses this requirement by missing the broader
impacts of an oil spill.
The coast and waters of the surrounding counties
near the project area contain historical
and cultural sites important to the Chumash peoples
who have called this area home for thousands of years.
Past oil spills have disrupted fishing,
prevented access to ancient village sites,
interfered with ceremonies, and prevented use
of traditional tamul launch sites.
DECOR has failed to provide sufficient information
to assess consistency with the Coastal Lax Cultural Resources Policy, which provides
additional grounds for objection. Thank you, and I'll turn it over to Lauren.
Good morning. My name is Lauren Parch, and I'm a staff attorney with the Environmental
Defense Center. My comments address why offshore fracking is inconsistent with the Coastal
Lax air quality and environmentally sensitive habitat area policies. Next slide, please.
Section 30253C requires new development to be consistent with requirements imposed by
an air pollution control district.
Because the project would increase and change air emissions, D-Corps must obtain a new permit
from Ventura County air pollution control district.
The district itself has stated new source review will be required.
Until D-Corps satisfies the district's permitting requirements, the project does not demonstrate
consistency with section 30253C. Compliance is particularly important because increased emissions
could significantly affect coastal communities. Platform Gilda is located in a region that
already fails to meet ozone standards and it would generate additional toxic emissions,
increase heavy-duty truck traffic, and disproportionately burden low-income communities
of color. Next slide please. Section 30240 requires that environmentally sensitive habitat areas,
or ESHA, be protected from significant disruption of habitat values. Pipelines transport oil from
Platform Gilda to the Mandalay-Onshore facility in Oxnard, which is surrounded by ESHA. A leak
from those pipelines could devastate coastal habitat. In addition to increasing the potential
for spills, extending platform Gilda's life would necessitate future maintenance, repairs,
and possibly replacement of the aging pipelines and on-shore infrastructure components. Such
work would be physically disruptive to those surrounding sensitive habitats. Accordingly,
the project is also inconsistent with Coast of LAC Section 30240. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Brady Bradshaw, and I'm the senior oceans campaigner with the
the Center for Biological Diversity.
Next slide, please.
You've heard from my colleagues
about the applicable Coastal Act policies
and their remarks all lead to the same conclusion.
Offshore fracking at Platform Gilda
is inconsistent with multiple policies
of California's coastal management program.
And the commission should object
to DECOR's consistency certification.
No other outcome is warranted
given the inherently risky and dangerous practice
of fracking in the marine environment.
This project would extend operation of platform gilda
and associated infrastructure,
which will prolong and intensify the many risks
and impacts of offshore drilling.
California's coast has suffered repeated harm
from oil industry activities that show
that the impacts can be devastating.
For example, the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill
and the 2015 Plains All American oil spill
at San Abar, at Rifugio beach,
show that the impacts of oil spill
are far reaching and long lasting.
Once oil is spilled into the ocean,
it is virtually impossible to fully contain and clean up.
Adding in highly toxic chemicals injected at extreme pressures
only brings additional risks to the coastal communities,
wildlife, and the environment.
Oil and toxic chemical spills could harm marine life,
degrade water quality, and close fishing grounds and beaches.
They threaten commercial and recreational fishing,
public access, and recreation.
Offshore fracking also presents additional hazards
to the coast in an already active fault environment,
as well as impacts the cultural resources
and places of profound importance to the Shumash tribes.
The project also raises concerns
about increased air emissions impacts to communities
already burdened by poor air quality
and ongoing threats to environmentally sensitive habitat
areas near decors onshore facilities.
For all of these reasons and for all the reasons
detailed in the staff's report.
We urge the commission to follow staff's recommendation
and object to D-Core's consistency certification.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We do have about 30 speakers remaining,
both in-person and on Zoom.
We're going to continue with our in-person speakers,
starting with Katie Thompson, Susan Jordan, Leah
Unanton, and Matt Collar.
Katie Thompson is first.
And then if you've heard your name,
please start gathering near them, like Katie Thompson.
Hi, good morning again.
I'm Katie Thompson from Save Our Shores.
And I'm here today to object to fracking at Platform Gilda
and support the staff's recommendation
to deny the project.
What happens at Platform Gilda doesn't stay there.
Oil spreads with currents and tides.
Coastal communities up and down the state share that risk.
For the same reason Save Our Shores
supports the coastal management program broadly,
the state's job is to say no when a project seriously
endangers the coast.
And this is exactly that case.
As stated in the presentations, courts
have already banned offshore fracking.
And this proposal flies in the face of that ban.
This project would pose unacceptable risks
to wildlife, public health, cultural resources, coastal
economies, and climate goals.
Furthermore, Platform Gilda is past its expected lifespan,
and fracking would extend the life
of dangerously old equipment.
All of this poses continued escalating risk of a major spill
and could be potentially deadly for wildlife and workers.
There has been a fast track federal environmental review
that has undermined public participation in this project.
California agencies now need to step
in where the federal process fell short.
Also, toxic impacts don't end at sea.
Onshore processing of fracked oil and gas burdens communities
like Oxnard already historically harmed
by petrochemical facilities.
I urge the commission to follow staff's recommendation
and deny the project.
Thank you so much for your leadership.
Thank you.
Susan Jordan, Leah Unanton, Matt Kuller.
Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network.
For years, I have understood how important the commission's federal consistency authority
is to its ability to protect the California coast, whether it's a proposed toll road cutting
through a beloved state park in two and destroying a renowned surf break, or a massive liquefied
natural gas terminal owned by the largest mining company in the world that would have
been moored off the Oxnard coast, probably very close to this operation, for decades,
threatening the safety of onshore residents and polluting the air.
And now, just as the Trump Administration is fixated on eliminating California's Federal
Consistency Authority, we have DECOR.
DECOR proposes fracking in 16 existing aged wells off the Oxnard coast.
These wells have outlived their projected life, and they should have been removed years
ago and let me say that the term fracking does not adequately describe
the violent process that forces toxic chemicals into the wells under high
pressure to break through the rocks that block recovery of the remaining oil. To
my thinking, decor is the poster child for why this Commission must retain its
jurisdiction and ability to challenge yet another very bad idea that will
will increase the risk of a spill off our coast.
And I want to say, with the Refugio oil spill, which
happened where I live in Santa Barbara,
I was at a coastal commission meeting probably a week
or two later.
We went for a field trip to Crystal Cove.
And I picked up a sample and had it
tested by the Department of Fish and Game.
And it came back positive for the Refugio oil spill.
That is how far and how quickly this oil moves.
It doesn't stay in one place.
So once again, the public turns to you
and asks you to object to this proposal
for all the reasons stated by your staff,
the Environmental Defense Center,
and the Center for Biological Diversity.
This project is not consistent with our certified coastal
management plan.
And as of now, that is still the law of the land,
and we intend to fight to keep it that way.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Leah Yinnanton, Matt Coller, and then Logan Goechman.
Hi good morning. My name is Leah Gannontin. I support the staff recommendation to object decors fracking proposal
I drove all night to be here from Los Angeles. I watched the sunrise on the highway this morning and
I want to mention the seismic risks
We have the channels shelf to break up severe waves that can cause damage
The Santa Barbara Channel depth shelf and islands break up major tsunami waves
But Gilda is right at the shelf so the shelf mitigating is not a factor I
Teach fourth and fifth graders creative writing. I adore children's imaginations
And I asked the students to write something important to them and what they wrote broke my heart
I did not prompt them. I didn't tell them about platform Gilda or anything
But I want to read what Claire age 9 said
such a shame a perfectly good planet trashed and
Brynn age 9 what would you think about no nature in the world? Everything we have worked for would be wasted
What would you think about a beautiful world that basically had nothing pristine left? I think I would absolutely hate it
So I was wondering if the oil
Men would be here today and I see you there and I ask you to have a conscience and think about the future
We are in a climate crisis. We are in a global warming. I'm in success crisis. Thank you
protect our home. We are in the Goldilocks zone. It is renewable. It is sustainable.
It is irreplaceable. Thank you for upholding Coastal Management Protection Program. And
I want to say also that the fast-track environmental review process for fracking from platform
Gilda undermined public participation in the federal process. California agencies must
step in and correct this. I live across the street from an active oil drilling
site in Los Angeles. I go to the ocean to get away from it and it sucks to have to
see oil drilling in the ocean too. Thank you. Matt Koller, Logan Gitchman, and then
Sean Burns. Matt Koller. Good morning Chair Harmon and
commissioners and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is
Matt Koller and I'm the California Offshore Drilling Campaign Manager for
the Surfrider Foundation here to speak on behalf of our members who work to
protect and enjoy California's oceans, waves, and beaches with their friends,
families, and communities every single day. We ask that the Commission object to
consistency certification CC000126 put forth by D-Cor for the proposed
hydraulic fracturing activities at Platform Gilda. Offshore fracking is
fundamentally inconsistent with California's coastal protection policies
and would expose our ocean, coastal communities,
and marine resources to unnecessary and unacceptable risks.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking,
is a high-risk industrial activity
that extends far beyond the impacts
of conventional offshore oil production.
It increases the likelihood of water pollution,
air pollution, and oil spills by placing additional stress
on aging offshore infrastructure.
Rather than prolonging the operation
aging oil infrastructure by using new extraction techniques, these facilities
should be decommissioned and removed. Offshore fracking threatens California's
extraordinary marine ecosystem. Chemicals used during well stimulation have been
shown to pose serious threats to marine wildlife including fish, benthic
organisms, sea otters, and whales. Air emissions associated with fracking
contain hazardous pollutants that threaten public health while additional
mineral oil production inevitably results in more greenhouse gas emissions that undermine
California's climate goals.
This proposal would increase industrial activity in the Santa Barbara Channel, which is an
area of exceptional ecological, economic, and cultural importance.
The Coastal Zone Management Act gives California the authority to assure that federally authorized
activities are also consistent with the state's coastal policies, and we urge the commission
to support staff's recommendation to deny the consistency certification.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Logan Getchman, Sean Burns, and then Brett Garrett.
Logan Getchman.
Good morning.
My name is Logan Getchman, and I'm with the Center for Biological Diversity
Oceans Program.
Thank you, Chair Harmon and commissioners, for the opportunity to speak.
Today, I gathered with about 50 individuals who showed up
to support the commission and oppose offshore cracking.
We acknowledge the dedication of the commission
and your efforts to uphold the law,
even while under attack from the current administration.
I'm speaking for agenda number TH-8A
in support of the staff recommendation.
We cannot allow fracking off of platform GILDA.
If DECOR's estimate for quadrupling oil production
is accurate, the severity of a potential oil spill
would be substantially more devastating than beforehand.
As you all know, the effects of oil spills are disturbing.
animals can experience displacement, suffocation, and death.
The toxins can continue to affect wildlife for decades after oil spill response efforts
are done.
This includes a decreased population, shortened lifespans, spawning failure, and increased
infant mortality.
Animals that lay eggs, for example, may produce eggs with weak shells and underdeveloped offspring.
These side effects are passed to animals small and large, from crustaceans to whales.
By extending the use of a platform that has already passed its expected lifespan, you
risk the generational well-being of an entire ecosystem.
Our ask to the Coastal Commission is that you object to Decourse Consistency Certification
for the sake of our coast, community, and wildlife.
Thank you.
Shawn Burns, Brad Garrett, and then Jennifer Savage.
Hello, Coast Commission.
My name is Shawn Burns.
I am born here in Santa Cruz, a local resident, lifelong surfer, daily ocean goer here representing
Save the Waves Coalition.
We're an international nonprofit working with surf communities around the world.
We recently presented our findings on the surfonomics from a study in Santa Cruz showing
that annual year of surf, just through surfing alone, the economics in Santa Cruz raises
is around $200 million a year,
showing the importance of a healthy surf ecosystem
to California state sport, which is surfing.
Shows the value economically as well as culturally.
In Ventura, around Ventura, Santa Barbara, Oxnard,
there's around 50 surf spots.
Some are well known through around the world
such as Rincon, all called the Queen of the Coast.
Surfer's Point in Ventura,
which holds hundreds of youth surf contests,
which I was also a part of when I was a younger kid,
as well as the Channel Islands,
which has some of the best waves on the west coast,
which I maybe should not have mentioned,
so it's kind of a secret, so don't tell anyone.
But these waves can all be affected
by fracking and offshore oil,
creating poor water quality and limiting beach closures,
as well as the major hazard of the Godzilla El Nino
creating major destruction along the coast
to these pipelines that are well dated.
So, here today to ask you to accept
the staff's recommendations to object this project,
keep the oil out of California waves,
keep our surf ecosystems clean and thriving
and maintain coastal recreation access, thank you.
Thank you, Brett Garrett, Jennifer Savage,
Jessica Vasquez-Mesta.
Good morning, I'm Brett Garrett.
I want to thank Mr. Bishop
for his excellent presentation this morning.
And also thank you to everyone who has shown up
to support the staff recommendation.
There was a large group gathered outside this morning
with signs and chants.
So please support the 65 or more cities and counties
that oppose offshore drilling
and the 69% of Californians that oppose offshore drilling.
Gilda is old, Gilda is incredibly dangerous
and Gilda needs to retire.
So, as we were saying this morning,
please beat back that frack attack.
You gotta beat back that frack attack.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jennifer Savage, Jessica Vasquez-Mesta and Pauline Seeless.
I don't want to compare myself to an oil platform,
but I want to be described as old and dangerous someday.
So, good morning to our Harmon and commissioners,
Jennifer Savage, California Policy Associate Director
for the SurFighter Foundation.
We urge you to follow staff's recommendation
and object to the DECOR consistency certification.
DECOR claims that this project falls
within the platform's originally approved production limits.
That comparison is misleading.
The relevant baseline is not a 45-year-old authorization,
it's today's operating reality.
Platform Gilda currently produces 1,100 barrels a day.
That project would quadruple that
on infrastructure operating more than double
its intended 18-year design life,
specifically to keep it running past the point
your own staff report says it would otherwise decline
and eventually cease.
Decor claims no record of any spillage
from prior fracking treatments at this platform.
Your staff report is explicit
that claim has not been independently verified,
but is an unverified assertion in an application
from an operator involved in two of the three
most significant offshore spills in California
in the past five years.
Beyond that, Decor's own consistency certification
doesn't even analyze a spill of well simulation fluids,
it doesn't model a pipeline rupture,
the most likely failure mode on 45-year-old infrastructure,
and relies on natural dilution rather than actual
containment and cleanup,
which section 302-32 requires.
This is not a nuanced situation
or a case of environmental extremism,
but a straightforward legal obligation.
We ask you to stand with your staff report,
support the recommendation, the tribal nations,
and the people of California and object to this project.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jessica Vasquez-Mesta, Pauline Seales, Esther Francis.
Good morning.
Good morning, commissioners and staff.
My name is Jessica Itzayana Vasquez-Mesta,
and I am here on behalf of ASUL, an ocean justice organization
working with Latinos to protect our blue planet.
I'm speaking today to urge the commission
object the proposal to allow hydraulic fracturing from Platform Gilda in federal waters off Ventura
and to stand firmly against future actions that are in California's coast.
Offshore fracking has already been rejected by federal courts following lawsuits brought
by the Coastal Commission and Environment Organizations, yet the federal administration
is moving forward anyway disregarding those protections and California's long-standing
efforts to protect its coast. Platform Gilda poses unacceptable risks to marine
life, public health, cultural resources, coastal economies, and our climate goals.
And with the platform already beyond its expected lifespan, extending the life of
aging offshore infrastructure for more high-risk oil and gas production is
simply the wrong direction. It's important to remember that the impact of
offshore oil and gas do not end at the platform, as some of the speakers have
mentioned. Communities like Oxnard have already born disproportionate pollution
burdens from fossil fuel infrastructure. Continuing to process fragged oil and
gas onshore means asking communities that have already experienced
environmental harm to carry even more of the costs while the benefits go
elsewhere. The Rush federal environmental review also limited meaningful public
participation. California agencies must step forward, must step in when federal
decisions threaten our coast and our communities. We urge you to object to
Platform Guilders proposed fracking and stand up for a healthier, safer and more
equitable California coast. Thank you. Thank you Pauline Seals, Esther Francis
and Ashley Drake. Thank you commissioners for this opportunity. I represent 2,000
local people who are part of Santa Cruz Climate Action Network. Thanks very much
for your 50 years of protecting the ocean. The coast belongs to everyone, not just the
lucky people who live close to it, but also the many thousands of Central Valley people
who come to the ocean on weekends to avoid the ever accelerating heat in the valley.
Mr Bishop and the staff for excellent details today. That was impressive. Please stand strong
against this proposal. The national security claim is clearly bogus. Sadly, it is also will be used
and we will need your help in the not too far distant future to stand against offshore drilling,
Deep Sea Mining and Offshore Nuclear, all of which are proposed by the same administration.
Thank you, Sandstrom. Thank you, Esther Francis, Ashley Drager, Cynthia Denny.
Good moment and thank you for all that you're doing as protectors. I am a resident of Soquel.
I live five minutes away from this beautiful coast.
I'm also an Omni-Faith minister, but Earth is my cathedral.
And I'm here to speak on beyond all the incredible data that
has been submitted this morning that I ditto 100%.
But there's also the sacredness of life itself.
And whereas all shores may be sacred, this particular one,
it's like a Grand Canyon underneath the Monterey Bay.
Just as just a few minutes from here in Felton, we have the Henry Cow.
They're not just forests, they're grandmother, grandfather, forests
who have been here for thousands of years.
And I just want to speak for them as well as all the very practical
and absolutely essential information that we learned here today to say no to the fracking,
no to the offshore drilling that may be possible, and because it's better to prevent
than to say we can come in and make better or try and alleviate. We don't control when
the earth shakes and let's just be preventative and protective.
That's why you're here I think and why we are.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ashley Drager, Cynthia Denney, Vivian Chenkai.
Good morning again, Chair Harmon and commissioners, Ashley Blaco Drager, field campaign manager
with Oceana.
I'd first like to thank the commission staff for their very detailed report.
We support the staff recommendation to deny the motion and object to the consistency certification
that would allow offshore fracking at platform GILDA.
It's widely recognized that waters off California are a globally significant epicenter of biodiversity.
They drive our coastal economies and are critically important to the people of California.
Recently, Oceana conducted a series of research expeditions documenting ocean biodiversity
in waters off of California's Channel Islands.
The first two expeditions alone identified more
than 13,000 unique species using cutting-edge,
environmental DNA analysis.
These findings illuminate the need
to better understand complex ocean ecosystems
to create stronger wildlife protections.
Yet this offshore fracking proposal would risk oil spills
from well stimulation and increased drilling activity.
In addition to exposure to chemicals used
in fracking operations, posing an unnecessary risk
to this extraordinary wildlife and our fisheries.
At least 100 environmental protection organizations
joined by over 8,000 West Coast businesses
have gone on record opposing expanded offshore drilling
because it poses risks to California's iconic coast
and ocean.
More than 80 California cities and counties
have adopted resolutions opposing
expanded offshore drilling, many of which also explicitly
oppose offshore fracking.
Also recently, the California state legislature
just passed a Senate joint resolution
reaffirming California's commitment
to protecting our local economies, our local communities,
and our wildlife from the impacts of expanded offshore oil
and gas drilling and associated spills.
National security experts also say
that offshore oil and gas development
and the associated spills would impede our military's ability
to conduct critical training and testing
and compromise military readiness.
In closing, I thank you again
for your thoughtful consideration.
Thank you.
Cynthia Denny, Vivian Chiang Kai and then Jan Schreiner.
Cynthia Denny.
I'm not seeing anyone approach the mic.
Vivian Chiang Kai.
And these are our last in-person speakers.
We'll be moving on to Zoom after that,
starting with Bill Woodbridge, Charles Realy
and then Tina Calderon.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners
and thank you for taking my comment.
My name is Vivian Chiang Kai
and I am a Save Our Shores volunteer
and an environmental studies student at UCSB.
As staff stated, the Santa Barbara Channel
is home to many unique marine ecosystems
and is a primary reason why many appreciate
the beauty of Ventura and California as a whole.
With how many oil disasters have struck
the Southern California coast since the 1960s,
decors inadequate infrastructure and fracking
would only endanger the qualities
that make the California coast unique.
Continuing to operate these aging facilities
would be detrimental to the numerous environments
communities that live near and in the channel.
Please support the staff's recommendation and object to the Consistency Certification
by D-Corps and the proposal for fracking from Platform Gilda.
Thank you for exercising your authority to protect the California coast.
Thank you.
Jan Schreiner, and then a reminder to all our Zoom participants, please keep your video
and mic off until it is your turn to speak.
So, Jan Schreiner, go ahead.
Good morning, I'm Jan Schreiner.
I am an elected with the Marina Coast Water District
and the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee.
However, today, the opinions I express are my own
and are not authorized by the majority
of either of the board or the central committee.
The fracking process requires proprietary chemical additives
and the industrial wastewater is left untreated
to be disposed of in the ocean and the aquifers.
The Coastal Commission staff have well-highlighted
the age and life expectancy of the Kyoto infrastructure
and concerns for high risk of oil spills
and challenges to containment.
Please support the staff recommendations at a minimum.
Oppose any further activities that damage our oceans,
aquifers, and coastline.
I urge you as a future agenda item
to require removal by 2030 of all coastal
and offshore structures related to oil production.
And finally, I recognized that earlier my name
or the name Marina Coast may have caused some people
to believe I was here for a different project proposal
and especially enormous environmental justice issue,
but today it's about fracking and oil production.
Thank you for your staff's recommendation,
your time and your patience.
And thank you.
One more call for Cynthia Denny
who signed up to be in person.
All right, I'm not seeing anyone approach.
We'll move on to our Zoom speakers.
We'll start with Bill Woodbridge
followed by Charles Rily and then Tina Calderon.
Bill Woodbridge, you go ahead and unmute and begin.
Hi, Chair and commissioners.
Thank you very much for the time.
Your staff is to be commended for a great job.
What a great job, I really appreciate them.
And I hope you will follow through
with their recommendations.
This project is spurred on only by the ultimate greed
from an industry that already makes billions and billions
and billions of dollars in profits.
You'll notice that 100% of the people who are calling in
speaking today are against this project. I can't believe that anybody would think of
using toxic chemicals in the ocean or beneath it that could seep into the ocean or be spilled.
This is an extremely sensitive area of the channel and the ocean. We cannot suffer through
another loss. Regardless of the planning, the prevention methods and the post-spill
proposals, none of that will guarantee that there won't be a spill of oil and even worse,
the chemicals. We can't risk that. There's too much wildlife and fish and recreation
and ecological systems that are going to be destroyed yet again by a spill of chemicals
or oil. We cannot risk another one. Just take it off the table so that risk is gone.
This is aging infrastructure and pipelines way beyond its useful life. It's going to end up in
the same thing that happened in Rufio with aging pipelines breaking or bursting, if not worse.
I urge you to not allow this applicant to go forward
and follow your staff's recommendation.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Charles Rily, Tina Calderon, and then Penelope Lapam.
Charles Rily, go ahead.
Hello.
Thank you so much for the opportunity.
My name is Charles Rily and I'm the Deputy Director
of the San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club.
We're here in support of the staff recommendation
to deny the permit for the offshore oil drilling project.
We believe strongly
that the California Coastal Management Program
has been a gold standard for coastal management
across the state.
And we want to take the threat seriously
from the Trump administration
and ensure that we are protecting our coastline,
ensuring that any offshore oil rigging drills are rejected
and continue to be the gold standard
for coastal protection across the country.
It is super important that we continue
protect the pristine California coastline, protect our marine ecosystems, and ensure that we are
taking the threats seriously of offshore oil drilling. Thank you so much for the time and
opportunity today and we support the staff recommendation. Thank you. Next, Tina Calderon,
Penelope Lapombe, and then Gregory Spooner. Tina Calderon.
Hi, good day commissioners. My name is Tina Calderon. I'm a Tongva and Chumash culture
bearer and I serve as the Ocean Protectors Program Director at Sacred Places Institute
for Indigenous Peoples. SPI is a California Indigenous-led grassroots environmental justice
organization based in the unceded ancestral homelands of the Tongva people, also known as Los
Angeles, California. Our mission is to build the capacity of Native nations and Indigenous peoples
to protect sacred lands, waters, and cultures. Through all of our work we support Native
Nations and their ability to reestablish relationships with their ancestral homelands
and waters. We at SPI thank the Coastal Commission for your continued efforts to protect our
California coast. SPI strongly opposes fracking as we are fully aware of the environmental
harms caused by that violent practice. So we were pleased that the Coastal Commission
staff has recommended objecting to the consistency certification by D-CORE for fracking from
the aging platform Yilda with thorough review of all potential harmful threats.
Exposing our ocean relatives to the noise pollution through dangerous seismic activity,
the use of highly toxic chemicals which could spill into our salt waters as well as the
risk of oil spills is a horrible gamble.
sacred places institute for indigenous people stands with our Chumash relatives and safeguarding
the lands and waters in the Santa Barbara channel.
We urge the Coastal Commission to object D-Corps LLC's request to frack from multiple wells
off platform Gilda on the Ventura coast.
Shakina Liyu, I thank you all.
Thank you.
Next is Penelope Lapom, Gregory Spooner and the Nancy Okada.
Penelope, we need you to accept being promoted to panelist.
All right, we're just going to try to unmute you as an attendee and see if that works.
Like, are you able to unmute now?
You should be able to unmute.
All right, we're going to move on.
Gregory Spooner, followed by Nancy Okada and then Leslie Purcell.
Gregory Spooner, go ahead.
Greetings, commissioners.
The California Commission charges to protect and enhance California's coast and ocean
for present and future generations. The Interior Department proposal known as the 11th National
OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program to open coastal areas to new oil and gas extraction projects
threatens this charge. The California waters and rigs that we've been discussing today represent
only part of this plan. You can't fulfill your mission if you don't help stop this climate crime
both on our coast and elsewhere. Because of all this gas and oil is extracted and burned,
the entire California coast will be permanently and irreversibly harmed. How much harm? Well,
I'm a physicist representing the local chapter of the Climate Justice Group,
Scientist Rebellion. So I'm going to get wonky and talk numbers for just a minute.
The Interior Department says they plan to extract up to 69 billion barrels of oil and 230 trillion
cubic feet of gas in the entire leasing program. I estimate the resulting carbon emissions if all
that fuel is burned represents 20% of the entire remaining carbon budget that humanity has left.
That's 20% of all the carbon we can burn to stay within one and a half degrees of a safe climate.
Others have talked today about the direct coastal harms of oil and gas extraction projects like
platform Gilda, such as oil spills. However, if all that fuel is burned, the warming and emissions
will produce other climate-related coastal harms,
acidified in oxygen-starved seas, more heat waves,
lethal to sea life, more extinctions, larger storms, more damaging sea level
rise. What can you do? You can push back hard.
Give hope and solidarity to other parts of the nation where people are also
fighting hard. Lead on this. Use every tool you can.
Please help stop this catastrophe for the California coast
and for humanity itself. Thank you, commissioners.
Thank you. Next, Nancy Okada, Leslie Purcell, and then
Lena Bravo, Nancy Okada. Good morning, commissioners again.
Nancy Okada, Sierra Club California Coastal Committee.
Recently on Fox News, Interior Secretary Burgum
assured the public that new technology means we will
never have oil spills again. We still haven't been able to stop
earthquakes. Fracking may trigger earthquakes. Fracking at this seismic location is very,
very hazardous. The details can be found in your staff report. Thank you for denying this project.
Thank you. Next, Leslie Purcell, Lina Bravo, and then Anastasia Komerovsk. Leslie Purcell.
Leslie, you're in as a panelist already. You should be able to unmute.
Good morning, commissioners. Yeah, I would like to support what Nancy Okada said, also
as a member of the Sierra Club's Coastal Committee. And we have a lot of concerns also about the
effect on our marine environment. We have the Channel Island Sanctuary out there and
it's very special area that is loved by many, many visitors and people of the area as well
for wildlife diving and fishing and recreating. So I appreciate the staff's report and recommendation.
I would also like to mention I just noticed a discrepancy between 8a and 8b. I know 8b is
postponed but it cited 14 wells that would be fracked and the other the 8a
the one we're discussing now sits sorry Leslie I think you accidentally got
bummed from the meeting we're gonna move you back in you can restart your
comment can you hear me sorry sorry about that Leslie go ahead go ahead okay
I don't know where I got bummed but I will just say that I supported the
comments by Nancy Okada in terms of the seismic activity
and the possibility of harm that could result from that
if these wells are fracked as proposed.
And we support the staff's recommendations.
And the final item that I noticed between 8A and 8B,
which 8B is now postponed,
But 8A says 16 wells are proposed to be fracked
and 8B said 14 wells.
So I don't know where that discrepancy came from,
but I appreciate all the work that's being done on this
and support the staff's recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you, sorry about that again.
Next, Lena Bravo, Anastasia Colmarovsk
and then Darryl Gale, Lena Bravo.
Good morning, commission members.
I'm a resident of a coastal community in the Bay Area
in California, and I'm speaking today
to support the California Coastal Commission
and the many previous speakers objections
to fracking on platform Gilda.
We must protect our coastline from industrial interests
that would ruin it for short-term gain.
The proposal to allow platform Gilda fracking
to wildlife, federally protected ocean waters, public health, cultural resources, coastal economies, and the climate. We cannot afford to put our coast at continued risk of a major oil spill, which will have deadly consequences for wildlife and coastal communities. The toxic impacts of offshore fracking don't end at the sea. Continued processing onshore of fracked gas and oil will burden community health and water. We cannot afford to put our coast at continued risk of a major oil spill, which will have deadly consequences for wildlife and coastal communities.
the toxic impacts of offshore fracking don't end at the sea.
Continued processing onshore of fracked gas and oil
will burden communities that have already
been historically harmed by petrochemical facilities.
Thank you in advance for objecting to opening platform
Gilda to fracking and protecting our coastline communities
and the ocean wildlife.
Thank you.
Next, Anastasia Komarovsk, followed by Darryl Gayle,
and then I'll start calling names
that we weren't able to find on Zoom.
Anastasia Comoroske.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm on my,
can you still hear me?
Am I on my iPhone or my computer?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, just real quick, I don't know if you can hear me.
I'll talk to both.
Oh, I think it's this one.
Okay, so I'm calling you from Malibu, California,
and we just had the hearings for the relaxing,
why don't a review of the drill baby drill stuff,
restrictions here in California
at the Hilton Hotel in Santa Monica.
I noticed you guys are doing this meeting
at the Hilton Santa Cruz, which I think is kind of bizarre.
But we need to think about this, be very careful.
We've learned in the past, these oil spills,
even though short term gain
about having resilience, oil independence,
sometimes comes at the expense
of the California coastline,
which could cost billions of dollars to repair.
So I guess I would hope our federal government
works our state and local officials
to figure out a way to mitigate this
that we do not have to re-engage in offshore drilling
or especially fracking.
I mean, if you wanna trigger an earthquake,
let's crack the Earth's crust stuff.
Okay, thank you, take care.
Thank you.
Darryl Gayle?
Unmuted?
Yes, we can see you and hear you.
Hello, commission, and people in the audience.
Aren't there enough offshore fracking facilities
clearly visible along our Ventura-Santa Barbara coast?
And Gilda, the platform from born in 1981?
Really?
Old pipelines and an aging platform.
Why continue to destabilize further our earthquake-ridden vulnerable state and coastline?
The greed, the psychopathic levels of greed through companies like Exxon, Sable, Chevron,
it boggles the mind.
Do we need yet another leaking, unmaintained, unmonitored pipeline leak?
platform fire oil and chemical soaked wildlife sorry decor we don't trust you
and don't leave you thank you now next the names that we weren't able to find
on zoom we'd had a list of five people that we weren't able locate if I call
your name please raise your hand Penelope Lapom carry Nichols Laura
Rosenberger Hader, Marcia Hanscom, and Ted Morton. Okay, Penelope Lappam, we're
trying you again. You should be able to unmute. Penelope Lappam. Hello. I present
planning on speaking, but I after listening to the presentation about
about D-Corps.
I do oppose it.
I also oppose additional fracking and oil drilling
along the coast for the reasons other speakers have given.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I believe Ted Morton is logged in on this account.
You should be able to unmute now, Ted.
Hello.
Good morning, my name is Ted Morton.
I'm the executive director of Santa Barbara Channel People
conservation organization dedicated to protecting
the Santa Barbara Channel and its watersheds.
We work from Point Conception to the Ventura River
from the ridges of the Santa as mountains
to the Northern Channel Islands.
Today we request that you object
to the consistency certification submitted by D4
concerning its updated development
and production plan offshore Ventura County.
Santa Barbara Channel is an exceptional ecological area.
Cold water currents from the Gulf of Alaska blend
with warm waters brought by the Southern California
from Baja, California.
The mix of currents support a rich biodiversity species
such as rockfish, sunflower sea stars,
California spiny lobsters, sea birds,
and 27 species of cystations.
The channel supports commercial
and recreational fisheries and tourism.
It also holds substantial cultural significance
to the Chumash people.
Bracking adds substantial risk
to the coastal and marine environment,
cultural resources, fishing, and the community.
This plan will extend the risk of oil spills
continued in more intense use of aging infrastructure and Santa Barbara is well aware of the devastation
of degrading infrastructure. This operation will create risk of discharges and spills of hazardous
chemical additives including those that are very toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects.
The staff report concludes that the plan is inconsistent with requirements of the Coastal
Act to protect marine resources and maintain coastal water quality along with other charges.
It also finds that the standard to spill cleanup and containment
cannot be met using the oil spill response strategies typically deployed and proposed
in the plan. So to protect the channel and coast we urge the commission to object to
the consistency certification. Thank you. Thank you. Another call for Dr. Kerry Nichols,
Laura A. Rosenberger-Hater, Marsha Hanscom, and then in person we are missing Cynthia Denny.
If you are here now. All right, I'm seeing no hands raised, no one approaching the mic.
Madam Chair we have no more speakers. Okay thank you very much and many thanks to the public for
their testimony. With that I will return to our staff Dr. Huckelbridge. Yes thanks I'll just kick
it off here. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the members of the public for participating
in the hearing today. I also want to acknowledge as many of the commenters noted that this federal
consistency item is being heard at the same time as the NOAA's reviewing California's Coastal
Management Program. That said, the Commission's job today is to consider the consistency
certification submitted by DECOR, and deliberation should focus on this topic. I will now pass
it to Joe and Jonathan for some additional comments.
Owen Cassidy.
Thank you, Dr. Arkelbridge. Just very briefly, regarding potential effects of the proposed
project on national security, we note while this is not part of the standard review for
the Commission's decision today. We have reviewed the operational energy reports
provided for the US military. These reports indicated that the military uses
approximately 250,000 to 300,000 barrels of oil per day, which is orders of
magnitude higher than the maximum projected production rate for this
project of 4,000 barrels per day. And before we quit I just want to briefly
address several of the comments made by Mr. Chaconis from Decor. First I want to
clarify that while it is true our oil spill program staff do provide comments
to the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response. On some portions
of oil spill response plans our comments are made in an advisory capacity. You
know we we seek to strengthen the plans effectiveness and limiting impacts to
coastal resources but we don't make determinations about the consistency of
these plans with CCMP policies, and we don't approve or endorse these plans, you know,
in this advisory capacity.
I'd also like to respond to Mr. Chikonis' statement that the project would not extend
the lifespan of Platform GILDA and the associated infrastructure.
Statements contained in both the applicant's supplemental DPP and BOM's EIS indicate otherwise.
It described the proposed project as needed to achieve economic production rates and well
longevity and that production of the platform would decline and cease sooner in the absence
of the project.
Further, they project that the project would result in the extraction of roughly 14 million
barrels of oil over the next 20 years.
Finally, in response to one of the public comments, I just want to clarify that the
proposal is to conduct fracking on 16 wells not 14 and we're available for
questions if you have any thank you okay thank you very much I appreciate it
I'll begin first just by expressing my gratitude to our staff for their careful
and thoughtful work here and my appreciation to Decor for engaging in
this process in good faith of course I also want to thank the public for their
testimony and that's always such a an important part of our process so I'll
turn to my colleagues. We're gonna take questions and comments at once. If you
would please try to catch my attention I'm gonna be keeping a list here if who
wants to speak and I will echo the reminder of Dr. Hucklebridge. Let's
please stay focused on the item before us and I'm looking forward to hearing
your comments. I'll begin with Commissioner Wilson. All right, thanks. I'm
just gonna go straight to the heart because I don't really have any
questions, I think staff report said it all. So, I just want to thank the staff and thanks
to D Corp for the transparent communication and good working relationship, it's very important
and especially in this day and age and this is about a risk that's created by an extraction
technology and spill response capacity and in my mind the operator is pretty irrelevant
in that. It's just the conditions. And we know that hydraulic fracturing works by injecting
fluid at high pressure into rock and hold it open. And that physical process adds mechanical
stress to whatever infrastructure runs through it, wells, wellheads, flow lines, regardless
of who operates it or how carefully. And I'm concerned that layering that stress and increasing
the flows through 45 year old infrastructure really creates a reasonable risk of failure.
Fracking fluid itself is a distinct hazard class and has extreme aquatic toxicity.
And so the proposed fracking technology and aging infrastructure just doesn't guarantee
that coastal resources will be adequately protected.
And I'm just going to go through so I can just make the findings and make it as clean
as I can here. Section 30232 has two independent tests. There's the protection against spillage
and the effective containment and cleanup. And from the staff report, I can summarize
that mechanical recovery at sea typically captures only 10 to 20% of spilled oil under
real world conditions. And that is a limit of the response technology itself, not a failure
planning so I think it's important to understand that just just the
limitations of what we know and and what has been then the performance of these
technologies and and responses in the past the Santa Barbara Channel currents
weather and distance from shore compounds that there's just really no
worst-case scenario exists for a pipeline release and I think that was
expressed by by staff and so I think we need to talk about for a minute what is
actually being put at risk. I'll start with marine resources section 30230
requires that marine resources be maintained enhanced where feasible and
restored with special protection given to areas of special biological and
economic significance, and section 30231 requires maintenance of biological productivity in
our coastal waters.
And this is in an area that is the Santa Barbara Channel, in Channel Islands.
There's the National Marine Sanctuary, there's National Park, Marine Reserves, and it's precisely
the areas that these sections single out for special protection, and this is not an area
to consider for these significant risks, in my mind.
Commercial and recreational fishing is also something to be considered.
Section 30234.5 requires that the economic, commercial, and recreational importance of
fishing activities be recognized and protected.
And Section 30234 requires protection of the facilities that are used by them.
And so in any significant spill, there would be risk to these resources.
Also called out by staff is hazards.
And that's specific to section 30253B, requires that new development, in this case, assure
stability and structural integrity.
And I think this is really important.
The platform seismic design does not meet current USGS earthquake projections for the
area and doesn't meet current engineering standards used for comparable hazardous materials
facilities. And these structural vulnerabilities create unreasonable risk of spills and accidents.
And I just think that they it's just a it's basically it's a risk profile aging technology
stressed infrastructure paired with spill response methods that are predicted to not
be adequate, in real world conditions, really gets us to the place where this is where we're at.
And that basically requires a finding of inconsistency with section 30232.
So I just kind of wouldn't say that the benefit side of this ledger is also, in my mind, limited.
It was mentioned by staff that the amount of resource seems to be pretty small relative
to the amount of risk to the coastal resources.
And I mean what I meant by that as energy resources very limited compared to the to the risk to our coastal resources
but and both natural and economic and I also want to acknowledge and align myself with
some of the climate concerns expressed by the members of the public, but I
really want to focus more on on the
the
Yeah, section three part of what we're talking about
So this is why I believe staff got it right and the findings are clear
And while be voting no on the motion to concur with the requested consistency certification, and that's what I have
Thank you, sir, mr. Nada
Thank you and thank you to staff for the focused analysis on the proposal before us and
To the public that has made such an effort and compelling cases
in California following the
1989 Exxon Valdez bill and
then the in Alaska and then though that was followed by the American traders bill off of Huntington Beach in
1990 the state legislature
Adopted the or California oil spill Prevention and Response Act
when after that was enacted that
empowered the Department of Fish and Game to set up a new office of oil spill prevention and response and
As part of setting that up, I was appointed to the Oil Spill Prevention and Response
Technical Advisory Committee at that time, and as we started to build California's capacity
to prevent and respond to oil spills.
And I want to say that, sadly, the technology to contain and clean up an open ocean spill
has really progressed not much since then.
And so we saw in 2010, the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf,
how difficult it was to stop and then clean that up.
And we have not, that kind of technology
has not progressed sufficiently to reduce the,
make this kind of risk of extending
this 45 year old platform and the operations there to be safe to operate in such a biologically
significant area. So for those and other reasons I will be voting no on determining consistency.
Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Presiado. I wanted to ask staff if any of the analysis
undertaken in light of the discussion of quadrupling the supply that is now running through the
pipeline was centered on pipeline reliability in transporting other fluids and other pipelines
that would present a major change in the normal operation of a pipeline.
And I'm just wondering how it's even possible to produce or suggest that you're going to
put on such an aged facility more, shall we say, fluid, and put it at higher pressure
to move it around.
So I'm just wondering if there's any studies that were done on the pipelines to quantify
the stress and the age of the pipelines. Thank you Commissioner Presiado I do want
to note that there's two parts to this there is as you rightly point out the
age of the facility is a is an important factor considering potential
accumulation of corrosion over the years and the additional strain that this
increased flow would would put that infrastructure through. That said the
The design flow rate for this seafloor pipeline was significantly higher than the 1,000 barrels,
1,100 barrels per day flowing through it now and the 4,000 barrels per day that it was
projected.
In other words, when this pipeline was first installed over 40 years ago and the platform
was installed, it was producing at a much higher rate.
And so the kind of pressure and throughput that it was built for was much higher than
even would be achieved after this project.
Hopefully that's helpful.
Related to that, there was an indication from the D4 representative that the major facility
has some sort of certification that it's safe.
And I wonder if the certification happened before or after it would have this new activity,
meaning is it certified for the new activity or is it certified for its existing activity?
That may be a question best directed to DCOR, but what I will say is that there is a significant
amount of oversight by the federal government over these facilities and maintenance regimes,
As we've noted in the staff report and presentation today, maintenance inspection protocols adherence
to those is expected to occur.
However, as we also noted, despite those, we've seen, you know, in the last five years,
several other significant oil spills.
And so those aren't perfect protections against a spill in an accident.
Thank you.
Those were my clarifying questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mary.
Thank you chair.
I'll be brief.
I want to allow myself with the comments of commissioners not off and Wilson.
I want to really thank our staff.
Mr. Bishop, really excellent job and analyzing this consistency different termination.
I think you've got a spot on I will because I promised to keep a brief I don't anything
substantive to add because of how good of a job he did.
I do want to recognize the efforts of all the folks that came out here today from NGO
community.
We have EDC CBD channel keep our soul surf rider.
I not only appreciate your comments and advocacy today,
but I want to say, I want to appreciate all the previous work
that you've done securing some of the crucial legal decisions
that allow us to do the work that we do here as well.
And I want to recognize also that these organizations come
to the table, you know, it's been, it's part of this,
them and their organization, it's part of this fight
as long as we have in the commission here
with often very few resources other than the savvy
and sort of legal acumen of them.
And so just want to appreciate your continuing efforts
and I would say to the staff and those of you
who showed up to advocate today, keep up the good work.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
I wanted to align myself with the comments
of my fellow commissioners and also thank the public
so much for all of the comments.
I'm gonna make a few statements that are somewhat repetitive
with what has already been stated,
but I wanna state them from the dais
so that I can make it clear that in any event,
This is these are the points that I think are most important.
First of all, I want to say that the staff report appropriately
concluded the project is inconsistent
with the enforceable policies of the CCMP.
Platform Gildan, its infrastructure
been operating for 45 years.
Over two times, there are anticipated lifespan.
And without this fracking project,
the platform would continue to decline in production
and cease operations.
Continuing intensifying production on this aging infrastructure clearly threatens the
California coast with the risk of more oil spills, but the risk of spill and also significantly
the risk of spills of toxic fracking fluids.
The staff report, I believe, correctly concludes the proposed fracking program would materially
increase the risk of a spill of crude oil and other hazardous substances by extending
and intensifying the use of aging infrastructure.
And Decor has not demonstrated as the staff, as you said,
Mr. Bishop, effective containment and cleanup measures
in place in the event of such a spill which gives rise
to an inconsistency with section 30232 of the Coastal Act.
As staff has stated, Decor's facilities have involved
in three significant oil spill incidents in California
in the past several years.
I consider that to be a very bad sign in terms of what the future might bring.
The impacts posed by fracking at Platform Gilda including the risk of another spill
are unacceptable.
The risk of an oil spill and other toxic substances clearly threaten the incredible biological
productivity of the Santa Barbara Channel region, its many sensitive species, including
whales, seabirds and fish.
The discharge of produced water, which may contain extremely toxic fracking fluids, further
threatens marine life.
Offshore fracking could impair commercial and recreational fishing.
Testimony today talked about the economic, significant economic impact that would have.
It could contribute to coastal, would contribute to coastal hazards and impede public access
and recreation, and for all of these reasons, the project's inconsistent with the many policies
of the CCMP.
Fracking fluid contains hundreds of chemicals, including known carcinogens, heavy metals,
and endocrine disruptors.
Many components lack complete toxicological data, but 157 evaluated substances are linked
to reproductive or developmental toxicity, posing major risks if they reach drinking
water or air.
Well stimulation treatments, in this case fracking, include oil extraction techniques
that allow oil production to continue from Wales with declining reservoirs and prolonged
drilling operations.
I wanted to turn to staff for a minute because I want you to talk for a second about the
status of the law with the Ninth Circuit injunction and how you discussed it in the staff report,
but I thought it would be worth clarifying the state of the current injunction and how
you see this fitting into that in terms of its legality? And then I'll have a
couple more comments. Yes Commissioner Hart. So this project stems from that
prior litigation that resulted in a Ninth Circuit decision and really what
was at issue was that the BOM had prepared an environmental assessment for
or a program for its own review and authorization
of well fracking on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf.
But that environmental analysis did not lead
to any further NEPA review,
they just issued the final, the Fonzie,
no significant impact finding.
And so that was challenged in that litigation.
And in that decision,
The Ninth Circuit found that BOM had failed to comply with NEPA, but also with the CZMA
and the Endangered Species Act.
And with respect to NEPA, the court found that the EA was deficient, primarily because
it did not, I think, evaluate the toxicity of the well stimulation fluids sufficiently.
And so that the court felt that that was inadequate in the EA and required an EIS, so the next
level of environmental review under NEPA.
But additionally, the court also recognized that there was an obligation for BOEM to prepare
its own CCMA review document, which is called a consistency determination.
because BOEM itself was proposing a program that would result in its kind of approval
of well stimulation treatment programs all across all the platforms in the outer continental
shelf.
So that was another part of the decision, was that BOEM needed to prepare a consistency
determination for that program.
And that's sort of all kind of what led us here today with, well, first BOM had prepared
a consistency determination initially for the Commission's review to be heard alongside
this consistency certification by DECOR.
They both were for the same identical project, which we pointed out to BOM was improper.
And so, and actually, that consistency determination didn't actually relate to the federal project
that the Ninth Circuit said required a consistency determination.
So I don't know where that leaves that litigation and where it all kind of stands now, but the
trial court did issue an injunction following the Ninth Circuit to require BOEM to do that
NEPA review and to do the CZMA review.
And so we understand now from BOEM that they intend not to pursue that federal program
anymore.
So they're not going to move forward with this program to develop a set of regulations
or rules or whatever it might be for their program to review other well stimulation treatments.
Presumably that means then that these projects will just kind of proceed one by one by one.
And so that's why DECOR is here before us today.
But what that means with respect to compliance
with the underlying injunction and the Ninth Circuit
decision, I think that's a little bit unclear at this point.
And so we're just really, I mean,
that was part of the concern that we had
was that it didn't seem to be proper, based on the way
that the court envisioned this whole program working
with foam approving projects and then the projects going
forward separately under that program.
So it's kind of not proceeding the way
that the Ninth Circuit intended.
But beyond that, I don't know that I
would want to kind of provide an analysis of where
things go from there and whether that injunction is now
kind of not being complied with or what the next steps are
that whole legal review but for us today we're looking at we've proceeded to look
at the the consistency certification on the merits. Thanks so much so I think I
think that it was very important that we proceeded today but there is a currently
an injunction that covers the sort of program and now they're proposing one
project within the program however the injunction still applies nevertheless I
understand why staff moved forward but I do think it's highly relevant that in
the Ninth Circuit decision the reason that an injunction was issued was
because of many of the factors that are that we are raising today that cause
our concern and find this inconsistency. Finally, I just want to talk and refer
briefly to the national security issue. I wanted to appreciate staff's analysis of
that in the addendum, which I thought was excellent.
I also want to refer to a letter that
was part of the correspondence filed by Dr. Pasha Madhavi,
who appears to be a very, this appears to be,
have long been her area of focus,
where she talks about the impact of this fracking project.
And among the other things, she states
that if it were to move forward as proposed it would account for roughly 0.0009 percent
of projected global oil consumption or basically in the case of prices.
She says approval of the fracking proposal at Platform Gilda would have best reduced
long-term prices by 0.001 per cent per barrel, or roughly one-tenth of one penny.
With regard to the national security issue, she makes some points that I think are worth
paying attention to and I want to incorporate as important to my decision, although I understand
national security is not the issue before us, but nevertheless, that this would essentially
have no impact whatsoever on national security, given the way U.S. military purchases fuel,
where fuel comes from, et cetera, and that's all laid out in her letter, which I wanted
to reference.
I also just want to talk for a second about the earthquake risk here.
has been linked in a number of peer reviewed scientific papers to earthquakes.
We have an area that is highly susceptible because of earthquake faults that run through
the area and that as well as the pending super El Nino and future high wave events makes
this project even more concerning and inconsistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for everybody
who participated today. It's interesting I was sitting there watching the slide presentation
from Decor and I find myself as I get older increasingly amazed about humans are capable
of the ingenuity, the engineering and the extraordinary lengths we go through to make
something like offshore fracking even possible.
And as I try to teach my teenage boys,
just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should.
And this is just simply one of those cases
where the juice isn't worth the squeeze, to put it simple.
Decor's proposal relies on old offshore platform, aging
equipment, and pipelines that transport oil ashore.
It creates far too many opportunities
for something to go wrong.
when something does go wrong.
It's our ocean, beaches, wildlife, and coastal economy
that pay the price.
I appreciate my colleagues' comments,
aligned myself with all of those staff's excellent work,
and I appreciate the thorough process,
decores participation, and the many members of the public
who took time to share their perspective.
That thoughtful engagement from all sides does matter,
especially when the stakes are so high.
I respect the engineering, and as I said,
I'm awed by engineers and engineering,
particularly as I get older and more curious,
but I'm not willing to risk our coast
to push more oil through this aging infrastructure.
And I'll be also voting in support of staff's recommendation.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Okay, well, I'll just add my own comments very briefly here.
I will join my colleagues,
in particular the comments of Commissioner Wilson
and Vice Chair Hart,
who both well articulated the findings
and those are the same findings
on which I'm basing my own decision today.
I think staff's recommendation is well-supported here.
The age of the infrastructure is really notable to me here.
45 years is a very long time.
And the impacts of the ongoing and intensifying operations
on that aging infrastructure.
Of course, the impacts of a potential spill,
these impacts on our marine environment
are not adequately mitigated for.
And of course, the containment and cleanup measures
are not sufficient, as well described by my colleagues
and by staff.
I wanna join Vice Chair Hardin noting
that I'm also particularly concerned about hazards
under section 30253, namely the seismicity risk.
The proximity of faults to this platform
is an important consideration.
And I agree with our staff's analysis
that the projects continued and intensified use
of this platform.
They haven't demonstrated an ability to minimize hazards and to assure stability and structural
integrity as is required under section 30253 such that I could find it consistent.
So for these and the reasons articulated in the staff report, I agree with our staff's
recommendation and will be finding that the project is inconsistent with the enforceable
policies of the CCMP.
I join Commissioner Jackson in expressing my appreciation for the collaborative work and
for the public in sharing their testimony as well.
With that, I will look to my colleagues for a motion.
I move that the Commission concur with consistency certification CC-0001-26 on the grounds that
the project described here and is consistent with the enforceable policies of the California
Coastal Management Program and I recommend a no vote. Second. Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner
Wilson a second by Commissioner Notoff they're asking for a no vote. May we have a roll call
please. Commissioner Hart. No. Hart no. Commissioner Jackson. No. Jackson no. Commissioner Kelly. No.
Kelly, no. Commissioner Lopez? No. Lopez, no. Commissioner Knotthoff? No. Knotthoff, no.
Commissioner Presiado? No. Presiado, no. Commissioner Wilson? No. Wilson, no. Commissioner O'Malley? No.
O'Malley, no. Chair Harmon? No. Harmon, no. The vote is unanimous. Thank you.
So with that we will be breaking for lunch
and I'm looking at, Ms. Warren will be about an hour?
Yes, you will have closed session about an hour.
Okay, so I will recommend that we return at 1.30.
Thank you.
Where's the?
Me?
I'm talking to you, come sit down.
Thank you everyone, we are back in session
and we'll continue on with our agenda.
We are now on item 10, the deputy director's report
for the south central coast.
Mr. Hudson.
Thank you.
And good afternoon, commissioners and chairwoman.
Item 10 is the deputy director's report
for the south central coast district, which
includes two permit waivers, six permit extensions,
a concurrence determination, and two emergency permit waivers.
In regard to the emergency permit waivers,
The first was by Caltrans for removal
of approximately 8,000 cubic yards of debris and sediment
from under and adjacent to the Las Flores Creek Bridge,
located within the city of Malibu.
And that work was necessary to avoid potential
imminent flooding of surrounded residential
and commercially developed areas.
The second emergency waiver was by the Los Angeles
Department of Beaches and Harbors.
And that was to open a temporary channel
through the beach berm between Zuma Beach Lagoon
and the ocean, necessary to relieve water pressure
and allow drainage from the lagoon
to abate active flooding of the Arizona crossing
between Westward Beach Road and the entrance
to Zuma County Beach public parking lot.
And that was also necessary to restore public access
to that parking lot and emergency vehicle access
to Zuma Beach.
and that was also located in the city of Malibu.
In regard to the certification review being reported today,
that is for an LCP amendment by the county of Ventura
to add new sea level rise adaptation policies.
The county's amendment was approved by the commission
at our March meeting,
and the executive director has determined
that the local government's subsequent action,
accepting all of the commission's suggested modifications
pursuant to a resolution is legally adequate
and that these amendments will become certified
upon being reported to the commission.
This matter is being reported today
pursuant to our regulations
and does not itself require any additional action
or concurrence by the commission.
Staff is not aware of any opposition
to any of the items being reported today.
And we are asking whether three or more commissioners object
to any of the items for which action is needed today
within our deputy director's report.
I am available for questions.
Thank you.
Are there any ex partes?
Any public comments?
No, just two available for questions.
No speakers.
Great.
Thank you.
I'll return to the commission.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Thank you.
And now we are on the floor.
Excuse me, Chair.
We need to report out.
Oh, yes.
Ms. Warren.
Apologies for that.
During lunch the Commission met in closed session it received litigation information and advice
Regarding one matter of potential litigation and the following cases city of Fort Bragg versus Mendocino Railway at all and
Sable offshore corporation at all versus California Coastal Commission
It also received litigation information and advice and took action on one matter of potential litigation and that concludes my report
Thank you very much. Okay now we'll move on to
Item 12a is that correct correct and item 12a will be presented by a Walt deppi the coaster program analyst in the
Commission's South Central Coast District and the Commission's energy and ocean unit
We do have a PowerPoint for this, please if we can pull that up and Walt will be presenting via zoom Walt
Please take it away
Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners
The next item is 12a the Santa Barbara County flood control district is requesting a coastal development permit for
implementation of a five-year routine maintenance program for portions of Carpinteria salt marsh
in unincorporated Santa Barbara County, adjacent to the city of Carpinteria. Next slide, please.
The program includes three components, all previously approved in some form by the Commission
over the years. The first is the periodic dredging of accumulated sediment within marsh
channel segments, which act as flood control channels, outlined in blue on this map, typically
occurring every 5 to 10 years, but up to annually if needed. Between 3,000 and 6,000 cubic yards
of sediment would be dredged per action from Franklin and Santa Monica creeks and the main
channel downstream of their confluence. While past permits for the dredging program have only
included dragline dredging the upper channels with upland disposal, the expanded program would
include hydraulic dredging of upper and lower channels and allow surf zone placement of suitable
dredge material by pipe for hydraulic dredging just down coast of the marsh mouth shown in
yellow or by truck for dragline dredging at the end of Ash Avenue in green. Hydraulic methods with
surf zone disposal have occurred in emergency actions following sedimentation from major storms
and debris flows over the past decade. Sediment stockpiling for dewatering of dragline dredge
material would be temporary and limited to established designated stockpile areas shown
outline in red along the adjacent access roads. The second component of the program includes
as needed mechanical opening of the marsh, mouth of the marsh in consultation with resource agencies
for tidal flow and water quality improvements in cases when a sandbar has kept the mouth closed
causing low dissolved oxygen levels. The third is for as needed maintenance of the previously
excavated drainage system pilot channels in the south marsh shown in dashed pink for managing
flood risks. Recommended special conditions include a suite of best management practices,
work windows, biological monitoring, sediment suitability assessments, and pre- and post-action
coordination. Next slide please. The district proposes to help fund a scientific study to
ascertain any risks of adverse impacts from surf zone placement of up to 50% fine grain material
to better characterize the seasonal natural ranges of suspended sediment concentrations
and turbidity and to inform future activities. Funding towards this study in lieu of other
monitoring is commemorated in Special Condition 9. The study will be carried out by the public
agency called the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, or SCORP, pursuant to a
memorandum of understanding between them and the Commission, and may also receive funds from other
entities. The study, using satellite data and other methods, is expected to result in improved
regulatory guidance for placing high fines materials in the marine environment to improve
beneficial use of dredged and excavated sediment. We also want to highlight that this study funding
concept is the result of years of coordination between the commission and district staff,
other resource agencies, resource researchers, and SCWRP. In past projects which allowed similar
finer grain sediment placement in the surf zone, ascertaining what level of increased turbidity is
beyond the norm and potentially detrimental to nearshore biological resources has been difficult.
The study results should advance the region's understanding of nearshore turbidity patterns
and facilitate better sediment management that optimizes delivery of sand to our beaches
while minimizing environmental risks. We also note that an addendum to the staff report was
posted on Monday afternoon to address a comment letter from the City of Carpinteria
and includes minor revisions to special conditions to ensure that the city has provided copies
of several pre- and post-dredging plans and reports to facilitate timely logistical
coordination between the district and the city when maintenance operations are necessary.
In addition, staff notes that special condition 15 requires the district to obtain all necessary
approvals from other agencies, including the city, before work can be conducted.
In conclusion, staff believes the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with
the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. We recommend the Commission approve the permit with
with the 17 special conditions listed in the staff report
and modified in the addendum.
The motion to approve the permit
can be found on page five of the staff report.
This concludes staff presentation.
Staff is available for questions.
Thank you.
And thank you, Walt.
I would just like to add before we close
the staff presentation
that although we don't have any opposition today,
I see that the county and the city
are available for questions.
We wanted to just briefly provide a presentation on this
to highlight for the commission
what we think is a pretty cool new condition
which will allow us to hopefully get better data.
And that's this new partnership with,
as Walt had mentioned, with Squirp.
And it will be utilizing new satellite imagery
to help us address a problem
that has been difficult to deal with for many years.
And that's just trying to address
really what is the difference in turbidity effects
as we have these dredging projects
as we placed material on the beach and the difficulty
in trying to monitor that using, you know,
human monitors in the past and trying to find
out what was the baseline amount of turbidity
and the difference from these actual projects.
And this partnership we believe is good
and this new technology we believe will allow us to do that.
And so this project is the first of its kind
that we've approved and we hope will become, it's a pilot
and we hope this could become a new standard
that will apply in the future.
And so we just wanted to highlight this project.
So thank you with that.
I'll close the staff presentation
and note we're available for questions.
Great, thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
I'll return to the commission
and then ask if there are any ex partes.
Okay, seeing none, we'll open the public hearing
and I'll turn it over to you, Chris.
We have no public speakers.
I will note that we do indeed have the county
and the city online and available for questions.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
I will close public hearing and return to the commission.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Sorry, thanks.
I'm also happy to make a motion when,
but I just want to kind of speak out.
I appreciate the work that staff did on this.
I've had the privilege of being able to work with squirter
by the last 15 years.
And I have the utmost respect for the folks that are there.
I've worked with them on one or two projects of sort of first
attempt even throughout the US.
I think they are a great partner for us to be working with.
And so I wish you all the best of luck and really glad that you're going on this path.
Appreciate it.
Perfect.
Well, I will join in your comments, commissioner O'Malley, and we will take a motion.
I move that the commission approved coastal development permit number four, two, six,
oh, one, eight, five, pursuant to the staff recommendation asking for a yes vote.
I'll second that some motion by commissioner O'Malley.
I've seconded.
We're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries
and the permit is approved, thank you.
Now on to item 13.
Thank you, and that does bring us to item 13,
the deputy director's report for our South Coast district.
And this month it includes nine permit waivers,
two immaterial amendments to permits,
two permit extensions and a memorandum responding
to objections received to two separate other time extensions
reported at our last hearing.
In addition, we have one correction
to one of the waivers being reported today,
and that's for application 5-26-0017-W.
And the correction is to modify the size
of the proposed ADU, which would be 950 square feet in size
as opposed to the 800 square feet
that was inaccurately listed on the waiver.
In addition, we've received objections
from members of the public in regard
to the two new immaterial permit extensions
being reported today.
And those are for CDP applications 5-23-0568E2 and 069E2 by the applicant named WSBOLLC.
Those are each for the one year time extension of the authorization period for the construction
of two new single family residences on adjacent lots in the Pacific Palisades area that's
within the City of Los Angeles. Because the objections to those two extensions
were received within our 10-day period for public comment after the deputy
director's report was published and that comment period will continue through
this week, these items will be brought back at a future hearing, likely
next month, for action by the Commission with additional information to address
the issues raised in those objections. In addition, the deputy director's
report includes a memorandum responding to objections received to two other time extensions
for CDPs reported at our hearing last month. Five letters were received in total from members
of the public, who were listed in the memo and in the addendum for these items, objecting
to the third one-year time extension of two CDPs by NXT2 Shutter's Propco LLC and NXT2
Beach Propco LLC. That project was for construction of two new five-story
mixed-use developments within the city of Santa Monica that would provide a
total of 105 housing units, 16 of which would be designated very low-income
affordable, along with commercial uses. Again, that project is located within the
city of Santa Monica. As explained in detail in our memorandum, the primary
Very contentions raised by the opponents are that the project will adversely impact traffic,
visual and cultural resources, and that sea level rise and habitat on site should be considered
change circumstances.
There were also concerns raised about noticing.
And in regard to noticing, we would notice that the site was properly noticed.
And we would also note that neither sea level rise predictions nor habitat on these urban
lots have significantly changed in any manner in staff's opinion that would affect this
development's feasibility or consistency with any Chapter 3 policies.
And those are that no significant changes since the Commission originally acted on this
just a few years ago.
Staff would note that many of these same concerns were also raised by opponents during the Commission's
approval of the last two-year time extensions for these same projects, and that these same
issues were raised by many of the opponents during the Commission's original approval
of the project on the underlying CDP.
And we do not believe that any of these issues constitute changed circumstances that would
affect the project's consistency with the Coastal Act.
As a reminder, pursuant to Section 13.169 of the Commission's regulations provide that
in order to deny a permit extension request, objections must identify change circumstances
that would affect the consistency of a project with the standard of review, in this case
the Coastal Act.
It does not provide an opportunity to rehear the merits of the project.
And for these reasons, the Executive Director has determined that there are no change circumstances
affecting the approved developments consistency with Coastal Act and we
recommend the material time extension be approved today. We're not aware of any
opposition to any of the other items being reported in the deputy directors
report today and we are asking whether three or more commissioners object to
any of the items for which action is needed. In the deputy directors report I
am available for questions. Thank you very much. Any ex partes? Any public
comments. I guess we just have one speaker Sherman Stacey you're gonna be
moved in as a panelist right now Sherman Stacey when you're able to please unmute
and go ahead. Yes commissioners I represent the applicants in connection
with the two extensions to which there were objections I've made my comments in
writing which are in your packet and I am prepared to answer any questions and
asked to speak only in the event that there were further objections on the
record that were voiced at this day's hearing. Otherwise, I have nothing to add.
All right, thank you. We have no other speakers. Okay, thank you very much. We're
turning to the Commission. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in
the Deputy Director's report? Seeing no objections, the Commission concurs. Thank you.
Then I think we're at 15a. Yes, item 15a will be presented by Vincent Lee, a coastal program analyst in our South Coast district. We do have a PowerPoint for this item if we can pull that up please.
And then we'll be presenting via zoom, then please take it away.
Thank you Steve. Good afternoon commissioners. The next item is 15A which is a coastal development
permit application by the city of Santa Monica to establish a residential preferential parking
district for on-street public parking spaces at the inland edge of the city's coastal zone. Next
slide please. The proposed zone is located in the ocean park area of the city adjacent to Lincoln
Boulevard, the eastern boundary of the coastal zone in this area of Santa Monica. The proposed
preferential parking zone is approximately a mile inland of the coast and located within a
residential neighborhood adjacent to a commercial area. The area is developed with single and
multiple family structures. Next slide please. The proposal is an extension to the boundary of
the city's existing preferential parking zone F that the commission approved in April 2000 under
coastal development permit number 599048. That CDP approved two street preferential
parkings for residents on two blocks, Hill Street and Raymond Avenue, between Lincoln Boulevard and
7th Street, that are directly adjacent to and north of the currently proposed five blocks.
The existing permitted two blocks of zone F affect 53 on-street parking spaces
and the newly proposed five blocks affect 131 on-street parking spaces.
Same as the existing parking program subject to 599-048, the current proposal would restrict
public on-street parking of the newly added blocks to a maximum of 2 hours without a permit
between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily.
These regulations would allow non-resident street parking during the day but would limit
it to 2 hours to encourage turnover, thereby preserving parking availability for residents.
step front, the subject blocks would be allowed to park on the street without restriction with
the purchase of a parking permit from the city. Overnight, non-residents would be able to park
from 4pm until 9am daily without restrictions. The city clarified that, upon custom commission
approval, the preferential parking regulations would only be implemented on those blocks
that have submitted a petition representing two-thirds of the households on the block.
At this time only peer avenue has submitted such a petition.
The remaining blocks within the proposed program would remain as is until such time that the
residents of each individual block submit similar qualifying petitions.
The primary issue raised by the proposed preferential parking program is the potential
impacts that a residential preferential parking zone would have on public access and recreational
opportunities to the coast. The project would convert public on-street parking spaces within
the coastal zone into preferential residential parking spaces thereby limiting the availability
of public parking in an area where postal access is protected by Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The city has demonstrated that the proposed parking restrictions are intended to address
documented parking shortages associated primarily with spillover parking from adjacent commercial
uses along Lincoln Boulevard at the edge and outside the coastal zone. The record indicates
that parking demand within the neighborhood is generated largely by employees, customers,
and automotive service businesses rather than by coastal visitors.
The city maintains that beach visitors primarily use the beach surface parking lots.
In addition, the proposed parking restrictions in Zone F would continue to allow public parking for
up to two hours during the day and unrestricted public parking overnight, thereby maintaining
a level of public access to on-street parking while improving parking availability for residents.
Next slide, please. Staff believes that the hours proposed within this area of the city will balance
the needs of the residents in regard to adequate curbside parking with the needs of the general
public in regards to the ability to park on the public streets. The parking restrictions
will allow the public to park on the street for a maximum of two hours. This amount of time allows
the public adequate time to patronize the neighborhood businesses found along Lincoln
Boulevard while increasing parking turnover. Staff agrees that public beach or recreational
access is not expected to be directly impacted in this particular case because of the distance and
the location of the zone away from the beach area. However, to ensure that adverse impacts of
public access are avoided, that
would require a new CDP or amendment to this CDP.
Special condition 3 requires a parking study and mindering
plan requiring baseline parking counts and four years of annual summer monitoring to
assess changes in utilization of on-street parking by the public before and during implementation
of the project. Finally, Special Conditions 4 requires any future changes in hours or
boundaries to return to the Commission through a new CDP or an amendment. There is an addendum
for this item which addresses several objections by members of the public that have been received
since publication of the staff report.
The commenters stated that their streets
do not experience parking shortage issues,
and that the proposal would impose financial burdens
on renters and working-class households
while unnecessarily privatizing public streets.
Many raised concern about insufficient notice,
questioned the city's parking data,
and provided anecdotal observations
indicating regular parking availability in the area.
Staff acknowledges these concerns,
but would note that the commission's approval
the project would not automatically implement the preferential parking program. Rather, the program
would only be implemented on individual blocks where two-thirds of households submit a qualified
petition to the city. In addition, the project area is located approximately one mile inland,
does not function as beach access parking generally, and the city's information identifies
daytime spillover from Lincoln Boulevard businesses as the primary parking constraint.
Staff continues to recommend approval of the application with conditions requiring a five-year
limit, baseline, and annual monitoring and future commission review to ensure that any public access
is protected and that any unforeseen impacts can be addressed. Next slide please. In closing, as
conditions, staff believes that the proposed presidential parking program will provide a
reasonable balance between residential parking needs and the public's right of access to the
the coast. The project will maintain opportunities for public parking, provide a mechanism to
evaluate future impacts, and ensure continued commission review of any future expansion
or anticipated intensification of parking restrictions. Therefore, staff continues to
recommend that the commission approve the CDP, Application 521-0161 with four special
conditions and the motion is on page five. This concludes staff presentation and we are
available for any questions great thank you very much okay I'll return to the
Commission are there any ex partes seeing none will open the public hearing
and I'll turn it to you Chris yes we have the applicant on zoom Peter Zawalt
Zawaltowski you should be in as a panelist now you should be able to
unmute thank you chair and commissioners can you hear me okay oh yes we can hear
the city. Thank you. Great I am
Peter J. Butowski, a principal
planner with the city of Santa
Monica on behalf of the city. We
appreciate the commission staff
participation throughout this
process, and we support their
recommendation for approval.
Rather than repeat the staff
presentation. We'd like to
briefly provide context on the
city's preferential parking
planning. Next slide, please.
Some of the comments appear to
conflate the city's
preferential parking approval
process with the subsequent
Coastal Commission review.
These are separate processes,
both of which have included
opportunities for public
participation over
approximately eight years. The
process was initiated in 2018
by residents of peer Avenue who
submitted a petition
we've been doing it for over
We've been doing it for over
10 years. We've been doing it
for over 10 years. We've been
doing it for over 10 years.
We've been doing it for over
10 years. We've been doing it
for over 10 years. We've been
doing it for over 10 years. We
have to initiate this process.
We have to initiate this
process.
But upon receipt of the
But upon receipt of the
petition, the city collected
was resident initiated, supported by parking data,
publicly reviewed and approved by city council.
The question now before the commission
is whether the regulation would adversely
affect coastal access.
After careful evaluation, commission staff
recommends approval and the city has agreed
to special monitoring conditions so that the data
will be collected and evaluated following implementation.
Next slide please.
ahead of time. A reoccurring
theme in the correspondence is
the assumption that the
approval would automatically
result in the installation of
preferential parking restriction
on all streets included in the
application. Um that is not how
the city's preferential parking
program works. Individual
blocks must petition and
demonstrate that the required
resident super majority support
this is only the street that
within this zone that has
completed that process, and
therefore the only street where
restrictions would be
implemented immediately.
Oh, I don't have my camera on.
That's okay, sir, please.
We can do your presentation.
I apologize for that.
I don't know.
Thank you.
We can see you now.
Several commenters have stated
that parking is readily
the city of Milwaukee. And in
parking availability at other
locations or times does not
necessarily reflect the
reoccurring periods of high
the city's public access. And
several commenters characterize
the proposal as a limited,
eliminating public parking or
restricting coastal access. It
does neither. Members of the
public may continue to park for
up to two hours and overnight.
And the regulation is intended
to address longer duration
daytime parking while preserving
to coastal access but it is not the only means of providing coastal access, and this
is especially so in Santa Monica, where there are a myriad of transportation resources that
exist. This area is served by substantial public parking and in multimodal transportation
options including those closer to the coast. We believe the proposed two-hour regulation
represents a reasonable balance between continued public coastal access and the need to manage
commercial parking spillover from Lincoln Boulevard which affects residential parking
availability.
We appreciate commissioned staff reaching the same conclusion and recommending approval.
We also have today our mayor who is on the line that would like to make a statement.
Thank you and I'm available for any questions.
All right.
Thank you.
I also have Jason Clijer from the City of Santa Monica online and available for questions.
And next we will have Mayor Caroline Tarosis, Mayor of Santa Monica.
Hi everyone, can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hi Caroline, I think you might be frozen now.
And for the collaborative process throughout.
I also wanted to emphasize again the extensive public process.
This application is the culmination of a process that began in 2018, as you just heard, including
parking studies, community meetings, city council hearings, and more than five years
of Coastal Commission review.
This is a process that has been resident initiated.
Our preferential parking program is fundamentally a grassroots process.
Residents initiated the city of valuing objective parking conditions, and the implementation
does require the level of residents for established by our city's program, which is what you're
seeing here, two-thirds super majority of households on the block. This is a
balanced proposal, the two-hour regulation measured and it's a response
to commercial parking spillover from the Lincoln Boulevard corridor which is a
very busy commercial corridor. It protects residential parking availability
while continuing to allow members of the public to park for up to two hours. We
take our responsibility to the access to the coast very seriously. We want to
to protect coastal access.
We believe this limited regulation appropriately balances
neighboring parking needs and continued coastal access,
particularly given the substantial public beach parking
and multimodal transportation options
available closer to the coast.
I would also just like to say coastal commission staff
is a value to this proposal and similarly concluded
that it can be approved consistent with the Coastal Act.
So I would just respectfully ask
to approve the application consistent
with our staff recommendation today.
Thank you so much.
Thank you. And then we did have two other speakers, both on Zoom, Linda, Jasim, Pugh, and then Susan, Alan Sangan.
Linda, Jasim, Pugh. You should be able to move in as a panelist, either that or you're allowed to unmute right now.
Linda. All right, I'm just not seeing any movement. Let's try Susan. Susan, you should be able to unmute.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.
Hi, hello. Um, thank you for hearing me today. Can you see me? Maybe not. I know. Just keep
on talking. Um, thank you for hearing me today. My name is Susan Allen saying and I'm a resident
of Ashland Avenue, east of Lincoln Boulevard. I support pure Avenue west of Lincoln Boulevard
receiving approval for permit parking. If their parking situation is anything like ours.
residents, and even more so
because the Santa Monica City
Council has made approval of
permit parking. On here, East
contingent on our neighbors on
the West being approved. We on
Ashland Avenue East have been
waiting for nine years for
people parking on our street and taking Ubers over to LAX.
And we have people who are going to Lincoln Boulevard,
which is the equivalent of crossing the Nile essentially
and parking on our street.
So, we would really support Pure Avenue,
west of Lincoln Boulevard, and receiving approval
because we've been a long time waiting for this,
both of us.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Another try for Linda, Jassy, and Pugh,
either accepting movement in as a panelist
or you can unmute as an attendee right now.
Linda, all right, I'm not seeing any movement still.
We have no other speakers, Madam Chair.
Okay, great, thank you very much.
I'll close the public hearing and look to our staff
to see if there are any further comments.
Great, that, I'll, thank you.
I'll return to the commission.
Comments, okay, thank you.
Yes, based your heart.
I move, a question, sorry.
Apologies, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, thank you for the presentation.
Thank you for Santa Monica,
for the application.
I've got a couple questions with regard
to in our small coastal city, similar to yours,
we have a lot of employees that tend to park further away
and then walk to their places of work.
Is that what you're finding in your city?
I guess my question really is where are your employees
parking who happen to work in that area close to the beach?
Commissioner, are you referring to the approximate
to this preferential parking zone or?
The area because we similar to you,
we have a lot of people that tend to look for free parking
employees specifically who would park for free
and then walk to work.
Is that what you have here?
Or do you have a designated employee parking somewhere else?
So employee parking varies considerably on Lincoln Avenue.
in this location towards the south, given that the development varies considerably in age.
We have newer buildings that park in subterranean parking on their own private property, and then
we have a number of businesses which are typically under parked, and they have very few spaces,
and employees and patrons will typically find locations along Lincoln Boulevard,
or in residential areas where unrestricted. So I guess my real question is is there a
is there employee parking designated employee parking throughout your city or is it sort of
up to the employee to figure out where to park and they can either pay to park assuming most
of the establishments where they work don't have a place to park for them or do they look for parking
in the residential zones and on some of the bigger corridors? So we we do have a parking
requirement in the city so depending upon when development happens there there would be parking
on some parcels. We do have a parking system within the city of Santa Monica where we manage
several parking structures within the downtown and people have the opportunity to use a number
of different last mile resources in order to access their place of employment if they
are not immediately nearby or within a walking distance of that parking.
So that could include using Big Blue Bus, our transit service.
There's also shuttle services that work near the beach.
We have also shared mobility devices that can be used to make connections between parking
and where person's employment is, as well as walking and biking infrastructure.
So yes, we do, not all places have parking that is immediately on their property or adjacent,
but there are options throughout the city for people to be able to park and access their
place of employment.
Thank you.
And do the majority of these homes, are they single family?
I think I heard that they were a mix of single family, multi-family, is that correct?
No.
Yes, that's correct.
And so, do the majority of these homes have off-street parking consistent with what the
code was at the time that they built, you know, because there's normally whatever two-point
whatever parking spaces per home that kind of thing? Right there are a number
of constraints to parking in the area I don't know right offhand whether I could
say definitively if it is the majority that have parking or do not but many of
the locations typically have a limited number of spaces some have no spaces we
We do have some locations that have alleys.
And those alleys are pretty narrow, it makes parking access difficult.
So some of the parking is not as utilized as it would be if it were more convenient
to use.
And these all act together to shift demand onto the street where there is typically more
parking availability and more convenient parking.
And the reason I'm asking all these questions is because for the first time in my municipal
life there are people who are pushing back against people parking in their neighborhoods,
which is very rare.
A lot of people do not like others parking in their neighborhoods.
And the number of correspondence that we receive where folks are like, hey, we have no parking
problem.
park here. Understand if someone's parking over 72 hours that's a state
issue where that vehicle can be towed. They can chalk and tow them. So if
someone's parking and taking a trip at LAX that's something that that's a
separate issue. So I'm just trying to understand because again I've never
heard community pushback against the opportunity to limit parking. So that's
really where I'm trying to figure out the connection of the disconnect here.
the city of Santa Monica. Um,
in order to park either because of availability or often because of price as well. Sometimes
the cost of parking is much more expensive in some of the developments on the boulevards
and people look for alternatives that are less expensive. So it's pretty common here
that that we see that pressure of parking spilling over into.
No, I understand all of that. I'm just trying to understand because I haven't quite right.
I can't reconcile the number of folks
who are living in these potentially impacted zones
have said, we have no parking problems.
We don't want a residential parking program
in our neighborhood.
That's what I'm trying to reconcile.
Right, yeah.
How do we explain that?
Well, I think that, you know, parking availability
in certain locations or times
does not necessarily reflect the periods of high occupancy
that in this particular instance
that we counted on, for example, Pier Avenue.
I mean, we have observed high occupancy on those streets.
We have observed high occupancy on the streets
that surround Pier Avenue.
And so I think that oftentimes the availability
of parking is a perception.
and sometimes people feel as though there is a lot of parking and while others feel as though
parking is much tighter and much difficult, but when we look at the data, you know, we can see
that parking occupancies that are above 85 percent and that are peaking at about 90, 95 percent
occupied, that is at a level of occupancy where it's difficult to find spaces and people begin to
circle the neighborhood and look
for parking alternatives in other locations.
I'm gonna turn to our staff.
Oh, excuse me, sir.
Would you like, are you finished?
Well, I was just, I was gonna also say that,
I think that during the city's democratic process
in developing preferential parking,
there were people in the neighborhood.
Obviously we had a super majority
who signed the petition, but during our public meetings,
during the city council meetings,
there were people that objected
to having preferential parking in their neighborhood
because having preferential parking
does come with certain responsibilities,
and that is the need to obtain permits
in order to park on the street.
And so if, so I think that there,
there could be the interest in people
that there is parking availability
in making that argument.
Thank you.
I would like to turn to our staff.
Yes, thank you.
Just to elaborate on what the city was saying there,
we think that some of the opposition comes from,
as the city said, the need to obtain permits
and the permits do cost between 40
and approximately $150,
depending on how many permits you have for household.
And it's also important to remember
that only peer avenue at this time
has obtained the petition to implement the parking districts
and the other streets have not yet done so.
So we're not sure where exactly the opposition is coming from.
It could be coming from peer avenue
or from some of the other surrounding streets.
I appreciate that.
And I guess from the, from a resident perspective, you know, if I have a two car garage and a two car carport, but I parked my four cars on the street and get four parking permits is that's what is that creating the issue, if I choose to convert my garage into a rec room or, you know, I and I'm just trying to figure out the, the right balance here and again, because there, there are so many folks are saying we don't have a problem.
So is this a problem of Ray Jackson parking four cars
on the street, taking up four parking spots
when he has the capacity for off street parking,
or is there a real issue here?
And have they looked at actual capacity versus need?
I think we're not sure exactly the exact analysis
the city went through to develop the program.
I think as you heard, it came out of a petition
from one block in the city,
and then they went through a process.
But I think you're probably right
in that there's a whole host of issues
that are contributing to a parking issue here.
And it will be part of what we are interested in
is the monitoring data.
We have a condition that requires the city
to do some monitoring and report that back to us
so that hopefully we can get a sense of what is,
where is the parking problem coming from?
Is it, you know, to address some of these issues?
And again, I think there are other programs that have in the
past been permitted and maybe again in the future or not
something that will probably be in front of this commission at
some point writ large at the city. And so these are kind of
important questions we have to get down to. So again, we're
looking forward to getting that monitoring information so we can
dig in a little more.
And you're comfortable that five years is the right amount of
time versus a short potentially shorter period.
I would argue that it's probably going to take a minute to get it in place.
And then, yes, we need at least a few years of data for it to be meaningful.
So I think five years is the right amount of time.
And I would be curious, I think part of that data and analysis should be, obviously, current
capacity of residents to park versus you know because I would venture a guess that
most coastal communities if you did a survey would sign a petition to say I
want a residential parking program right that's generally most people don't like
other people parking in their area so I think that's the study has to I think be
very specific in terms of capacity, actual needs versus wants versus you
know not comfortable with a lot of strange cars parked in the neighborhood.
So thank you. And thank you just through the chair I'd like to just respond to
the last point and note that our condition does require that information.
So we'll be gathering baseline and we developed this monitoring condition in
conjunction with the city staff as well. It requires analysis of baseline survey
data so the before the project occurs during the project and then a summary
after so that we can determine what is the Delta what was the existing
condition before the preferential parking program is implemented and how
does the demand for these parking spaces change over time so the occupancy data
so we will be evaluating all that as part of any future application and I
think just to drill down again to reiterate I think in addition to the
occupancy data, the capacity data for folks in those impacted neighborhoods to have or
that have off street parking has to be a part of that. And then of course the cost because
I certainly understand if I've got to pay, you know, if someone has to pay $150 a year
for a parking permit, I can certainly understand that. And if they don't have off street parking
capabilities, and they have to get two or three of these, then that makes a difference
because you have some folks that you know that's significant amount of money.
So thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Nada. I was just gonna share I happen to
have a longtime friend who lives on Ashland so I'm pretty familiar with this
neighborhood and it's a lot of craftsman style older homes that have single
single lane driveways. I don't remember seeing any double garages in the area so
And I so I'm pretty familiar that there is a lot of on need for on street parking
And I too was it caught my attention that the neighborhood was not interested in having preferential parking
But now but that you've the city and staff have explained
Very clearly that this action today that we're being asked to take today is a permissive rather than a direction
This is just allowing the city to go forward with a process that would still rely on
whether or not the enough two-thirds of the residents on this street would want to have this project I have this
parking preferential so this our action today is not imposing any type of
Parking regime on any neighborhood. It's just allowing the city to move forward
With there with what you know see if there is interest to have preferential parking and I was certainly urged the
city to take into account the
Economic impacts of that for the residents
And so that this would be a benefit for the residents not a burden
And I would hope that the city I'm trust that the city is taking that into consideration
Thank you
Commissioner Kelly, I just wanted to add I'm just in looking at the correspondence we received from a number of residents in the area
Who had no notice were completely unaware that this process was taking place and are seemingly feeling that
their
Rights of process have been violated. I just want to
Formally request that the city engage these specific residents. We have their contact information. We have their addresses
is it's a part of the public record.
That if this process does move forward,
that there is direct outreach
to these particular individuals who have said,
I don't believe there is a problem.
No one told me there was a hearing.
This is the first time hearing of it.
And I formally oppose this action
that if the city moves forward with a process
that these individuals are engaged from the outset.
It's unfortunate.
It feels as though people are mad
at the Coastal Commission at this juncture
because there was no prior notice given
and that this process, whatever the process has looked like
over a number of years as outlined in the staff presentation
that they were not included in that.
And so I just like to formally request
that the city identify those individuals
that have submitted public comment,
their addresses are here if you need to mail them,
their email addresses are here,
but that they are engaged
because they will be greatly impacted
by these parking limitations in their street,
in their neighborhood, and I feel like it's really important
that they get to have a say in how this process unfolds
going forward.
Thank you.
Sorry, let me just point that in a question.
Is that possible for the city to do?
Yes, we will engage with those particular residents
specifically.
That is typically part of our process
for preferential parking anyway.
Great, thank you.
Any other comments?
I'll accept a motion.
OK.
Thank you, Vister.
Going forward with the motion I move the Commission approved coastal development permit five dash 21 dash zero one six one percent of the staff
Recommendations and I ask for a yes vote say
That is a motion by Vice Chair Hart a second by Commissioner O'Malley any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing no objections the Commission or the motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay, and that brings us to the end of today's agenda
Thank you everyone for your excellent work. We'll see you back here tomorrow morning