Okay, good morning everyone. Thanks for joining us. Welcome to the Friday session of this month's California Coastal Commission meeting
I'll call this meeting to order and ask for a roll call. Please mr. O'Malley present
Commissioner Hart
Commissioner Jackson
present
Commissioner Kelly present
Commissioner Kalmyk
present
mr. Nothoff present
Commissioner presciado
President commissioner Wilson
commissioner Brownfield
here
commissioner Williams
here and chair Harmon
Here that we have a quorum. Great. Thank you very much. We'll go to the virtual meeting procedures, please
Good morning. This coastal commission meeting is occurring both in person and through zoom
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at cow that span org
work. If you have internet 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 the Zoom platform or by phone. The speaker request
forms may be found on the commission's webpage. Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paper
lists in the middle are available on the commission 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 phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up to two minutes
to speak at the discretion of the chair.
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after
9 a.m. on each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation, you
may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comment are typically allowed
two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the
link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have Internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission
staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the Commission, the organizer will invite you to turn on
your video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Great.
Thank you very much.
And now I will turn to Ms. Vaughn for agenda changes.
Good morning, Chair Herman and Commissioners.
We do have some changes to the posted agenda changes memo, and I will walk through those
in order.
Item 11A, a CDP application number 5-25-0620 for Newport Marina and Newport Beach Orange
County is moved to consent.
There is a new addition, item 11C, CDP application 5-23-0237 for SCRRA in San Clemente is postponed.
Item 12A, consistency certification number CC-0006-25 for Newport Marina and Newport
Beach Orange County is moved to consent item 14 a city of Carlsbad LCP
amendment number LCP-6-CAR-26-0005-1 2026 ADU update time
extension only is moved to consent and finally item 15 a CDP application number
6-25-0505 San Diego Bay Ferris Thunder boats unlimited in the city of San
San Diego County is moved to consent.
And that concludes the agenda changes for today.
Thank you very much.
Now we'll move to public comment.
Thanks Galen.
Thank you.
For members of the public,
I'll be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers
and invite you to speak when it is your turn.
Each speaker will be allowed 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'll be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public presenting 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 nine.
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 phone by downloading star six.
So first up, we have one individual in the room, Joe Hart,
and then it looks like we have about 35 speakers on Zoom.
So we'll start with Joe Hart,
and then we'll move to Zoom for Adam Leverins
and Robert Hall.
Mr. Hart.
If you could please press the button on the microphone.
Thank you, sir.
Yeah.
Hey, good morning, everyone.
My name is Joe Hart with Shoreline Erosion Control Solutions.
By chance, do you have the PowerPoint?
I could just hold on.
Sorry, though.
So it's Shoreline Erosion Control Solutions here.
Joe Hart.
So there's been a lot of skepticism about alternative coastal protection solutions,
which is completely, completely justified.
There's been a lot of concepts out there that have failed to deliver on promises and
just frankly been kind of a nightmare.
California really needs a proven solution.
So Shoreline Erosion Control Solutions has our restorative hybrid infrastructure systems
and we've undergone rigorous testing with Army Corps of Engineering at ERDC, Texas A&M
University, the Heart Institute, in addition to four years, two locations,
pilots in in South Texas. And we outperformed all conventional solutions
in every tested category, and I say that I genuinely mean that and we'll back
that up, every tested category and remain stable in a hundred-year storm
conditions, delivered up to 99% wave attenuation, nearly eliminated scour,
it's a maximum of three percent, reduced overtopping and reduced reflection while
allowing for the natural transfer of sand and sediment. Also, Erdik's Duncan
Brian has expressed his willingness to discuss all of these findings with your
technical team anyone from the Coastal Commission for the full 10-week study
that we did with them. So next slide sorry next slide. So our dune and bluff
systems are are really what we see as for California as just a just a huge
opportunity to protect and restore this coast. The bluffs to the beaches to the
roads that are failing. They're interlocking modules like this, pre-cast
pre-cast marine grade concrete. We can make it, you know, whatever. Sir, please finish your
thought. Your time is up. Thank you. Time is up? Alright. Alright. Basically, we have a
significantly smaller footprint. These things go right up, butt up to the back,
to the bluff to the roadside fill them with sand attenuate 99% of wave energy
and you can plant them and I mean they just turn into a beautiful sand dune
thank you we also have the sheet that you understood understood yeah I
apologize no I appreciate it thanks thank you very much thank you moving to
zoom we have Adam Leverens Robert Hall and then Diane Wokey Adam Leverens
please go ahead. Mr. Levrens you've been promoted to panelists you should be
able to unmute. Looks like you're unmuted Mr. Levrens should be able to go ahead
and speak. All right we'll come back to Mr. Levrens we're gonna move on to Robert
Hall. Robert Hall should be able to go ahead. Thank you I had a couple slides as
well. Give us one moment. Those are coming up right now. Yes thank you. Robert
Hall here. Climate change is a promise as predicted and now we're up against the
plastic crisis. Bad news, officials and legislators aren't taking action. Every
time I pass a school, park, or playground another blanket of plastic turf is being
rolled out. Just a hundred feet from the coastal zone Lowell High School in San
Francisco got its second round of artificial turf now guaranteed to shed
microplastic into Lake Merced for another 10 years.
Within the coastal zone sits the nine-year-old beach chalet soccer fields.
The fields are splintering into tatters.
Players carry the evidence home on their clothes and skin.
I swept up this bucket full of microplastics in 10 minutes.
San Francisco rec park says the field is scheduled for replacement in 2028,
meaning they will soon be coming to the coastal commission for a permit.
Or will they?
Next slide please. Rec Park considers any plastic field replacement project routine maintenance
like this one that resides over the west side water basin. No public input was allowed for this
four million dollar plastic makeover. Once the plastic starts it never stops. We know the beach
LA fields contain PFAS because Rec Park officials admitted it and emails we obtained. We know they
contain phthalates, fire retardants, and UV chemicals. Records obtained from SFPUC show
this field tested for high levels of antimony, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc in 2024.
Wastewater and stormwater treatment plants are not designed to remove most microplastics
or destroy PFAS. These pollutants pass through the systems and end up in the Bay Area Ocean.
The FPUC said they can't destroy PFAS and they won't be adding expensive filters.
The Coastal Commission's job is to protect coastal waters and marine life.
Please don't permit San Francisco Rec Park to surface these fields with more plastic.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you.
We're going to go back to Adam Leverins.
You should be able to go ahead.
You hear me now?
Yes, we can hear you.
Please go ahead.
that's been recently. I mean,
I appreciate Commissioner Jackson on Wednesday asking for an
update on the new forward mooring issue. I wanted to point
out that Dr. Hucklebridge said things were in the status quo.
you know, I don't know. But
that is something that's
happening with the city, and
there aren't changes occurring.
There are changes occurring. I
have a first slide if you could
put that up, please. I got an
email from the city last week
that they have not issued a
live aboard permit since
September of 2024. Again, if my
first slide could be put up,
please.
and I'd appreciate my 15 seconds back if that's okay.
So on the top of this, okay, thank you.
There's an email from the city
that they have not issued a live aboard permit
since September of 2024.
Other speakers today will identify the specifics on that.
And the problem with that is there are now
nine fewer households in Southern California
that benefit from the same level of coastal access
that someone who has many millions of dollars
to buy a waterfront property would,
this is a substantial change in access.
I put up some Coastal Act provisions, development,
this meets the definition of development
under the Coastal Act, these are structures,
and there's a change in the density
or intensity of use of the land.
The city has continued this process
under the radar for years, and it's getting worse.
Section 30213 provides that lower cost visitor
recreational facilities should be encouraged and provided. The local coastal program seeks
to ensure moorings is a form of low cost access to the harbor, yet the city is phasing out
moorings and live aboard permits. Next slide, please. Section 3024 is encouraging recreational
boating, which moorings do. And then in the middle of the page, there's a 1993 memo from
Peter Douglas talking about if the Coastal Commission requirement that CDP
process be gone through through changes on access levels. There's a 2013 CDP
citing the same sort of thing. I saw you folks last year in Seal Beach requiring
a CDP for parking fees. What the city is doing requires the CDP, state lands,
That's not them, they don't do fees, this is you folks.
Please help before, help nine households gain
the coastal access they're lawfully entitled to.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, moving on to Diane Wokey,
followed by Anne-Marie Stenton, and then Peter Kaz.
Diane Wokey, please go ahead.
I too have slides.
Good morning, Diane Wokey, Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc.
Topgolf East Harbor Island is currently
under public comment period
by the San Diego Harbor Commission.
According to the DEIR,
you are the ultimate decision-making authority.
We ask you to deny this highly polluting project,
which only serves to make money for developers,
while causing a great environmental damage to San Diego.
The commission issued a letter in 2024
asking the project to be downsized,
the view protected, and not to use fencing.
These have all been ignored
and the plastic and carbon footprint have exploded.
Slide.
Build as a recreational project
and using PC words such as nature-based solutions
and native plants,
this is a plastic laden entertainment venue.
The venue will contribute heavily
to the microplastic and nano-plastic pollution,
toxic leak shade, additional toxic chemical
of bacterial adsorption in the harbor,
which is also directly across the highway
from the International Airport
with jet fuel and aviation gas
that we'll add to the toxic runoff.
Slide.
The project also poses significant threat
to multiple avian species.
Topgolf's plans for 60 to 170 foot poles
is covered with plastic nylon covering
and a death trap as well as a plastic polluter.
Birds become entrapped, left dangling for hours
before they can be rescued.
And two more Topgolf entrapments have occurred in 2026.
Slide.
The project also poses a significant threat
to endangered sea life and mammals.
Slide please.
And again, slide.
In Oceanside, the city is continuing
to exploit their local coastal permit
installing plastic turf in a coastal EJSJ community.
This project has zero permeable surfacing,
as does the vast majority of the community.
Contributing to the plastic pollution,
climate change and sea level rise, slide.
Some of you will also remember the ocean side
has two plastic playgrounds on the fan.
Please keep slide.
Thank you.
Please get rid of these playgrounds, thank you.
Thank you, moving on to Anne-Marie Stenton
followed by Peter Kaz and then Bud Coomans.
Anne-Marie Stenton, oh pardon me Stenton please go ahead.
Thank you so much.
Good morning, coastal commissioners and staff.
My name is Anne Stenton.
I'm a lifelong voter and president
of the Newport Maureen Association in Newport Beach.
The pictures you see here are from when my family
and I recently spent two wonderful weeks sailing
around the Channel Islands off of Oxnard
on our 50 year old sailboat.
And it was a wonderful trip, full of wildlife,
time in the water, and my husband and I are teachers.
And so we feel incredibly fortunate
that we have the coastal access that we do
allows us to visit these beautiful channel islands. If you've never been, I strongly encourage a visit,
it's well worth it. I know that trips like this would not be possible without this commission's
hard work over the past 50 years, and hearing a lot of really positive testimony at the NOAA
hearings earlier this week was just a powerful reminder that the vast majority of Californians
recognize just how important the work of this commission is, so just a big shout out and a
Thank you. Next slide, please. Protecting our waters and coastal ecosystems and keeping them open
to recreational boaters are really important aspects of the Coastal Act, but I've come to
today really worried about the future of recreational boating throughout the state
of California, not just in my local harbor. There are many boaters on a budget like me and
my family up and down the coast, and our coastal access is 100% dependent upon affordable
recreational boat storage. That's just the fact of it. We're seeing affordable boat storage
significantly reduced with what seems to be an endless supply of arbitrary rate increases and
policy changes that make recreational boating much more difficult if not completely out of reach for
people like me. A few recent examples include in Santa Barbara we're seeing a seasonal free
anchorage slated to become a paid mooring field that has traditionally served recreational boaters
and Fisherman and Dana Point. We've seen rates increase by over 100% or more since 2021,
forcing over 800 voters to leave that harbor with more yearly increases to come in the
contract being negotiated right now. And then in Newport, I'll wrap it up real quick.
In Newport Beach, city owned mooring licenses have increased 34% just this year. And
you heard recently that thank you, the Harbor Department.
Thank you, Mr. N. All right. Moving on to Peter Kaz and then I believe Bud Coomans and Patricia
Coomans are sharing their Zoom, so we'll have Bud Coomans after that. Peter Kaz, please go ahead.
Mr. Kaz, you've been promoted to a panelist. You should be able to unmute and speak.
Mr. Kaz, can you hear us? All right. We're going to move on to Bud Coomans. Bud Coomans,
please go ahead. Okay, and video. So, am I there and everything's good? Audio only.
Audio only. Start my video, okay. All right, there I am. Good? Yes, sir, please go ahead.
Okay, and my slide is up. Good morning. Bud Kuhlman's permitted live aboard in Newport Harbor.
On the top of this slide, as commissioners saw last month, shows City of Newport Harbor
Code Title 17, which provides that the number of its highly regulated liveaboard permits
shall not exceed 7% of the total number of offshore moorings. Newport liveabords are not
anchor outs or houseboats, as you may have seen depicted unfavorably in news items from other
areas. The City's fifty-one liveabords are highly regulated, where we have to be
seaworthy, we're inspected, and we're registered. We have to be
insurance that must be shown annually naming the City, City Council, and its
boards and commissions as additional insureds. We're typically monitored by
the City's Harbor Department multiple times daily, photographed, drones, and
and harbor patrols. The 51 permits offer perhaps the very last means of very affordable housing in Coastal Orange County and a mechanism providing to many who are less affluent and cannot afford multi-million dollar waterfront homes here in Newport Beach. 51 permits are available, but recent public records requests reveals only 44 in use.
one. That's not allowing.
What's that seven people to be
housed here in Newport Harbor
on their own with their own
costs. The bottom of the slide
shows a current city survey. It
offers ending live boards as an
option. It's becoming
increasingly clear that the
city is working hard to take
away from this small, widely
dispersed and relatively low
impact community. Since your
September of 2024, almost two years,
the city has been and continues to withhold allowable
and available permits,
now stripping coastal access opportunities
from at least seven individuals.
Happened.
Thank you, Mr. Goomans.
We're gonna circle back to Peter Cass.
If you can hear us, Mr. Cass.
Okay, still hearing nothing.
We're gonna move on to, pardon me, Patricia Goomans.
Then we'll have Janet Rogers and then Michelle Kraus.
Ms. Coomans, please go ahead.
Yeah, hi, I'm Captain Patricia Coomans.
I'm just going to finish what my husband had written here,
and then I have my own.
So he left off considering these things
and the incredible housing crisis,
the city ongoing efforts to super-tiously taper off,
and Newport-Liverpool community, weren't
oversight at a higher level.
This level of the Coastal Commission
is the instance, CDP being required
for the city's wide ranging plans
to further genify coastal access
will allow this commission to have a direct impact
on affordable housing
in your direct permitting jurisdiction.
Please take this opportunity.
Please exercise your authority.
If there's nothing improper going on,
the city should neither fear nor discourage your view.
Thank you.
And then I have a few things written
since I have a little time here,
I would like to talk about living boards.
We are present when others are not.
During storms and emergencies,
living boards are often the first on the scene,
helping secure loose boats,
assisting individuals in the water,
responding when immediate action is required.
We have all person, we have all,
or a lot of us have saved people from drowning
and have saved lives.
Living boards have responded to serious incidents.
There was a man who had a heart attack on a paddle board.
it was the living boards there, the helicopter crash,
those police officers, when they went down,
living boards were there half an hour
before any rescue vehicles could come.
There's also an issue of the California
affordable housing crisis.
My boat is two bedroom, two bathroom, off grid.
It's beautiful, it's a wonderful house.
And to think that I may not be allowed
to stay on my own boat and live on it
is just a sad thought.
Many of us have made substantial financial decisions
based on long-standing policies.
When I chose to retire on board,
I was informed that I could purchase a mooring
and get the live aboard permit.
The city helped me through all this.
It was an, I was invested in good space
based on its understanding.
It's, can I just have a minute?
Please just finish your talk.
Thank you, thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mrs. Coomans.
We're going to be moving on to Janet Rogers
followed by Michelle Krause and then Anne Cantrell.
Ms. Rogers, please go ahead.
Okay, waiting for my Zoom.
Okay, good.
Thank you.
I'm Janet Rogers,
co-chair of the Embarcadero Coalition in San Diego.
Two coastal commissioners
recently walked the Embarcadero with me.
Please join us.
Give firsthand information
about our public access problems.
Why are the port and its partners
allowed to take away our public access for years.
Next slide.
The reading club on the top floor
of the Lanefield Intercontinental
is a private exclusionary membership plumb.
Their coastal permit required a rooftop bar
and terrace for the public.
Per the State Lands Commission,
private memberships are typically not consistent
with the public trust because they provide local benefit
that is not water dependent.
Next slide.
The Port Lecture is a public
they can't have membership activities since they are for locals. Stop them from doing the opposite
with their partners. The port and the intercontinental deny public access, create a private
club, and the port takes a share of the revenue. How do you define corruption? Next slide.
May 2025, the coastal staff notified the hotel that it was not compliant with its permit.
The hotel did not comply and your enforcement division issued a Letter of Violation March of
2026. No fines have been assessed. Looks like the club is still selling memberships.
This theft of public space has been going on since 2021. What is the port telling them?
Next slide. They need to recompense the public and become compliant. Just looking at the
memberships there could be over 3.8 million dollars in ill-gotten gains. The port takes a share.
Next slide. This is the second egregious violation. The port let port side pier take our public
viewing deck for years. You fixed that. Take our walk along the Embarcadero and see the other
problems. Please hold the hotel and the port accountable for violating their CDP and the public
trust doctrine. Thank you. Thank you very much. Moving on to Michelle Krause followed by Ann
Cantrell and then Christopher Bliss. Ms Krause you should be able to go ahead.
All right thank you so much. Good morning commissioners. My name is Michelle Krause and
I'm the president of Dana Point Harbor Youth Foundation. I'm speaking on behalf of our
non-profit and the many organizations we support regarding the planned removal of the last remaining
hoist, boat hoist, and Dana Point Harbor. Although operated by Dana Point Yacht Club, this hoist
serves far more than DPYC members. The hoist directly supports our core operations by providing
water access for junior and collegiate sailing programs, public education, outreach, and racing,
as well as the necessary safety boats. The benefits reach well beyond Dana Point Harbor.
The hoist enables our nonprofit to host junior regattas like the Terra North Americans,
hold U.S. sailing instructor trainings, safe powerboat handling courses,
and subsidize sailing clinics, all of which are open to the public.
It is also vital for sea scouts and the sailing teams of J. Sarah High School and UC Irvine.
These activities bring sailors, coaches, visiting competitors, and their families from all over
California. We also use the hoist for high performance sailboats that provide young adults
a pathway to continue sailing competitively after they age out of youth circuits. The hoist is more
than local launching infrastructure. It supports a diverse network of public serving programs,
making Dana Point Harbor a regional center for sailing, education, competition, and recreation.
All these opportunities ultimately depend on efficient and affordable access to the water.
Many of our boats are specifically designed to be launched by boat hoist.
Without one, some of these boats will have no access to Dana Point Harbor, significantly
reducing, or in some cases eliminating, our ability to provide these programs.
We respectfully ask the Commission to ensure that the existing hoist remains available
until an equivalent or improved hoist is operational, whether at its current location
or another suitable location within the harbor, and that this access remain affordable to youth,
nonprofit, and community programs. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Moving on to Ann Cantrell followed by Christopher and then Susan Bliss. Ms. Cantrell?
Yes, I am giving a presentation with Anna Christensen. Is it possible to promote her
to finish the slide presentation? Yes, give us one moment.
And you're saying that you are sharing the presentation with her,
So we should bring up the presentation.
Yes, I see the presentation is up.
And Anna Christiansen needs to be promoted as a participant.
Yes, she's been promoted.
You can go ahead.
Thank you.
Good morning, Ann Cantrell, Sierra Club, Los Cerritos,
Wetlands Task Force, Long Beach.
Missing in action, enforcement of laws
protecting rookeries in Harry Bridge's memorial park. As the buces pile up,
police to decision makers have been ignored. Next slide please. Snowy egrets and black
crown night herons roost and nest in trees lining the park's walkway and parkway. Great blue herons
live in the eucalyptus grove directly across the street. Colonial nesting birds depend on
their rookery sites for security from predators and occupy them all year long. Rookeries enjoy
Esha status along under the California Coastal Act which is essential for the survival of coastal
wading birds. Next slide. The park also provides access to calm shallow water essential to these
wading birds who feed and forage on the shoreline.
Next slide.
Originally created as medication for development of public park space in downtown Long Beach,
Harry Bridges now regularly hosts special events such as music festivals that attract
thousands of people multiple times a year.
Next slide.
The health and safety of adults, juveniles, fledgling,
eggs, and nests are put at risk during special events
by crowds, amplified sound, lighting,
toxic emissions from porta-potties and generators,
vendor booths, rides, and barbed wire fencing and lights
strung through the roosting trees.
Anna will finish the presentation, thank you.
Next slide.
Due to the opening of the F&M Amphitheater,
abuses have multiplied as the brookery itself
is now being used as a parking lot
and a pickup drop-off site for shuttle bus patrons.
Next.
Next slide.
The city and the port are directly responsible
for ensuring that the coastal act is being adhered to here.
However, under Public Records Code 30819,
the coastal commission can issue cease and desist orders
and enforce any requirements of a certified local program
or a port master plan under the following circumstances.
One, the commission request and the port,
the local governing body or port decides to take action,
does not take action in a timely manner
or when alleged violation could cause significant damage
to coastal resource or if either one of these entities
are a party to the violation.
Next slide.
Since 2019, when July 4th fireworks were launched
directly below active nests in the rookery
and multiple fledgings were killed,
our task force has repeatedly insisted
that the health of this rookery be considered
when holding special events
and that all laws protecting these birds be followed.
We have reached out to city, elected officials and staff,
port of Long Beach staff and harbor commissioners.
Because our previous and current events to engage
these entities have not been successful,
we are now appealing directly to the Coastal Commission
to contact these responsible parties
and request that appropriate action be taken
to resolve this pattern of abuse,
multiple year pattern of abuse.
We allege that these governing bodies
are not enforcing their certified local program
or the Port Master Plan
and could also be parties to the violations
causing significant damage to coastal resources,
specifically the Rookeries and Harry Bridges Memorial Park.
please help us contact these entities.
They're not taking these violations seriously.
It's shocking.
So we wanna thank you.
You see I'm wearing a T-shirt from the Coast,
no hearing, thank you for all you do.
Thank you both.
Thank you.
Okay, we'll move on to another joint presentation
of Christopher and Susan Bliss
followed by Samantha McDonald.
Christopher and Susan.
Yes, good morning.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Yeah, okay, so I have a slide here to show.
Thank you for all you do
and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
The graph before you shows yearly mooring fees
and six of the harbors in California that have moorings.
The average yearly fee for five of these harbors is $947,
not including Newport.
At this time, Newport is already 69% higher
than any other harbor in the whole state.
When the city's proposed rate hikes are implemented,
Newport will be 474% higher than anywhere else in the state.
The proposed dramatic increase
in Newport Harbor mooring fees
is not simply a pricing issue.
It's a coastal access issue.
Moorings have historically provided the only affordable way
for ordinary California boaters
to have access to Newport Harbor.
Raising the annual costs from approximately,
Sorry, raising the annual cost from approximately $1600 to more than $7200
would fundamentally change those who can afford that access.
For many middle-income voters, the message will be clear.
Newport Harbor is reserved for only those wealthy enough to pay.
Access for ordinary Californians can no longer afford is not meaningful public access.
A fee increase of this magnitude effectively builds an economic wall around Newport Harbor.
There may be no gate and no fence but the result is the same. The public is being shut out of its
own tide lands. Make no mistake, the powers that be in Newport Beach are hell bent on forcing middle
class boaters out of the harbor. California's public tie lands should remain accessible for
for all Californians and not just be the exclusive domain
of just the wealthy.
I respectfully ask the Coastal Commission
to see these proposed mooring increases
for exactly what they are,
a true, a serious threat to equitable coastal access.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And moving on to Susan Bliss.
Yes, I submitted a two minute video for my comment.
So if you could play that, I'd appreciate it.
Coming right up.
No.
No, that's not it.
That's not the video.
Give us just one moment.
It's under my name, Susan Bliss.
Yes, we have it.
Give us just one moment.
OK, thank you.
Since I was in the ocean, we were not rich,
managed to save enough money to buy a 32-foot wooden sailboat. The kids loved our time on the
water. For the first two years I kept the boat at a dock in Newport but found that the monthly rent
for a dock was like a luxury car payment that never ended and was just too expensive for us.
Then I discovered an available mooring nearby. I went to the Newport Beach Harbor Department and
they explained the procedures to acquire the mooring. I was told that after acquiring the
mooring tackle and permit from the seller, the harbor department would then put the permit in
my name. I figured that after the initial cost, the expense of keeping the boat would be manageable,
and if I were to ever give up boating, I could recoup the cost when the permit was again
transferred. Thousands of mooring users have followed these established and accepted city
rules for decades without problems. Keeping a boat on a mooring comes with
many challenges. Just accessing your mooring can be extremely difficult and
maintaining your boat without fresh water or electric power is challenging.
But despite these challenges the rewards are many. Now my kids are grown and my
grandchildren are able to enjoy life on the water. Both kids learn to sail and
have learned to love and respect the ocean. The moorings in Newport Harbor are
the only affordable option for boating in Orange County and can provide life
experiences that are rare and priceless for middle-class boaters and families.
Please help save this invaluable California coastal resource. Okay and I
believe they're done. Okay thank you both. Moving on to Samantha McDonald
followed by Amber L. Haworth and then Dr. Aziz Sharif. Miss McDonald?
Yes, Samantha McDonald live aboard in Newport Beach. Dr. Hucklebridge I know
that the SLC said there isn't any real big changes going on but many things are
changing in the harbor monthly that directly affect us. It's attempt to kill
moorings by a thousand cuts and as Adam and others are gonna say and I've told
the city stopped issuing live aboard permits the past two years and told no
one publicly. I want to say that again, the city stopped issuing legal live
aboard permits for two years and told no one, not even the people who have been
on the waitlist for years begging for a spot. This is a lawful program that has
given so many households access to recreation and employment on the
coastline that they just couldn't otherwise. There are at least nine
potential households that are now empty in the coastal zone. Without changes the
city's municipal code, without public commission approval, without anything the
the city of Harbor Department just stopped doing something they're literally supposed to do.
The CCC must tell the city to restart the live aboard program.
There have been no changes that justify this stoppage. Even staff from the State Lands
Commission were not aware as they were told by the city that they the city did not intend to
eliminate live aboard use in Newport Harbor. The city has come back and said they are pausing as
a result of the SLC comments but this does not appear to be true. Please restore coastal access
through this program immediately because so many households are waiting to have access like we do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Moving on to Amber L. Howarth, followed by Dr. Aziz Sharif,
and then Morgan Plasanik.
Amber L. Hi, good morning.
Yep, please go ahead.
My name is Amber Howarth, and I live in Marin County.
I'm speaking today because of the daily crisis that's
unfolding at La Jolla Cove demands urgent statewide
intervention.
I volunteer with the Marine Mammal Center.
And through my work, I know exactly what
takes to protect, rescue, and rehabilitate distressed marine life. Because of my background,
the horrific videos that are circulating on social media showing tourists chasing,
crowding, and harassing sea lions in La Jolla are deeply painful to watch.
What people don't realize is that this intense human intervention directly leads to strandings.
When tourists crowd and open up for a selfie, the mother becomes terrified and flees into the water.
This maternal separation leads to immediate pup abandonment and starvation.
Under federal law, specifically 16 U.S.C. Section 1362 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
this disruption of nursing and breeding behaviors is a federal crime known as level B harassment.
If this commission cannot find it within its mandate to protect the fundamental welfare
of these animals, then I urge you to look at this through the lens of human safety.
Sea lions are large, powerful wild predators. When crowds aggressively crowd a nursing mother
or productive bull, they're creating a powder keg. By allowing unrestricted public access to
these sensitive resting areas, you're inviting a severe life altering animal attack. The city's
reliance on passive signs and local park rangers is completely failing because rangers have zero
federal enforcement authority under the MMPA. They can only take notes and refer crimes to NOAA,
an agency with only four field officers covering the entire state of California.
Relying entirely on an overstretched federal agency to police a daily tourist hotspot is a
as a recipe for lawlessness.
The Coastal Commission has the unique authority
to bridge this enforcement gap.
Section 3001.5 of the California Coastal Act mandates
that maximizing public access must be consistent
with sound resources conservation principles.
Habitat protection areas with fragile species
sensitive dunes or red nesting sites
may restrict public paths.
Unrestricted access that causes federal wildlife harassment
and human safety hazards violates
your own founding style.
He must implement physical abilities and full seasonal closures to keep the public at a
safe distance.
Please don't wait for predictable human tragedy to occur before you choose to actively manage
the speech.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Moving on to Dr. Aziz Sharif, followed by Morgan Plesenik and then Lydia Ponce.
Dr. Sharif?
Good morning, commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity.
My name is Dr. Aziz Sharif, Executive Director of Wildlife Jewels.
Through our eyes program and rescue crew, we conduct daily proposal monitoring, search
scout surveys and seabird rescue response.
Over the past two nesting seasons, wildlife juice has completed more than 1500 monitoring
hours at children's pool.
We have documented persistence, disturbance of federally protected western galls and their
chicks.
Wildlife feeding and harassment of harbor seals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.
We have also witnessed injured seals lose rescue opportunities because crowding prevented them
from hauling out onto the beach. At Children's Pool there's no continuous on-site authorized
wildlife management or enforcement presence. We monitor, document and report but these situations
require action by authorities. Wildlife Jewels developed an evidence-based Children's Pool
Western Guard Protection Plan proposing seasonal protection areas, educational signage, and temporary
protective buffers while maintaining public access. We respectfully ask the Commission to
advance review, approvals, and implementation so these protections are in place before the
2027 nesting season. Beyond Children's Pool, we're documenting a devastating rise in fishing line and
and hook entanglements.
During one survey alone,
we documented 10 entangled cormorants at Point La Jolla,
and additional entangled seabirds
continue to be found on a daily basis.
Most in locations where rescue is not possible.
We've also documented numerous incidences
of fishing activity within the marine protected areas,
including sport fishing boats
with multiple active lines and chumming.
We continue to support
a science-based natural resource management plan
for the La Jolla coastline.
These documented conditions demonstrate the urgent need
for stronger coordinated wildlife protection
at children's pool and along the La Jolla coastline.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Moving on to Morgan Plesnick followed by Lydia Ponce
and then Betty Maruto.
Morgan Plesnick, please go ahead.
Hi.
Hi, good morning commissioners.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Great, my name's Morgan, I'm a San Diego local.
I would like to show you a boat off of,
I'm sorry, I have a stutter.
Boat off of Point La Jolla,
we are unsure if it is inside of an MPA
or directly on the line,
but it is clearly in an active sea lion rookery
with sea lions present around the boat.
There is also a recent video of a boat towing
what appears to be a dead sea lion.
And these circumstances are unknown,
but instances like that make it seem like La Jolla
is entirely unregulated.
And so to answer the question,
why are the sea lions approaching the boats?
People are feeding them
and they're posting themselves feeding them.
And these actions do not only have a safety concern
for humans, but for the animals as well.
So then that's when,
so then that's when enitanglements happen.
So the fishing line, the gear,
they create an ongoing threat in La Jolla.
Animals can and do become entangled and seriously injured,
sometimes reacquiring rescue,
or rescue by people who are already overwhelmed
with all of these enitanglements.
We're also seeing sea lions with injuries involving gaffes,
and these injuries are extremely concerning
due to the amount of force that a gaff needs
to penetrate that deep.
And for those of you who do not know what a gaff is,
it's a tool designed to penetrate
and bring a fish onto your boat.
So it's something that I'm concerned
is intentionally placed in a sea lion.
I've also personally witnessed the fishermen
off of the children's pool seawall,
of power belt in the La Jolla caves
with snorkelers present,
and spear fishermen in the marine protected area.
So I'm asking for a dedicated
reoccurring enforcement presence in the La Jolla
and from the Fish and Wildlife.
CalTIP is a very important tool,
but many locals have rarely, if ever,
seen state officers actively enforcing these waters.
Thank you.
Thank you, moving on to Lydia Ponce,
followed by Betty Maruto,
then we'll have a group presentation.
Lydia Ponce.
Good morning, relatives.
I am currently in Austin, Texas
for the duration of the summer,
but I will return in fall
and it's wonderful to be able to speak with you this morning
as relatives as we are and great respect and honor
to defend and protect the oceans.
If anyone's ever looking to see what the plans are
the future of Los Angeles, let alone, I mean the state of California's coastal zone. Take a look
at the Gulf of Mexico. The Corpus Christi area is needing to desalinate their water. They need
water. They're in a crisis and they have five desalination plans proposed and the contracts
already have been assigned. In addition to that, they have Brownsville, big SpaceX and I don't know
if there's a virtual tour and it is tremendous and it is awful because the little tortoisey
baby tortoises are hatched there from April to September but they don't care. They ignite
these rockets and do what they will because you know progress. I want to commend all of you and
the 50 years for protecting, defending and honoring something that Seven Generations Forward could
enjoy. I myself grew up the first informative years in my life in La Jolla Cove and I am totally
team sea lion. People have no business trying to take a selfie, trying to get close, trying to
feed them. Not to a buffalo, not to a sea lion, not to anything. We need to leave these relatives
alone. And for me personally, I know and I'm definitely bearing down a lot of prayer. I'm
totally lifting everyone up, because I know that it's two different bowls of fruit. You've got the
federal fruit, you've got the state fruit, and we all enjoy a nice delicious cool summer fruit to
share with our families and our friends and even our neighbors. So I just want to applaud you and
celebrate you, and we got to look up to the sky, we got to not look down at our shoes, and we need
to continue to be better relatives to our marine life family and to the ones
on land and thank you so much. Thank you Betty Maruto you should be able to start
your video. Good morning commissioners thank you for letting me speak today and
first of all thank you for all that you do to preserve and protect our amazing
coastline. I strongly urge you to continue those efforts by supporting the
building. I am pleased to call
the park. It proposed reservation and shuttle system for point Lobos state natural reserve. My name is Betty Marito, and I am a frequent visitor and steadfast supporter of point Lobos. I'm a member of the park it steering committee, a point Lobos docent, and the president of the point Lobos foundation. It is a place that I love deeply, not just for the natural beauty, but also for the way it invites stillness, connection, and appreciation for the love of the state.
this area. This is an
initiation of our wild
California coast. It is
considered the crown jewel of
the California state parks.
But the problem is point
Lobos is being loved to
death. Thousands of visitors
overfill the reserve daily,
degrading the natural
resources and creating.
Serious safety issues. The
safety, by keeping visitors off highway one, it's become a very
dangerous and unsafe situation for our visitors. It will also
provide a comprehensive transportation system to bring
visitors into the reserve daily and safely in a more balanced
process. The project also provides both access for all by
protecting and preserving the delicate coastal resources.
resources. Park it will ensure that public access will be available for future generations
through careful planning and thoughtful management of the reserve. The status quo is not acceptable.
So again, I strongly urge you to ensure these solutions are possible by supporting the park
it proposed reservation and shuttle system for Point Lobo State Natural Reserve. Keep
your focus on the mission of preserving our beautiful coastline. Thank you so
much. Thank you. Next up we have a group
presentation of Elena Tillman, Sunny Cha, Nathan Brenner, and then Robin Davidhoff.
We're gonna start with Elena Tillman. Good morning commissioners. Please go
ahead and play my video. This is actually the PowerPoint. There should be
video as well just requesting the time back thank you so much yes it is it's
you may well restart at two minutes okay I think it's got sound and you know that
as well just want to make sure it the following footage was taken since our
previous update to you in July see if you can spot the sea lions in the mix
This was taken at 8 o'clock in the morning on a weekday prior to Ranger's arrival at 11,
and close to the Western Staircase where the pups wait for their moms.
This was also at 8 o'clock in the morning on a weekday, and the afternoon.
Cones were taken away from the stairs here.
Meanwhile pups on adjacent rocks are waiting for their moms return.
This is from the perspective of a volunteer docent who was holding crowds back while they awaited rescue team for this abandoned pup.
otherwise the crowds were all over the pup. Nursing mothers attempt to haul out and reunite
with their pups. People inadvertently get in the way of that and mating behaviors as seen here,
as well as crowding large 800 pound bulls, which is commonplace at the cove. Dogs are not allowed
during daytime hours but are frequently seen as well. This man was seen harassing a sea lion during
daytime hours as well. Many people ask can't they go somewhere else and this is the result of them
trying to haul out in places other than the cove. They get harassed there as well. And you've seen
this video of a sea lion trying to rest at midnight at Point La Jolla adjacent to the cove.
Pups become malnourished when they're abandoned by their mothers and rescues are few and far
between. There have been several failed rescue attempts due to people flushing and crowding
sea lion pups into the water. This family covered a deceased sea lion pup with sand while they were
picnicking. So our asks remain simple. Cones and tape as needed on the beach, rangers on the beach,
and trifold signage on the beach as needed to protect the pups. Thank you.
Thank you. Just turning it over to my colleague Robin Davidoff. Thank you.
Robin Davidoff, go ahead. Actually, the next speaker is Sunny Cha.
Okay, that's the order that we had. Ms. Cha?
Good morning, commissioners. I'm Sunny Cha with the Sierra Club Seal Society. Next slide, please.
La Jolla Cove is San Diego County's precious gem. Not only is this part of the
the only sea lions on the coast.
It's also close to the state marine reserve
and home to a host of unique wildlife.
However, we must remember that the cove
is only 47 yards in length.
Trip advisors voted the cove
to be the number one beach in California.
It currently attracts over 3 million tourists
and that number will only continue to grow.
We asked the coastal commissioners to be proactive
and take affirmative action with the city
to protect beach access and the sea lions
that make La Jolla their home.
Next slide please.
These are just two of the hundreds of pictures we have
to prove that the cove is not being adequately managed
by the city.
Here you can see the crowds around the sea lions
forming a human wall,
preventing access to haul out to rest.
On the right, you can see two people
petting a sea lion pup.
Next slide please.
2026 popping season in La Jolla Cove seemed promising,
but the small progress we made has stalled.
Two months into this year's popping season in the cove,
We've had 21 births, six verified deaths,
and five rescues deemed abandoned by a SeaWorld Rescue.
This is 43% pup mortality.
After the death was submitted to you,
it was reported that we had another disease pup
making the death count to seven.
In comparison, Point La Jolla has only 6% mortality
with 35 births, two verified deaths, and zero rescues.
For context, NOAA sites that the expected mortality rate
at three months is 25%.
Also, several rescues were also unsuccessful
due to overcrowding.
I repeat that these existing protections
for the pups are not yet affected.
Thank you, now I will turn over the presentation
to Nathan Brenner.
The next slide please.
In June of 2026, the city of San Diego and the Sierra Club
made a joint presentation to this commission
concerning a management plan for La Jolla Cove.
The city of San Diego's stated goal
was to protect sea lion pups
and reduce the risk of disturbance or abandonment.
The city has not fulfilled its agreement to this commission.
The city indicated rangers would be regularly stationed
at the cove and on the beach to manage crowds.
Rangers are rarely on the beach actively managing crowds
and instead remain at the upper areas
overlooking the cove beach.
The use of cones and tape on the beach.
Rangers rarely place cones on the beach
and do not use combined cone and tape barriers
protect pups. Lifeguards have been actively undermining the use of cones and tape on the
Cove Beach. A-frame signs on the beach. Rangers do not place the A-frame signs on the beach.
The signs remain chained to the western stairwell. Cones on the western stairs when sea lines are
present. Lifeguards have actively undermined the Rangers and the docents use of cones on the
city, and the city of San
Diego is working on the
western stairs. Next slide,
please. Interdepartmental
conflicts between the city of
San Diego lifeguards and
rangers are causing a critical
public safety and sea lion
protection enforcement failure
at the Loja Cove. While San
Diego Rangers and Sierra Club
docents are working together to
implement agreed upon
management tools, city life
guards consistently appear to
authority and the educational messaging of volunteer docents by telling the public that
the beach is entirely open and the visitors can go wherever they want. This conflicting
messaging neutralizes the ranger's ability to manage the crowds and invalidates the educational
outreach of the docents. We respectfully request the Coastal Commission confer with the City
of San Diego to seek immediate lifeguard cooperation, ensuring a unifying and lawful
approach to wildlife and crowd management.
Next slide, please.
And I'll turn the presentation over to our chairperson, Robyn Davidoff.
Hello, I'm Robyn Davidoff and Sierra Club Seal Society Chair.
On July 26th, Mayor Todd Gloria and City Council President and La Jolla Council member Joe
LaCava made a joint statement saying, visitors should enjoy these remarkable animals from
from a safe distance, obey posted signs,
and follow instructions from city staff.
On August 7th, Joe Lacava's newsletter said,
I have been tireless in fighting for operational changes,
including coning off portions of the sand at the cove.
Since the city wants to protect the sea lions
and cones and tape on the beach is a tool
to separate visitors and wildlife,
we have to ask why is the city failing to implement it?
One reason given by Park and Rec is that cones and tape
are implemented at the beach only as appropriate.
As you've seen in the photos and videos,
there are many times when cones and tape were appropriate.
In fact, most days.
Another reason is that there's an internal conflict
between rangers and lifeguards
as to how to manage the cove.
Lifeguards often undermine the efforts
of rangers and docents.
And when Park and Rec was asked
why cones and tape are not on the beach,
They said that lifeguards won't like it.
Finally, there is a concern that cones and tape
might end up in the ocean.
The boundary could easily be adjusted as conditions change
or more permanent rope could be installed in the area
where sea lions rest and play,
typically on the left side of the beach and cave.
Clearly these reasons are not hard to overcome.
Next slide, please.
With one more pup dying at yesterday,
we now ask the California Council Commission
to instruct the city to move beyond excuses
and toward action.
Implement the protocol it agreed to in June.
That means cones and tape around sea lion pups
and rangers and A-frame signs on the beach
to establish safe viewing distances.
Insist that lifeguards and rangers work together
to support and follow this same protocol.
Another suggestion is to install...
It's going to be a bad behavior.
Thank you all.
Next we have Sherri Hasty followed by Pamela Alejandra,
Galaz Valdez and then Tina Dickinson.
Sherri Hasty, you should be able to unmute
and start your video.
Ma'am, you should be able to unmute.
There we go.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Sherri Hasty
and I'm the Executive Director
of Community Partnership for Youth.
Our organization serves young people
families in Monterey County including many who have historically faced barriers to accessing
places like Point Lobos. I would like to talk about the access through an equity lens.
I realize there's a public safety situation occurring and that is important. One thing that
it struck out to me in witnessing the situation is that unbridled, unmanaged access is actually
limiting the ability for the families we serve who have multi-generational people in the
car to visit.
Small children, elderly and mobility impaired people simply cannot make the miles long walk
along Highway 1 to get to the coast.
They drive to Point Lobos in the hopes that they'll be able to visit only to have to
leave because their family members can't make the walk.
Meaningful access means creating a system that is safe, affordable, understandable and
welcoming to everyone in our community.
Unbridled access, in this case, is only affordable.
None of the other benchmarks.
Market has been intentionally designed with all people, including underserved communities
in mind.
It includes opportunities for free access, publicize right on the reservations page,
Reservations Release Day of, so families who cannot plan months ahead can book a spontaneous
visit, guaranteed entry with the reservation, and bilingual and non-web
based resources to make the system barrier-free. For the people we serve,
experience and nature can be incredibly meaningful.
Point Lobos is a public resource and thank you for hearing us.
Thank you. Next we have Pamela Alejandra Galvez-Valdez. Please go ahead.
Good morning, Commission. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Can you scroll
down? Next slide. Next slide. We can go back to the previous slide. Good morning,
Commission and everyone. If I come here today, it's because I have gone
everywhere with no real results and I'm looking for hope. This is my educational
work teaching about topophilia and falling in love with our land and
have successfully executed this and implemented it over a decade
around the world and in our nation.
You have known of the personal abuse that I have received.
Next slide.
Throughout the years, my park branches.
Next slide, please, in La Jolla.
And instead of finding support, I have received retaliation
from representations here.
We protect what we know.
I teach about wildlife, nature, and historic preservation.
And I come to you for protection.
Next slide, please.
Next slide.
Next slide.
There. Thank you.
Here's an image of the proof of the harassment
I have received over 40 tickets for displaying art outside of a designated area.
When Mr. William Dorsett only got one ticket, behaved disorderly and was arrested, and won
half a million dollars from the city, and the whole case was dismissed, and I am looking
for legal representation.
Next slide.
And all of those are the laws that you guys have violated against me, which is why I'm
in the condition that I am in right now.
Here's an image of the day camp person they allow to harass me since giving tickets has
now been banned since doorsets went. Next slide please. I have reported the harassment
and they don't even respond by texts or emails and they ridiculed me when I asked them for
help. Next slide please. Next slide. Next slide. I don't know what that is. Next slide.
Next slide. It's the one with pictures. There's the harassment from park rangers. Next slide.
Next slide, please.
Next slide.
What is going on with the slides?
Next slide.
Next slide.
This, I need the minute, the second part.
I'm not on the right side.
Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you.
Tina Dickerson, we need you to accept the promotion to panelists for you to be able
to speak.
There we go.
And you should be able to go ahead.
Tina Dickerson, you should be able to unmute.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you now.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Uh, good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
I am Tina Dickerson resident of Cambria.
I'm speaking this morning to give the commission a heads up on a substantial and complex CDP
item that of the Cambria community services district's application for a regular CDP for
its water reclamation facility.
I understand this item will appear in your September meeting agenda.
It is very large, substantial, and very complex.
So that's the reason I'm giving you a heads up.
The facility was originally built
during a six-month period in 2014
as an emergency water supply project
to provide water to existing customers
in extreme stages of drought.
To date, the facility has not provided
a drop of water to its customers.
The district claimed it could produce
250 acre feet per year during six months of drought,
but it has failed to prove that capability.
The project is being appealed to the commission.
There are six appellants of which I am one.
Commission staff has received multiple comments
from the appellants and of course, much from the applicant.
And commission staff has 12 years of history related
to the thrice named project.
and it's, excuse me, I had a problem here,
and it's numerous issues.
Assuming this item will be
in the commission September meeting agenda,
if substantial issue is found by the commission,
I respectfully request that a separate de novo hearing
be scheduled at a location
that is within reasonable distance to Cambria,
since all of the appellants reside in Cambria,
and it would be a hardship for many of us
to travel long distances.
Thank you very much for hearing my comments.
Thank you.
Okay, we have three more
and then a few that we haven't been able to find.
We're gonna be starting with Leslie Honda
moving on to Melinda McNaughton,
and then it looks like Peter Kaz has joined us.
So Leslie Honda, you should be able to go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Thank you.
Honorable commissioners and the general public,
my name is Leslie Honda,
the lead ornithologist for the San Diego Bird Alliance.
We support the comments made by Wildlife Jewels
and the Sierra Club Seal Society today.
I wanna reiterate that we are firmly against
the city of San Diego spraying bio-cac on the La Jolla cliffs
as the products instruction state do not use by waterways
and the material safety data sheets
of the two ingredients, BIC and sodium lauryl ethyl sulfate
are very toxic and harmful to aquatic life
with long lasting effects.
As the proposed treatment areas
over the globally recognized green IUCN
marine protected area,
the city of San Diego should not be introducing chemicals
as it may harm the delicate marine ecosystem.
I've previously mentioned concerns
regarding chemical absorption through egg cells,
chemical transference into the water
and untested effects on young wildlife,
which may be detrimental.
We are also concerned as harmful surfactants
may disrupt waterproofing of birds in the area,
causing them to become waterlogged.
Waterproofing is crucial to bird survival
without it could mean death for a bird. Numerous birds use this area including two federal
delisted endangered species, three city of San Diego MSCP species, seven birds of conservation
concern, two IUCN near threatened species, five shorebirds of conservation concern,
three tipping point species identified in the 2025 state of the birds report.
This area needs to be managed mindfully as we risk losing biodiversity with mismanagement.
Wildlife observations in La Jolla of animals tagged elsewhere confirms wildlife connectivity
throughout Southern California, meaning what we do to wildlife in La Jolla may affect birds and
marine mammals elsewhere. As wildlife face survival challenges with variable oceanic resources,
notably with the looming Super El Nino, I urge the Coastal Commission to reject the City of
San Diego's application to spray bio-cac as we should be making things easier on wildlife
not more difficult. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Moving on to Melinda McNaughton, then Peter Cass, and then we'll call a few
names of folks we haven't been able to find. Melinda McNaughton, please go ahead.
Hi. Wow, I completely agree with the previous speaker, Leslie. Dear Commissioners, I support
wildfire fuel mitigation. I do not support poisoning an ecosystem in order to protect it.
Glyphosate and other herbicides are being proposed for wildfire vegetation management
in sensitive areas, including Tahoe and Tamales Bay, even though mechanical alternatives exist.
Last year, the benchmark influential glyphosate safety paper was retracted
after undisclosed Monsanto involvement and payments to its authors were exposed.
This paper was used for decades to reassure the public about glyphosate safety. The EPA's own
Endangered Species Act evaluation found glyphosate likely to injure or kill 93% of federally listed
endangered species. Independent research has also found evidence that ultra-low doses of
glyphosate cause endocrine disruption, reproductive harm, genetic and multi-generational effects on
humans. Small amounts are harmful. And there is a simple practical problem. Herbicides don't
remove fuel. They kill vegetation and create dried out fuel load. Mechanical and manual methods can
reduce fuel without adding pesticides to our soil, water and wildlife habitat. Many Californians are
concerned that herbicide use has become normalized under integrated pest management and within
government, but normal does not mean safe or necessary. We ask you to look critically at the
pesticide industry's influence on these practices. As you consider the wildfire fuel load management,
please distinguish between the need for fuel reduction and the methods used to accomplish it.
Please protect our communities from wildfire without allowing herbicides to poison the sensitive ecosystems
The Coastal ass act asks you to protect both can be done and should be done
Do not allow herbicides to become part of wildfire fuel load management in California in California's coastal zone
Thank you very much for your time
Thank you moving on to Peter Cass followed by Michael Brandon and then Kathleen Dvetnya Peter Cass
should be able to go ahead.
Hey, good morning, Commissioner Sully.
I missed the boat earlier regarding the lever boards for Neoport Beach on one of the on
a lever board waiting list right now.
And last month after sensing a number of consistency in what the city has been telling people on
the waitlist that the very limited number of hermitage to live on their boat, it was
is revealed that for almost two years,
the city has been withholding these permits.
At this point, that's about eight code allowed.
Affordable housing that are being deprived
of 24-7-365 coastal access.
We fear the city, having now found out,
will try to expedite the change to the code,
but the honest lot of drastic changes
trying to alter to who has and does not have access
to the city. The city cannot do
some of these things without your review and approval.
If there's many of us who apparently are not good enough
to be welcome to both to the public water around Newport
or to have our access transition
to those more affluent or connected,
that's your decision to make, not the city alone.
And as these things would be considered,
various provisions of this coastal act are their guide.
one of these these being section 30105.5 addressing
collumative impacts.
At the bottom of this slide is just a partial lease
of the city action that appeared by design
to have cumulative impact escape notice
with the increasing harm of the recent city conduct
through stakeholders are not noticing disparities,
deceptions, inequities, and discriminatory aspects
of numerous city plans, including the city
of Newport Beach being withholding lawfully available
livable permits after September, 2024.
The city of Newport Beach advanced multi-revision
to harbor codes targeting numerous tiers also.
Thank you so much.
Please help us with the livable.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Moving on to Michael Brandon
and then Kathleen Zavatnia, Mr. Brandon.
Good morning, commissioners, staff,
and esteemed Chair Harmon.
I would like to thank Commissioner Jackson
and Dr. Hucklebridge for inquiring
about the mooring situation in Newport Beach.
I didn't realize just how many people
would come out and speak about live aborts today,
but it just goes to show how appalled we are
at the handling of Newport Beach's tide lens.
It may seem like status quo in Newport Beach,
but with all due respect,
Newport Beach is slowly chipping away at coastal access
right before your eyes.
I'm not the first to point out that Newport Beach
is withholding approximately seven liveaboard mooring permits
that are allowable by law.
The withholding of liveaboard permits
not only reduces coastal access,
but goes against all of the affordable housing initiatives
in California.
I know of five young sailors
that would love the opportunity to live aboard their vessels,
but can't because Newport is refusing
to issue these liveaboard permits.
I know that the California Coastal Commission
is waiting to see the outcome of state lands,
but please don't be blind to the many ways
that Newport Beach is reducing coastal access.
State lands has told us that they are not opposed
to live aboard the Newport Beach,
especially how it is limited in scope
and only allows navigable vessels.
I implore you to send a formal letter to Newport Beach
demanding that they issue available live aboard permits,
not for my benefit, but for the approximately
seven potential families that would be able
to enjoy our coastline in a truly special way.
And with that, I see the rest of my time.
Thank you so much for listening.
Thank you.
We have Kathleen Zvetina.
We've been unable to promote you to a panelist,
so give you the ability to speak.
Should be able to unmute your microphone.
All right, Kathy.
We'll move on to a few folks that we have been unable to find.
So if you hear your name, please raise your hand.
We have Jared Stamper, Bradley Thomas, Amy Rowley,
Eric Fletcher.
Okay, we found Eric Fletcher moving him in as a panelist.
And when you can, please unmute your microphone
and go ahead.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Eric Fletcher.
First, I want to provide support and agreement
with the presentations earlier from the SDSEAL Society,
as well as Morgan and Dr. Ozzie Sharif and Leslie Honda.
I'm here to give an update on the bluff spraying.
I've been at the last two Coastal Commission meetings
giving updates on that.
Earlier in the month, La Jolla Parks and Beaches,
or I apologize in July, voted to oppose the bluff spraying.
They're a management organization here in La Jolla.
However, they do wanna tie the bluff spraying
to reopening the gate and bringing humans down
on those protected bluffs.
While I do support their decision
to halt the bluff spraying as ineffective and dangerous
to the animals as well as the kelp,
I do not support them adding people down to the bluffs
without any type of erosion controls or science.
I want to give some insight
into why there hasn't been success with the rangers.
One, they don't have authority to write tickets,
but then also the members of the board
that are very influential here in San Diego
don't support the pinnipeds,
and I wanna read some things from emails.
This is from the president, Ann Dines.
Eric, I'm a relative neophyte on this subject
and have no personal skin in the game.
Do not swim there, but I failed to understand
why 600 pinnipeds need to be accommodated in the Hawaii Cove,
creating pollution, odor and conflict with human beings
who live, swim and visit there.
Thanks to public policy, these pinnipeds,
they're not endangered,
so accommodating their choice of living in our cove
seems like an unexamined compromise.
I'm not saying that I understand
what the process would be
for getting them to choose a different place of living,
but I do not understand why their selection
is more important than the well-being of La Jolla coastline,
which has been treasured by caring humans
for more than 100 years.
This type of attitude is pervasive
with other board members advocating spraying them with hoses,
calling them an invasion,
and saying send dogs down there to get rid of the pinnipeds.
So until we address that type of activity,
we're going to continue to see videos
like we did of the kid kicking the animals
and the disruption down there.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We aren't seeing any of the other speakers.
I will note that we do have Emily P. Tanessi
from the, she's the mayor's office representative
for the city of San Diego.
She's on Zoom and available for questions about the sea lands,
should you have any. There are no more speakers. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it and
thank you to the public for your testimony. So I will turn to the commission for comments,
questions, and I'm going to begin with Commissioner Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we talk
about sea lions and moorings, I'd like to thank the City of Scotts Valley for hosting our August
meeting or making us feel so welcome. Before this trip, everything I knew about Santa Cruz
came from watching the Lost Boys, I'd never been here before. But after being here for the last few
days, I understand and feel why this place is so special to so many people. I want to give a huge
shout out to and thank you to Linda Loughlin, the first smiling face we saw when we pulled in.
On Tuesday, she immediately swept us up for a three-hour tour, patiently answered a thousand
questions, numerous interruptions, and introduced us to the hard working members of our central
coast office.
A highlight was our walk and talk tour of the UC Santa Cruz Coastal Marine Science campus,
an inspiring must-see example of collaboration with the California Coastal Commission to
expand public access to the coast.
It is truly an impressive place.
Another big thank you to California Coastal Commission former California Coastal Commissioner
Chair and Rockstar County Supervisor Justin Cummings for rolling out the
after-hours red carpet. Justin you are without a doubt a man of the people and
clearly at home among the folks you serve. Justin and Linda we truly
appreciate your warm hospitality, your pride in the communities where you live
and serve is palpable and truly infectious. I'm already looking forward
to hopefully returning with my son during his college campus tour. As a
a parent I would certainly take comfort in knowing that if he chooses Santa Cruz
he'll be part of a welcoming community with members of our Commission staff
family nearby. Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner O'Malley. Thank you
Chair. I don't normally read some comments but I'm just gonna say
that I'm beyond angry and fairly quite honestly just embarrassed to be a city
of San Diego resident right now so I'm going to read instead of kind of let
myself off the hook here. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the failure of the
city to implement their previously proposed plan in a coordinated way
between their own internal agencies, lifeguards, and parks. California, it
strikes me, is the fourth largest economy in the world standing
with the second largest city in California, and yet we're left with
these issues persisting. I think being labeled the number one beach in the U.S.
is surely resulting in considerable amounts of additional tourist dollars
coming into the city that we could use to implement a coordinate affective
program. I regularly just personally see that skis and other presence of life
guards in this area both in the water and on beach. I do think for certainly
many additional range of resources on the beach and you're sure the waters are
needed. And then I guess I'm left to sort of conclude that you know where there's
a will there's a way and I can only include there is no will on behalf of
the city of San Diego to protect the wildlife and community in this area. I do
I do know there are some limits to the role the commission can play here, but I'd like for us to push those limits to their greatest extent and what I've seen for the videos and over the past month, and especially more recently the information presented by miss who Chinook with the feeding and possibly even the injuring of with boat hooks and towing dead sea lines behind them.
I'm at, at the point where I believe a partial closure is really the only way to deal with
the issue until the city gets their program implementation, implementation figured out
and investigate what's going on here and I'm really sorry I have to be an advocate for
that at this point.
There are resources and until there's a will I think we have to go the extra mile and protect
the coastal wildlife and, and the animals here and so I'm going to end with that and
I appreciate having the chair for a little bit.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Preciado.
I want to join in, in spirit and sentiment, the discussion by Commissioner O'Malley regarding
the seal predicament we're in, in the community of La Jolla.
I think my inquiry was at last month's meeting the same question.
do we need some sort of reboot in the sense that maybe preserving the environment completely
for a short amount of time while everyone gets policies and practices squared away may
be an option that we can support and consider.
I now want to turn to the Newport Beach moorings because this video that was
shared by one of the members of the public brings to me other issues
associated with the moorings that maybe have not been considered given all of
the testimony we've received. First, I saw a video that suggests generational
for what should be some sort of public use, and I wonder how much transition
occurs or what limitations occur in these moorings. Are they available
for one year, two year, three year? Are they in perpetuity? And as such, my
inquiry is, are they truly public assets if they're only available to one family
for generations. And so I'm introducing that as a hopefully not controversial topic, but
another way of looking at these public facilities. The public's right to be there is we are
admonished at every opportunity to understand that the public, the public, the public,
And I'm trying to understand what's public about them, and so I just wanted to add that I know we
will be in Newport Beach. I don't want, I'm not intending to become the most unpopular commissioner
when I visit Newport Beach. I'm just trying to understand how we reach points where a public
asset can become a personal family asset and maybe the criticism of the very high-income families that
are adjacent to these public areas is something they're not internalizing as a criticism for
those who live in these moorings. Now, having said that, it doesn't change that these families have
been there for a long time. It doesn't change that they've made decisions based on an ownership
or an entitlement of ownership process. And so I don't want to take that away from this community.
What I'm trying to understand is in the Maureen
and living on the coast, in the public realm,
when does it stop being public when it becomes
an entitlement to one family?
A generational entitlement, it seems.
So with that, through the chair,
I just respectfully add that additional area of inquiry
for all of us to consider.
I think the Newport Beach moorings
have been part of my life experience here
on the commission since I joined.
I don't know how further back they went to all of you,
but I am interested in seeing how
the idea of a live aboard for seven families
who own a 50 to $100,000 asset
could become a permanent asset for that family
in perpetuity versus creating opportunities
for the public to rent a boat, park the boat,
leave it there for a few weeks, come back,
and other ways of enjoying on Newport Beach
and other state lands.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Thank you.
And again, thanks to the County of Santa Cruz
for hosting us this week.
It's been great to see the energy on the waterfront
and the passion of the public here,
whether it's protecting our ocean resources
or defending California's coastal zone management program,
I think the Central Coast is home to many
of California's innovations in coastal and marine protection
and it's great to be here.
I did want to, as I said, some of the things we heard
this morning from in general public comment
involved some of our sister state agencies.
So Morgan, I really appreciated your raising our awareness
about some of the harassment going on,
apparent harassment going on
inside a marine protected area off of La Jolla.
That is the jurisdiction
of the California Fish and Wildlife Department.
I really urge you to bring this to their attention as well.
And I think that's, the Coastal Commission is part of the California Natural Resources Agency.
That's why we have a representative here from the agency
who hopefully can bring these integrated issues to the attention of some of the other agencies as well.
Also, that applies to some of the concerns we are hearing about Point Lobos.
The California Parks Department is an integral management, a manager there.
The Coastal Commission has a role as a, we have a joint role in terms of access but in terms of
how we actually manage that place. We have the State Parks Department and we have Caltrans here
that also is responsible for management of Highway 1 there. So I really do urge the public
to make sure that their voices are heard in a multiple of forums that have jurisdiction over
these. Finally, I wanted to just share that the frustration that I share with
the rest of my commissioners about this continued harassment at La Jolla Cove.
Certainly the last time we heard about this, it was the beginning of pumping
season, things were looking hopeful that there was going to be more management. We
We walked, several of us walked to La Jolla Cove
and saw rangers there, and we were hopeful
that the pups would not have a tough season.
But I did want to share that here on the Central Coast,
the city of Monterey at San Carlos Beach,
when the sea lions are present there,
the city closes the beach to people.
And the sea lions are there, and they do their puppying,
and then they leave.
So there are different ways,
there are certainly alternatives to managing this
than to try and do see the kind of chaos
that we're seeing in La Jolla.
So I really, I'm glad that the city of San Diego
is on the line.
I look forward to hearing how they're gonna improve
this situation and thank you very much.
Thank you, Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks so much.
Just on the situation in Newport Harbor, I mean, my understanding is that these moorings
are on some kind of a lease basis and, you know, the issue is that the cost of them is
increasing, particularly as it relates to the slips from the homeowners.
And I really do think it's an environmental justice and an access issue that these folks
are gradually apparently being driven out.
So I do think that maybe staff could respond.
My understanding is they're either annual or biannual.
I don't know if you know the answer to that.
I actually don't know the details of how the moorings work.
We've been kind of at least we've been tracking it a little bit higher level.
So I don't know the details of that.
We probably do have staff who do, but I think there's a lot of complications associated
and some of them were some of the issues are raised today.
Those are issues that Newport, the city of Newport Beach and St. Lance are actively discussing
and trying to work through and there'll be a new proposal on how to move forward on the
entire system is my understanding.
It's more comprehensive sometime next year.
And my understanding, in addition, is that there will be public hearings, the city will
be holding public hearings on any potential changes before next summer. So in moving into
a proposal. So just wanted to add that. Thanks so much. I think it's good that it's being
seen as a statewide issue. It sounds like if that's what you're saying. No, I'm sorry,
misspoke. I meant more in Newport. In Harvard. They're just they're looking, I mean, again,
you'll remember part of the reason that we engaged on this issue was because of
a potential unfairness between changing rates for the more you know versus the
the folks who have docs and so I think that issue St. Louis agreed and pointed
out to the city they have acknowledged that and are looking at a more
comprehensive solution within Newport Harbor is my understanding but we
haven't directly engaged on what that looks like yet what the what proposal
The city may be bringing forward so that's in discussion and again will be
Presented in public hearings and feedback will there'll be a chance to provide feedback
That's my understanding and will the public hearings be in front of the Commission or it will be something we're advised about the city
Right at the city level. So again, the city is going to be considering a new proposal
they understand that they need to solicit public input on that and have a series of public hearings to
consider that whatever new proposal they'll be bringing forward and not they wouldn't be bringing forward until next summer and would that come to
The Commission or to state lands the new it's still unclear at this point. Okay, so that's still being worked out
So I guess it might be helpful just
Based on commissioners presciados common stay just have some clarity on are these annual agreements?
Or how do they work? I think that would be an important thing to know. So thanks so much on that
My understanding is that there's someone available from the city to talk about the situation in La Jolla co-op and through the chair
if I might just real quick respond a little bit then we can definitely bring on the
Representative the mayor's office. I just wanted to comment a little bit on
the La Jolla issue I had the opportunity to meet with
Staff from mayor's office Emily pia tenesi and staff from Jolla Kava's office a couple weeks ago
to start trying to, you know, I think that figure out where to go next.
They understand what a significant problem this is, and we talked about different ways
to try to address some of the challenges.
And so I want to, you know, we're planning to meet staffs, and our staffs are going to
meet sometime in the next week or two, I think, to, I think open this discussion on the potential
for issuing citations was one idea that came up.
It's a challenge, because as you all know, we, the city,
other entities are not able to enforce the Marine Memo
Protection Act.
That is the sole jurisdiction of NOAA.
And so it makes it challenging in certain respects
how to approach that.
How does the city, how do we, anyone,
approach some of these issues?
Because it's challenging.
So the mayor's office and Jalakava's office,
And we all committed to work together
to try to brainstorm ideas.
So I just wanted to share that with you in advance.
And then we can absolutely see if Emily
wants to provide a few comments.
Yeah, that'd be great.
I have to say I'm confused, because I thought
that we had made decisions regarding a much higher level
of protections during the popping season.
And yet we're seeing this significant pup mentality.
people there, the boy that was, I'm not sure if the case had
been resolved, but arrested for kicking.
I mean, it just seems like it's getting worse and worse
since we've been hearing about it instead of better.
What is the story with the pupping season closure?
Well, as you'll remember, we, I think,
had the joint presentation from the Seal Society in the city.
And they had agreed on a series of action items,
which, as you saw, I think, from their presentation today,
at least from the SEAL's society's perspective
have been in some cases implemented,
in some cases partially implemented, et cetera, et cetera.
So those measures were implemented,
but I think there continues to be a great deal of pressure,
a great deal of tourism and folks,
and it maybe is needing to be revamped,
and the lifeguard issue,
that's the first that I had heard of that
from the comment today.
So that's something that we'll want to talk to the city about as well.
Yeah, I just keep coming back and just one more comment that, you know,
they really need to be much more aggressive in their signage.
You are under video surveillance.
You will be prosecuted.
No, you know, clear, you know, if you move cones, you will be prosecuted.
If you whatever, it's just it's just completely out of control.
And I know it really concerns you all.
But how can we protect the natural resources of the coast?
I mean, we're just we're not doing our job here.
So i'd love to hear from the city chair if that's miss pieta nasi
Hello. Thank you. Um, just to reintroduce myself and apologies i'm off camera
I'm a little under the weather today, but my name is emily pieta nasi. I'm a senior policy advisor for mayor gloria
I oversee our community services branch, which includes our parks and recreation department
Um, the city does take the co very seriously
We do take what the seattle club seal society said today very seriously. So we already do plan on having conversations
with our lifeguard department to ensure that the lifeguard department and our parks and recreation
department have the same messaging when they're at the cove we believe lifeguards you know sole
responsibility is focusing on the water and the safety of our patrons but we need to ensure that
when issues or incidents are happening at the cove that they have the exact same messaging
as our parks and recreation department so that's something we are absolutely actively working on
to make sure that our leadership within our lifeguard department is you know like I said
that has the same messaging as parks and rec department.
You mentioned the recent incident
and I kind of wanted to just speak on that.
And Kate said it very clearly
that the issue we've struggled with at the COVE
is that we do not have the ability
to enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
which is really the citation that needs to be given here.
We have been talking to our own city attorney's office
to see if there are any other city municipal codes
or state municipal codes that we could cite.
So that is an ongoing conversation
that we are having with our city attorney's office
to see if there's a different opportunity
aside from the Marine Mammal Protection Act
for us to start being able to give out citations
to people who are at the code causing incidents.
Specific to the recent incident of that individual
who was kicking the sea lion,
there was an announcement made yesterday
from the federal government that a case
will be moving forward with the court date
that individual did plead guilty.
So we are following that very closely.
And our police department is in direct communication
with NOAA on that specific case.
So we are tracking it very closely
and making sure that we're getting updates as necessary.
But we do take this very seriously.
We are consistently evaluating different mitigation strategies
that work at the Cove.
As you know, this area is pretty constrained
because of how small that it is.
So making sure that we're ensuring coastal access
and also preventing any incidents
is something that has been challenging,
but something that we have been communicating on
and trying our best to come up with solutions.
So all of the things that have been mentioned here today,
we will absolutely take back to the appropriate departments
to evaluate and are constantly evaluating
what other measures that we can use.
But the enforcement piece is kind of the biggest next step
that we've been working on with our city attorney's office
and Kate mentioned that we'll be meeting
with coastal staff as well to discuss
if there's any opportunities at the state.
And we have been working very closely
with council district one as well.
Thanks so much.
Ms. Pietonesi, I thought that the beach was meant
to be closed completely during puffing season.
It seems like that is the focus here,
the mortality of the pups.
Could you respond to that?
Sure, I'm happy to respond to that.
There has not been a commitment
to close the cove either seasonally or year-round.
So we have been focused on mitigation strategies
at this location, but we have not made a commitment
or have entertained the idea to close the cove as of yet.
Thank you.
No.
Okay, Commissioner Wilson.
I associate myself with all the comments from the board.
What was just discussed.
I just, I wanna echo thanks to the communities
we were just visiting, I just want to say we have our meetings and then they get out
at certain times and it allows us an opportunity to get into the places that we're staying
at and I just want to say Santa Cruz was very special, always is.
It was just really surprising to me that it was just so lively, even considering, I just
want to say the weather was not particularly warm here at this time, usually is, but just
so many nooks and crannies, beach parties, movies, outdoor movies, just the the the wave
of humans both local and tourist was amazing and the mix and how you you know they were
just kind of going together there's a boardwalk there's the there's the surfing areas there's
all the coves it was just great there was but the other part I think then I think was
mentioned here by Commissioner Nodoff was I think I've met so many people who knew
so much about so many of the issues that we deal with whether they were like
younger people or elderly people whether they were normies or weirdos or
everybody in between I mean just saying it's just like whatever culture they're
from women all kinds of interesting and fun people and from all walks of life
and they actually really were following a lot of the issues because they felt
that it was important to their community.
They felt it was relevant.
And I just thought it was great.
It's a good feeling to know that you're
in a community that really is engaged.
And it reflects on their welcoming attitude for not just
us, but all Californians and tourists from abroad as well.
And so I just want to thank Santa Cruz for really stepping
up really doing it. Thanks. I couldn't agree more. That's a great note to end
public comment on. With that I'm going to suggest we take a brief break. Everyone
please be back at 1110. Thank you. Okay thank you everyone we're gonna
continue on with the agenda and that brings us to the administrative
calendar. Item five is the administrative calendar for today which
includes two South Coast District items for dock replacements in Newport Beach.
Staff is not aware of any opposition to the administrative permits being
reported today and we are asking whether four or more commissioners object to the
issuance of these administrative permits. Thank you any ex partes. Any
public comments? One moment. No public comment. Thank you. Do four or more
commissioners object to any of the items in the administrative calendar? Seeing no
objections the Commission concurs. That brings us to those items removed from
the regular calendar to consent. There are no items for the consent
calendar so item seven is the items removed from the regular calendar to the
consent calendar. There are four items that we are recommending be moved from
those from the consent calendar and those include item 11 a CDP application
number five dash two five dash zero six two zero for Newport Marina in the City
of Newport Beach Orange County. Item 12 a consistency certification number CC
dash zero zero zero six dash two five or Newport Marina in the City of Newport
Beach Orange County. Item 14 a City of Carlsbad LCP amendment number LCP dash
6-CAR-26-0005-1, 2026 ADU update time extension only, and Item 15A, CDP application number
6-25-0505, San Diego Bay Fair Thunderboats Unlimited in the city of San Diego, San Diego
County.
On Item 15A, there is correspondence raising concerns about overuse of public parks and
based for entertainment purposes and the ongoing disturbance
of wildlife during these events.
Staff shared these concerns and are recommending conditions
to require an offsetting public benefits plan
to address conflicts with public use.
Further, the staff recommendation
includes requirements for monitoring
for adverse effects on wildlife.
That includes an adaptive response plan.
Since these issues are addressed by the staff recommendation
and the applicant is in agreement with the recommendation,
staff continues to recommend approval of the permit on consent regarding the
other matters to be moved to consent to the consent calendar today those
applicants are also in agreement with the staff recommendation and we are not
aware of any opposition thus the staff recommends that the Commission vote and
approve this item great thank you very much are there any ex partes any public
comments three individual is available for questions only
Great. Thank you. Move approval of consent agenda. Second. Thank you. That's a motion
by Commissioner Preciado, a second by Commissioner Kelly. Any objections to
unanimous consent? Seeing no objections, the items removed from the regular
calendar to consent are approved. And we'll move on to item 8 please. Can you
repeat who the motion was by? Commissioner Preciado, seconded by Kelly. Thank you.
And item 8 is the Deputy Director's report for the South Coast District, Orange County.
This report contains four waivers for residential projects in Seal Beach and San Clemente and
two CDP time extensions.
Staff is also reporting on an emergency CDP for shoring and steel plates to cover an unpermitted
excavation at 35555 Camino Capistrano in San Clemente.
A follow-up CDP will be required through the Commission.
This is just a report out and there is no action for the commission to take on this
emergency action.
We are asking whether three or more commissioners object to any of the waivers or time extensions
in the deputy director's report.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
None.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Item 9A please.
Thank you. So on item 9A, we have our analyst Vince Lee, who's going to do the staff presentation
on that matter. We do have a staff PowerPoint if you could bring that up. And then as soon
as you're ready, please begin. Thank you very much, Carl. Good morning, commissioners. Item
9A is the hearing for a local coastal program amendment by the city of Dana Point to modify
by various provisions of the city's certified IP
to reconcile the city's currently adopted
zoning regulations with the certified IP.
Since certification of the city's OCP,
the city adopted a number of zoning code amendments
to address topics such as historic preservation,
signage, landscaping, land uses, and development standards,
parking and access, non-conforming uses and structures,
definitions, and administrative procedures.
The city states that many of those amendments
were not submitted to the commission at that time
because the city considered them to be
unrelated to coastal resources.
However, because unsatisfied zoning code amendments
are not effective within the coastal zone,
unless certified as part of the LCP,
the city has prepared
this comprehensive reconciliation amendment
to bring the city's zoning code into alignment
with the certified LCP.
The proposed LCPA incorporates 18 previously
un-certified city ordinances
into one consolidated amendment package
to reconcile the city's current zoning code
as amended through 2019 with the certified IP.
The city's proposed amendment is largely a cleanup
of the certified IP intended to reconcile the city's
currently adopted zoning regulations
with the city's certified LCP.
The proposed amendment include clarifications
height measurement, revisions to accessory structure standards, adjustments to residential
and mixed-use development standards, new definitions supporting housing and land use regulations,
permit procedure updates, parking and access refinements, and regulation of special uses such
as wireless antennas, alcoholic beverage outlets, and allowable signage. In addition, several
chapters include updates to support state housing law implementation and the city's general plan
housing element. The majority of these changes are non-controversial, do not affect coastal
resources, and are consistent with the certified land use plan. Next slide. However, several
provisions require suggested modifications to ensure that the amended IP will continue to conform
with MP adequate to carry out the certified LUP as summarized on the slide here, such as adding
a definition and references for the term future-based flood elevation to ensure safety of new
development in flood prone areas, defining minor amendments to to CDPs and creating a process
consistent with the coast select, protecting public beach access parking lots and creating
different along allowances for minor expansions to non-confirming structures located in ocean front
and bluff top areas to ensure that non-conformities are corrected when an addition exceeds 10 of the
existing square footage. The city is in agreement with suggested modifications 1 through 11 with the
the exception of suggested modification seven.
Next slide.
So suggested modification seven changes the parking table
in section 9.35-08-O-E,
and the city had proposed to amend the table
to add a requirement that covered parking spaces
must be provided in a garage for duplexes
on lots less than 50 feet wide
and detached single family residences.
Because the parking table applies city-wide,
including the coastal zone,
of particular concern is the amendment's broad applicability and the effect of such
development in parts of the city, such as Beach Road, which are subject to coastal hazards
and requires special consideration. For context, the Commission has reviewed several applications
for new single-family homes and duplexes along Beach Road in recent years, and has made findings
regarding the hazards associated in closed garages and breakaway wall panels in the floats
lane area and the impacts to the coastal environment and the public beach and shoreline.
The Commission, through the NOVA permits upon appeal, has required that new development
along Beach Road provide a carport free of obstructions.
In lieu of a garage, includes breakaway wall panels to avoid safety hazards for the public
using the shoreline and to avoid significant cumulative marine debris caused by the repetitive
lost that will occur during storm events and high tides when the breakaway walls and garage
doors are exposed to wave action. These requirements have been consistent with
the current certified parking table. The current certified language does not include the term
garage for these development types and instead references covered stalls, which allows for
development of a carport along Beechwood but could allow for a garage in other areas of the city.
the suggested modification removes the city's proposal to add the term garage. This modification
is necessary for consistency with LEP policies that require development to be safe from hazards
and safe public access to the shoreline. The city submitted correspondence clarifying its plan
to amend the development standards specific for new structures along each road including the
allowances for carports and or garages as well as view corridors and safety from sea level rise as
as part of a separate LCP amendment by June of next year.
The commission staff supports that effort.
The city also requested to retain the term garage
in the residential parking table in section 935.08.0E
and add a footnote specifying that only covered stalls
would be required in coastal high hazard areas.
However, staff believes that incorporating
the city proposed footnote,
but introduce additional ambiguity into the IP
does not provide any requirement for a carport
and does not recommend incorporating this change
at this time because the city will be pursuing
an OCP amendment in the near future
to address these development standards.
And during that time, it can propose to provide
to include the term garage for all development types
that are not present along Beach Road.
Staff believes that maintaining the status quo
for this parking table in the subject amendment
allows time for the city to engage the local community
planning for a tailored and well-developed LCP amendment specific for beach rail development
standards as well as sea level rise and coastal hazards. A comment letter was also received from
the copies Toronto Bay district supporting the city's position. Staff would note that the
correspondence and staff report addendum responding in detail to the request are published for this
item on the website. The city also recommended several other edits to correct citations and
and numbering that staff has included
as additional suggested modification number 12
on the agenda.
Next slide, please.
In closing, staff believes that the proposed amendment
if modified as recommended will ensure
that the IP is in conformance with and adequate
to carry out provisions of the certified OUP.
Therefore, staff recommends that the commission
certify the LCP amendment request
with staff suggested modifications.
There are two motions to carry out staff's recommendation,
which can be found on page seven of the staff report
and this concludes staff presentation.
Great, thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
So I will turn to my colleagues
and ask if there are any ex partes.
Seeing no ex partes, I will open the public hearing
and turn it to you, Galen.
Okay, it looks like we have two members of the public
on Zoom, Jonathan Lightfoot and John Gabbard.
And Jonathan Lightfoot, you've been promoted to a panelist,
you should be able to unmute yourself and go ahead.
Thank you, sir.
And good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Commissioners.
Thank you for your time today.
My name is Jonathan Lightfoot.
I'm the Community Development Director
for the city of Danube Point.
Mr. Lightfoot, may I ask how much time
you need for your presentation?
Oh, probably two minutes is going to be sufficient.
Thank you.
Wonderful, thank you.
Please go ahead.
I just wanted to thank the
commission staff, including
Vin and Amber, for their time
in collaboration with us on the
city side over the last several
weeks, but really much longer
than that to get this LCPA to
the finish line.
As he mentioned, this is a
reconciliation effort to make
sure that our policies and
certified language in the IP
are aligned.
Toward the end of the process,
commission staff did recommend
a variety of new development
standards related to the vitro
that's an area of concern. After further discussion, we agreed to separate that newly
proposed language from this current effort. And we on the city side will be connecting
with that Beach Road District and commission staff to launch that new LCP effort. However,
as Vin has mentioned, one suggested modification number seven originated from concerns about
requiring garages on Beach Road. The commission has recently required covered parking such
road. I think that's why we
the city supports the term
covered parking instead of
garage for this neighborhood.
But that can be accomplished in
a more targeted fashion by
utilizing a footnote to
delineate the development in
the floodplain district
requires covered parking.
All allowing the city to
continue to implement the term
question. I did not think that
you could speak about this
recommendation, and they had
responded that they did not
think they could incorporate
that change absent a letter
from the Detroit district
representatives. Indicating
their understanding and
alignment. I was able to
obtain and provide that support
letter, which is in your
communication materials. So
simply my ask is that you
approve this item with a slight
alteration to suggested
modification number seven,
which would leave the term
garage in place for the non
but with a footnote caveat that addresses the term cover parking if I could just have 10
seconds to wrap up for the FP3 district which is that coastal high hazard area of the floodplain
overlay district. Thank you for helping us reach a reasonable solution on this one minor edit. We
look forward to continuing to working with your staff over the coming months to address the
particular nuances within that Beach Road community. Thank you. Thank you and we have
John Gabbard, please go ahead.
Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and commissioners.
Good to see you all again.
I'm John Gabbard.
I'm the mayor of Dana Point.
First, I wanna thank the commission staff
for the collaboration with our city staff
over the past several weeks.
We appreciate the time you've invested
in resolving the concerns of this amendment.
And we support through overall recommendations
before you today.
The city's request to change is very narrow.
We don't seek to alter the development standards
for Beach Road, and we're not asking the commission
to revisit the coastal hazard findings.
In fact, the city is committed to initiating
a separate LCP amendment process,
specifically focused on the beach road development standards
with public outreach, planning commission hearings,
city council consideration,
and subsequently are reviewed by this commission.
Our concern is that the suggested modification
extends far beyond beach road.
The staff's recommendation argues that retaining the garage
within the citywide parking tables
would create confusion in maintaining the term covered stalls
is necessary for beach road projects.
However, the practical result
is that the modified parking requirement
would apply citywide,
including residential neighborhoods
that are not in beach road,
not within the FP3 flood hazard area,
and in many cases, not within the coastal zone.
The city's proposed footnote is extended
and intended to avoid exactly that outcome.
Commission staff indicated that the term covered stalls
is not defined and we create an ambiguity.
Ironically, accepting the proposed modification
leaves us with that exact language.
I have no concerns replacing the term covered stall
with covered parking.
It seems to be a simple resolution.
The commission staff recommends tabling
this simple language change
to the upcoming Beach Road LCPA process.
However, that approach has great potential
for confusion and introduction
of a topic citywide parking standard
that otherwise would be very tailored to a discussion
around the standards pertaining to the beach road property.
The city's approach incorporating the covered parking
as a footnote and just have two more seconds.
Within the FP3 district directly achieves
the coastal staffs achieved sought achievement
in the first place, allow carport like structure
serving as covered parking in this neighborhood.
The footnote approach also preserves the council's.
Thank you.
That's the last speaker, Madam Chair.
OK.
Great.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will close the public hearing
and return to our staff.
Thank you through the chair.
So the letter we received from the city
We had originally used the term covered stalls, not the term covered parking.
We addressed that in our addendum.
We do believe that the community and the city as well as coastal staff need an opportunity
to work through that through a future LCP amendment to find which definition is most
appropriate to resolve the issues to the parking table.
We also believe that not incorporating the footnote at this time gives the city the option
to allow that LCP amendment to play through the local process as it's needed.
We are not recommending any change to our staff recommendation at this time.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will return to the commission.
Comments, questions or a motion?
I just want to say that I think the concept of having breakaway parking on Beach Road
is one that is important going forward as we're hearing.
I think the new term I heard at this hearing was the Godzilla El Nino that we're looking
at.
The Super El Nino, one of the headlines I saw today was Super El Nino is now super likely.
So in terms of process, it seems like the city and our staff agree on the outcome.
It's just how you get there.
And I'm glad to see that we agree on the outcome.
I will defer to staff that they can work collaboratively with the city because it seems like we're
all trying to get to the same place.
I'm happy to make the motion if people are ready. Okay. I moved that the
Commission reject implementation plan amendments LCP-5-DPT-22-0040-1 for the
City of Dana Point as submitted. Second. And I'm asking for a yes vote. Okay.
That's a motion by Commissioner Notoff, a second by Commissioner Wilson. They're
asking for a yes vote. Any objections to unanimous consent? Seeing none, the motion
carries. Second motion please. Okay I move that the Commission certify
implementation plan amendment number LCP-5-DPT-22-0040-1 if
modified as suggested in this staff report and I request a yes vote. Thank
you. That's a motion by Commissioner Notoff, a second by Commissioner Preciado.
They're asking for a yes vote any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none the motion carries. Thank you
We'll continue on to item
10 a please
Thank you chair Harmon and so on item 10a. There's also a staff our point if we could bring that up and Jeffrey palm with
Our Long Beach office is doing the staff presentation on that matter, so Jeff
These begin when you're ready
All right. Good morning, commissioners. Item 10A is the substantial issue hearing of an appeal of a local CDP approved by the City of Laguna Beach for implementation of a one-year pilot parking program along Coast Highway.
The applicant is the City of Laguna Beach, and the appellants are the Wood Cove's Owner's Association represented by Paul Merritt, Rex Claytor, and Brian Menney. Next slide, please.
The project site is along an approximately three mile stretch of Coast Highway between Ruby Street and 500 feet south of Vista del Sol, and extends up to 165 feet inland from the intersections between Coast Highway and 9th Streets outlined in blue on this slide in the city of Laguna Beach in Orange County.
Public access to the coast exists at six key access points in the project vicinity, including Treasure Island Beach, Aliso Beach, West Street Beach, and Thousand Steps Beach.
Next slide, please. The City Approved Project is described as a pilot program for one year
to implement parking regulations for public parking. The program would establish approximately
501 new delineated parking spaces along existing public streets where public parking is already
allowed by painting space boundaries on the existing asphalt as outlined in blue on this slide.
Of these, approximately 264 spaces will be designated as unmetered, free public parking,
and approximately 237 spaces will be designated as metered paid public parking for the one-year
program. In addition, approximately 79 existing metered paid public spaces within the project
area will be repainted and will continue to remain without modification. The city also
proposes to maintain existing vegetation within the public right-of-way by trimming overgrown
shrubs only where they currently impede public access. Parking time restrictions will be in
effect from 8 a.m to 7 p.m for the one-year pilot program. The project will establish a maximum
parking duration of five hours for both paid and unpaid spaces. Time limits will not be enforced
outside of these hours, so parking overnight will remain free. The project includes the installation
of 22 new parking pay stations throughout the project site, which will match existing pay
stations in Laguna Beach as shown on this slide. After the one-year term, the city can reevaluate
the effectiveness of the program, adjust the program if necessary, and approve a new permit
to establish the program on a more permanent basis. Next slide please. The appellant's
contentions include one, the city incorrectly found the project to be categorically exempt
under CEQA sections 15301 and 15304 and the project requires a full environmental impact report and or
or mitigated negative declaration.
Two, public participation, noticing, and local review
were deficient throughout the city's approval process.
Three, the project misuses public funds,
which should be directed towards alternative projects,
including but not limited to public amenities,
such as additional restrooms,
construction of a new parking garage,
and establishment of residential parking permits.
And four, the pilot parking program will result
in parking enforcement issues,
dangerous coast highway crossings,
ticket traps, and new parking impacts
in adjacent neighborhoods.
The grounds for an appeal require an allegation
that the development does not conform
to the standards set forth in the certified LCP
or the public access and recreation policies
of the Coastal Act.
The previously mentioned contentions
do not raise any relevant LCP
or Coastal Act consistency issues
that are not a valid ground for appeal.
The appellant's additionally contend
the pilot parking program violates a 2011 LCP amendment,
which prohibits the establishment
of preferential parking districts.
The pellets assert that the city approved
pilot parking program,
along with city parking permit programs
that exempt permit holders from meter fees
operates as a de facto restricted residential parking zone.
The city of Laguna Beach has some existing
parking permit programs,
such as the Laguna Beach shopper permit,
which may be purchased from the city by residents
to park at city meters for the posted amount of time
without additional payment.
programs such as these however are existing and the city did not approve any
new programs through this action that are subject to this appeal. The
installation of additional pay stations and delineation of parking spaces does
not constitute a preferential parking district. The preferential parking
district gives priority parking to residents with permits. In this case the
program does not offer priority parking to residents with a permit as they have
to abide by the same five-hour time limits as the general public and they
paying the fees by purchasing the permit ahead of time without paying an individual meter or pay
station. The residents who live on these streets will compete for parking spaces along with the
general public. Next slide please. The appellate's contend the project will negatively impact public
access which is protected by the Coastal Act. The appellate's also contend the program will result
in a loss of parking for residents and reduce the total number of spaces available in the area.
Currently, the Project Along Coast Highway provides unmarked free curbside parking as shown on this slide, except for a limited number of existing single space meters.
There are no time restrictions along the unmarked curb segments.
In some circumstances, converting free parking areas into paid parking near coastal access points could impede public access to the coast.
In this case, users would be charged a rate of $3.95 per hour between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. for a maximum of five hours while maintaining free, unrestricted overnight parking, and more than half of the spaces would remain free to the public.
As a result, members of the public would still have access to free parking in this location, and a proposed five-hour time restriction is designed to allow members of the public to access the coast while encouraging turnover.
Although approximately half of the spaces would be converted into metered paid parking,
the proposed rate provides a low-cost option for parking in close proximity to six coastal access
points. The proposed hourly rate is comparable to or lower than rates charged in nearby coastal
jurisdictions. Additionally, the city utilizes revenue from paid parking throughout the city
to fund the city's free trolley service, shown on the top right image on this slide,
which provides free transportation services to visitors and residents with connections to
adjacent low cost and free parking lots. According to the city, expenditures for
trolley services are increasing by approximately 4-5% annually, therefore additional revenue is
necessary in order to maintain the free services for both visitors and residents.
The appellants also contend the program will result in a loss of parking for residents and
reduce the total number of spaces available in the area by 63 spaces. However, the project area
currently contains unmarked curbside parking. The proposed project does not remove existing parking
within the project area, but rather establishes delineated parking spaces, and although there
could be a loss of unregulated parking spaces, the project would provide approximately 501 code
compliant parking spaces to improve safe access. As such, the proposal does not constitute a
reduction in the number of parking spaces, given the existing condition does not provide delineated
spaces. Finally, the Appellants contend the city did not demonstrate the project's compliance with
ADA requirements. Commission staff contacted city staff for additional information regarding the
city's analysis of dedicated accessible stalls. City staff clarified that there is no statutory
or regulatory requirement mandating standard public on-street parallel parking spaces to
feature dedicated accessible stalls pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act Title 24 of the
California Building Code or coastal commission guidelines. City staff explained that although
this particular project does not provide dedicated accessible stalls, the city maintains
off-street parking lots equipped with designated ADA compliant parking stalls and access points
such as Main Beach and Aliso Beach are equipped with accessible pathways for safe navigation to
the Sandy Beach and shoreline. Additionally, the city clarified that pursuant to California
vehicle section 22511.5 any individual displaying a valid state issued disabled person placard
or license plate is authorized to park for an unlimited period of time
and at no cost in any on-street meter space or parking stall which would apply to the subject
project. By establishing marked parking spaces throughout the project area parking safety and
accessibility will be improved. The proposed project does not change any existing conditions
related to ADA accessibility. The subject pilot program is authorized only for a period of one
year. Therefore, should the city find the program has any adverse impact on public access, the city
may reevaluate ways to improve access in the project area before implementing any permanent
solutions. As a result, the pilot parking program is intended to inform future management decisions
to maintain and improve access within and adjacent to the project area consistent with
with costal act sections 302.10 and 302.14.
Next slide, please.
In closing, staff concurs with the findings made by the city
and believes that the city provided adequate legal support
for its decision to approve the subject project.
Staff therefore recommends that the commission
find no substantial issue with regard to the contentions
on which the appeal has been filed.
The motion to accomplish this can be found
on page five of the staff report.
Staff would like to note that an addendum was posted
to the commission's website responding to correspondence
that was received after publication of the staff report.
The correspondence received is substantially the same
as the issues raised in the subject appeals
and the addendum provides responses
to additional contentions
regarding loss of public parking spaces.
Staff continue to recommend the commission
find no substantial issue.
This concludes the staff presentation
and staff is available for questions, thank you.
Great, thank you very much, Mr. Palm.
All right, are there any ex partes?
Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing
and I'll turn it over to you, Galen.
begin with the appellants, please.
You got it. We have two separate appellants.
First up, Brian Minnie and then Paul Merritt.
Brian Minnie, you've been promoted to a panelist.
You should be able to unmute and go ahead.
I am not getting a video. Okay, hold on a second.
Can you can you see me now?
Yes, sir.
Okay. The reason we've been appealed
and want you to find a substantial issue
is because we have 1000 steps access way has never had
or required an offsite parking lot planned
or provided since 1985.
Social media and city part marketing
has exploded the number of visitors
from 1 million to 7.5 millions in the last 41 years.
There simply are not enough spaces for what exists today
of 10,000 visitors per week to the 1000 steps
entry. I'm specifically speaking about thousand steps because we only have 79 spaces for 208 homes.
Nothing has been added in 41 years. The hospital lot the city is a city uses for a trolley parking
stop and it's 800 feet away. The city is required and coastal required to do off-site parking within
600 feet. This currently, the lot in the hospital is 800 feet. Therefore, there are no
public uses for parking spaces other than our neighborhood and 8th, 9th, and 10th Avenue.
The new signage, we need, therefore, public uses our neighborhood first before using this parking
lot that is 800 feet away. The new signage, we need new signage at the hospital and at the top
a thousand steps access way for free weekend holiday parking. We're not trying to stop this
project, we're just saying give open it up to substantial issue so we can get some conditions
added. The replacement parking is a mitigation is required by the Laguna Beach municipal code
on a one for one basis. If they're losing 51 spaces, 13 directly in our in front of our
neighborhood, those should be replaced on a one-to-one basis. On my appeal, I showed a mitigation
where you could pick up 45 spaces within a walking distance of a half mile to this beach.
The city never quantified the existing parking spaces as a baseline or the 51 spaces that were
lost to new parking uses. I asked that you find there is a substantial issue. We need a parking
permit for along with this pilot call it a pilot residential parking permit for
adjacent eighth ninth and tenth neighborhood because it's completely
untenable we can't deal with any more impacts next to us I'll turn it over to
Rex or Paul at this point thank you mr. many next we have Paul Merritt mr.
Merritt good afternoon can you hear me yes we can Oh thank you Paul Merritt and
And for Rex Plater, Mr. Claytor is disabled.
The short of his story is very interesting.
Mr. Claytor filed within three days
of the planning commission hearing a written objection
that was entered by the city clerk and time stamped.
The city refused and never processed in any regard,
Mr. Claytor's objections to the city,
which means that this hearing today is immature.
premature, excuse me.
Secondly, on my part, it's interesting to note
that the approximate 11 blocks from Victoria Beach
heading North on coast highway were penciled in
at the last minute without staff input
by a staff person who was then two weeks later terminated
by the city of Laguna Beach.
We find this highly suspicious and inappropriate
that a staff member can add coast highway information
at his desire as to where parking meters should
or should not be located.
Third, this is a huge project.
It's over 530 parking meters.
The city has created a guessing game
as to which meters will be free and which will not be free,
which will shove chaos into the local area
and restrict those visitors who come to the beach
and cannot afford the approximate extra $20 per day
to park their car or the regular access to the beach.
And fourth, you might find this very interesting
as far as a large issue.
we have contacts in Newport Beach and in Dana Point,
and they are indicating that at the Coastal Commission,
affirmatively, without a de novo hearing on this matter,
approves the Laguna Beach experimental parking
that they will then apply to put several hundred
new parking meters on their portion of Coast Highway.
So commissioners be forewarned, please,
that this opens the Pandora's box to parking meters
that residents, Claytor, Menna, and Merritt all object to.
And finally, the parking meters themselves
are inoperative as staff has determined that the apps
which link with a cell phone towers
will not reach the meters.
So even if the project is put in,
it creates a meter trap.
We hope you'll consider all of this
and give us an open and fair hearing
and correct Mr. Plater's oversight
where the city did not process.
Thank you, Mr. Merritt.
Thank you.
We have no public speakers,
a number of individuals from Laguna Beach
available for questions only.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
With that, I'll close the public hearing
and see if our staff would like to respond.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I have a few just really brief comments I'd like to make
and I'll defer to my colleagues in the room.
You heard some comments from Mr. Menon
regarding the reduction of spaces
or a sort of reduction of spaces.
I mentioned this briefly in my presentation,
but I just want to clarify.
Staff continued to believe that the project
would not resolve any reduction in spaces.
Again, the project is proposing to delineate
There was a number of spaces that you can look at.
And that number is consistent with the city's proposal.
And so although again,
there could be a reduction in unregulated parking spaces,
we need to look at the number of regulated spaces that can fit.
Throughout the project area as the baseline.
And there's no reduction from that number of legal delineated spaces.
In addition to that, I just wanted to mention.
In addition to that, I just wanted to mention that there were some comments from Mr. Merritt
as it relates to the city's processing of the local appeal.
The city is available online for questions, and I recommend deferring to the local government
regarding their local approval process and processing of any local appeals.
And then finally, I just want to mention there was a comment regarding a lack of cell phone
service in the project area that would prohibit the ability of members of the public and residents
to utilize the parking meters. I just want to clarify that those parking meters can accept
multiple payment forms, including cash, credit card, or mobile. So, if an individual didn't
have cell service at that individual time, there are multiple forms of payment that can
be accepted throughout the project area. Thank you, and I'll defer to the room for any additional
time.
Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Palm.
And if I could just add one additional point.
So one of the speakers mentioned the reason for seeking the appeal and asking for a finding
of substantial issue is desiring, at least if I understood his comments correctly, desiring
a permit parking program, which a permit parking program is actually prohibited, which is essentially
preferential parking district and that is
Banned in the LCP the only way to you couldn't change that through this action
The city would have to amend their LCP and then come back with the program
Which so I just want to point that out and that concludes my comments
Okay. Thank you very much with that. I will return to the Commission for comments questions or a motion
Okay vice your heart the question and then I'll make motion. I mean frankly this is kind of
There's a lot in the report and it's a little hard to
To the gist of what the opponents, but I think it in essence what they're saying is going to impact their parking
To their parking availability for their homes
Could you respond to that?
Yeah, yes. Thank you. Um, I think the concern is that
It does set a new five-hour time limit on
parking availability on some of the residential streets that is applicable to both homeowners and members of the public
Yeah, so I can understand their concern, but I feel that given that it's a one-year pilot program. I think the city
Should be aware and on top of that particular issue because certainly people have should have a right to park their house
So I don't see that as a coastal act issue but just something to note. So I'm
happy to make the motion at this time. Just one sec. Move the Commission
determine that appeal number A-5-LGB-26-0014 raises no
substantial issue with respect the grounds on which the appeal has been
filed under section 30603 of the coastal act and ask for a yes vote. Second and if
If I could speak to my second.
Please.
I mean, for me, just a reminder, parking in your neighborhood
is not your parking.
It is public parking, no matter where you live, typically.
Your parking is on your property.
And so that's how it is in most places, anyway.
So that's just the way I look at it.
And I agree with staff at this pilot project.
Thanks.
Thank you very much.
OK, that's a motion by Vice Chair Hart,
a second by Commissioner Wilson.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, no substantial issue has been found.
Thank you.
We'll continue on to item 11B.
Thank you, Chair Harmon and Willie Roonagi
with our Long Beach office, who's here next to me,
going to do the staff presentation. Good morning commissioners. The next the next item is 1111 b is
a coastal development permit 5 2 5 0 8 4 7 requested by the applicant Harmony Bridge LLC.
The subject site is located at 16 7 3 3 South Pacific Avenue in the Sunset Beach community of
the city of Huntington Beach Orange County. The city approved the project and concept on October 28
2025. The Sunset Beach area is no certified LCP since its 2011 annexation by the City of Huntington
Beach so the Commission is the permit issuing entity and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act is the
standard overview. Next slide please. The application involves a demolition of an
existing 18-foot high quadplex and its four-car garage on a 3,600 square foot beachfront lot
and the construction of two new single-family residents in its place each 30 feet high
with an attached ADU and two-guard car garage. The first unit of residents is approximately 2,260
square feet with a 432 square foot ADU. The second is approximately 4,993 square feet
with a 398 square foot ADU. Site preparation includes approximately 420 cubic yards of
over excavation. The project maintains four total residential units equal to the existing
quadplex and each replacement ADU is larger than the smallest unit it replaces. Staff's
recommendation includes special conditional one requiring a five foot seaward setback
at all levels. The applicant disagrees with this condition and instead proposes a five
foot setback at the ground floor only with a zero foot setback on the second and third
floors. Next slide please. The project site currently includes unpermitted encroachment
seaward of the property line, a wooden deck, fencing, brick hardscape, outdoor furniture,
and non-native vegetation.
Any non-exempt development in the coastal zone without a coastal development permit
is a violation of the Coastal Act, and that is the case here.
Next slide, please.
The applicant has agreed to remove all of these accroachments on the public beach as
part of this project, as seen on the slide.
The applicant has also submitted a final dune landscaping plan to restore native dune vegetation
on the site.
condition 5 requires full implementation of that plan. The site sits on a low-lying strip
between the Pacific Ocean and Huntington Harbor and is vulnerable to flooding from both directions.
Sunset Beach is among the most sensitive areas in the state to sea level rise.
Cosmo's modeling shows the wide sandy beach here will narrow significantly over the proposed home's
75-year life. The home itself will be relatively safe from the seaward side. The public beach,
however will shrink. Next slide please. As that beach continues to narrow, the public will be
pushed closer to private development and a clear boundary between public and private space becomes
more important. That is part of the basis for staff's recommendation of a five-foot seat setback
at all levels, including balconies under special condition one. The applicant disagrees and proposes
a five-foot setback at the ground floor with a zero-foot setback on the second and third floors
as seen here, go slack policies require that ocean front land suitable for recreational use
be protected for that use unless demand for it is already met elsewhere and require protection
of public access to the sandy beach. Without a clear line marking public land, the public tends
to keep its distance from private structures even where the sand itself is entirely public.
That reduces the usable public beach, a problem that will only worsen as sea level rises and the
beach narrows further. A five-foot setback at every level ensures the
practical boundary exists where the property line actually is, giving the
private resident space to function without infringing on the public
beach. Next slide please. The Commission first required a five-foot seaward
setback in Sunset Beach in 2018 and two permits, CDP 517-0678 and CDP 517-0680.
Because those were the first applications subject to this requirement,
The Commission granted a one-time exception permitting a zero-foot setback on the second and third floors and maintaining a five-foot setback on the ground floor
at the same hearing the Commission made findings that this exception would not be extended to future application and
applications in that a five-foot setback at all levels would be the guidance for beachfront development and such in sunset Beach going forward
The Commission also noted that five feet should be treated as a minimum
Not a fixed standard and that a greater setback may be warranted as the area's certified LCP is developed
Every Beachfront project and Sunset Beach approved since has been consistent with that standard as stated on this slide each CDP required or proposed
a five-foot seaward setback at all levels
The applicant disagrees with special condition one
But staff's recommendation remains consistent with the Coastal Act and established practice of a five-foot setback at all levels
Next slide, please
Since publication of the staff report staff received one letter from the applicant in opposite opposition to special condition one
These have been posted as correspondence on the Commission's website
There is an addendum responding to these comments and adding an exhibit to the staff report
The comments raised have been addressed in the staff report additionally
staff recommends approval of CDP application 5 to 5 0 8 4 7 with conditions the
Motion to adopt the staff recommendation is found on page 5 of the staff report
This concludes staff's present presentation staff is available for questions. Thank you
Great. Thank you. Mr. Unagi. I will turn. Okay ex parte
No, okay. Thank you. We'll get there. Appreciate it any expertise
Nope. Okay, then we're gonna open the public hearing and I'll turn it over to you Galen. Thank you
Please we have three individuals in the room. Looks like Kevin and Catherine Vung and
Then and ha
You guys can approach the podium, please?
Please come forward if you'd like to speak.
Kevin, boom.
You each will have two minutes, or it's
that you have a joint presentation.
Just come on up and let us know how much time you'd like.
Which is the online speaker's name?
Oh, you need all of the online speakers first?
Sure.
OK, we'll move to Zoom.
Give us just one second.
Okay, in the webinar, we're gonna start with Tom Assetta,
Anthony Ngo and Sean Wang.
So with Tom Assetta, we promoted you to panelists.
You should be able to unmute your microphone
and go ahead please.
Tom Assetta, okay.
We'll come back to you promoting Anthony Ngo.
All right, Anthony, you've been moved in as a panelist.
You should be able to unmute your mic and go ahead.
Hi, this is Anthony.
How are you guys doing today?
Please go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Go ahead.
Okay, so I live in Sunset Beach
for the last six years on the A side,
and I've noticed that the ficey setback
that was, you mentioned,
And I believe that it's possible if we could do the setback
and have the second third floor overrives on top of that,
or do you have to set the whole house back?
Please continue with your comment.
So my comment was to see if we could set back five feet
but the second third floor be pushed over
onto the property line,
because all the other houses are like that.
Thank you, sir.
answer questions directly in public comment if you'd like to continue you
have about a minute left or we can move on okay but my thing is that you know
Sunset Beach has always been like that so I would love that we could not have
the setback if possible that's it thank you next we have Shawn Wang Shawn's on a
phone you should be able to unmute. Hello, do you hear me? Yes we can. This is Sean
Waring. I want to support the project to design the second third floor over these
first floor software setbacks and hope that you can approve for the
second exception, because you have one exception from 18 or the other property to have the
same center floor or over the first floor, at least at that end. I believe address is
16351, South Pacific Avenue. So, that's pretty much.
Okay, Mr. Wang. We're going to try Tom Assetta again. Tom?
Hello.
Yes, please go ahead.
I've approved the plan, I've looked at it.
You walk over down the beach, there's very many properties that do have the overhang.
It doesn't make the house look like a box.
And this, this architecture is just a lot more beautiful property.
I mean, isn't that what we want in the city?
Or do you want big boxes?
That's just, that's my opinion.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
That's just, that's my opinion.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Asetta.
And then we have Francine Asetta.
Not sure if you're using another device.
So Francine Asetta, if you can raise your hand.
And then one last call for Victor Wu,
if you can raise your hand.
All right, seeing nothing, we'll move back to the room.
Looks like we have, I believe you
I wanted to go with Kevin Vung first,
and then Anne Hoth, the architect,
and then Catherine Vung.
So Kevin Vung, please go ahead.
Oh, I'm sorry, so we'll do Anne Hoth, is that correct?
Yes, we're at Hoth.
Okay, Anne Hoth.
Go ahead and tap the button.
Hello, yeah, how's it work?
Hi, everyone today.
Yeah, I draw all the way back to Oran County
to meet in person, you know, to share the story
about the design and then the missing, you know,
information about the project.
So first, you know, when we get the project in, right?
We, I'm design and follow the CD code
about the setback, all kinds of stuff.
And until we get approved, STEM,
and we send a project to costal to, you know,
one more check to put the project to public hearing.
And then now we find out, you know,
we need to have five feet set back all the way.
The rear set back from the buildings rear set back
all the way to, you know, all the way up.
So we lost five feet.
So the property is so small and, you know,
five feet time to entire the width of the building,
lost about 200 swifit and then time three story we all bought 1,000 swifit
and make the slotted calorie small first the water small second the world's
about you know the consistent with the neighbors so all the neighbor there
look look like all the house bill is on the five feet setback now we are in the
K so we it hurt our feeling because we from beginning we don't have any
info about five feet setback now the project push back all the way to you know all the way so the photo show
The project at the neighbor five feet setback from the first floor and in the second floor they put back
You know right on the property so couple
You know a reason to debate a project about maintain the beach and then maintain the the property
I don't think that is the key to make you know
meant it in the project just because five feet set back.
And the other thing is, you know, all the area is built.
That mean two thing affect the whoever, you know,
get to the area is whoever buy the property.
So let's say, you know, they already build five feet.
So mean, whoever get the new house
to get the five feet set back.
So they can, they trigger the new developer, you know,
concerned while we lost almost 1,000 square feet home.
So it's not a good way to make the city development by,
I don't know, for future.
So this is my concern.
So I think this is a loss where food and then the look
is not consistent.
Please finish your thoughts, sir.
Thank you.
All right.
And then, Mr. Pardon me, Mrs. Vong?
Yes, hi.
Good afternoon, the honorable commissioners.
My name is Catherine, and we are the Vaughan family.
Well, thank you so much for your dedication,
your precious time allowing us to speak today.
So we'd like to share with you that our appreciation
and our opposition to the staff informal request
of the five feet setback from the back of the property.
And it's a reason why we oppose it.
I asked the lady today, put on your desk,
the code of Huntington Beach, Sunset Beach building code.
As you can see there, we highlight in yellow, right?
You see on the beachfront building site,
three setback, none required.
So our architect follow the architectural plans,
all the code of the city and got approved and stamped.
We submit to the coastal commissioners
and we found out that the staff request informal condition
for the five feet setback.
So we would like to compromise.
The first floor, okay, five feet setback.
The second and the third, we would like it overhang.
It's still in our boundary properties
and they have balcony three feet
on the second or the third floor will compromise,
will allow us to do any maintenance, repair
that will not interfere or affect any
of the public's right of ways.
And so I think our plans are pretty much in compliance,
absolutely in compliance with the city code requirements.
And we respectfully request the honorable commission
Professionals override the staff in formal condition of five feet set back and this is our family home
We work hard for it. We're looking forward to build
Beautiful home and the neighbors absolutely would you know benefit from it?
We thank you so much for your time and your considerations. Thank you
Thank you. And then Kevin Vong
Hello everyone. This is our dream home in Sunshine Beach and
my project I believe
We've met all condition
informal or formal
a staff concern mainly about the
public right away, so
I'll explain that. The first floor we agreed to
Set back and at the five feet we maintain the first level
the second and third floor
We would like to overhang
And we also have a balcony that balcony serve
To maintain the second and third floor
so but those conditions I think is all met for a formal and informal I
want to come I want to after something about the negative of
five foot setback of the first floor
Reason number one, the first five feet,
because this is rich from property,
public can stay in my five feet of the property.
For example, I could sleep, we could sleep.
Next day we find someone person
in front of our five feet property.
Of course, as a homeowner, we don't like it, right?
It could be confrontations down the road, okay?
Down the road, that point will create
down the road problem for us, you know?
So this is the negative of requests
for five feet of the back of the first floor.
So I'd like the order commissioner,
please look into our concern and our request.
Even though we know that will be problem down the road,
I don't mind.
I want to solve it nicely with whoever at a specific time.
In conclusion, please look into our request.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Sorry.
Thank you, ma'am.
Your time is over.
Appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
With that, we will close the public.
Yeah, closing the public hearing.
Thank you.
Galen, is there another speaker?
We can go back to the ones that we couldn't find before that were online.
Okay.
Sure.
Let's see if we can find them.
All right.
I believe we're discussing Francine and Sada.
I'll promote her to a panelist.
Okay.
Francine, you should be rejoining as a panelist and you should be able to unmute yourself
and speak.
Francine and Sada, you've been promoted to a panelist.
If you can hear me, you should be able to unmute yourself and go ahead.
Does not appear that she's able to do so. Okay. Thank you very much for trying.
Appreciate it. No more speakers. With that we will close the public hearing and I'll
return to our staff for their response. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I will begin
the response and then Carl will add some additional comments. First, responding to
the comments regarding that the zero foot setback on the second and third
floors will have no impact on public right away. As discussed in the
presentation as the beach narrows with sea level rise upper four balconies
built to the property line will sit directly adjacent to an increasingly
increasingly limited public beach and that proximity crowds public use even
if the applicant never sets foot on the sand to maintain them responding to the
precedent of the the photo that they included it's regarding a project that
was passed in 2018, which was one of the first CDPs
passed with the five foot setback.
During that commission hearing, they discussed
and came to the decision that they would allow
a zero foot setback at the second and third floors
because it was the beginning of a new status quo
or standard in the area.
And ever since then, the precedent has maintained
that there's been a five foot setback at all levels.
And then finally to respond to the arguments claim that,
or to the applicants claim that
because the Sunset Beach specific plan
does not require a five foot setback,
that special condition one lacks a statutory basis.
The Sunset Beach specific plan is not a part
of the certified LCP of the city of Huntington Beach.
And in its absence, chapter three of the coastal act
is the standard of review.
And this five foot setback at all levels
derived directly from the public access policies of the coast coastal act and
as explained it is further supported by the recent precedent yeah if Carl has
any more additional comment thank you so with regard to the sunset beach
specific plan I'd just point out you know it is a fairly old plan and one of
the I mean one of the reasons it hasn't been recertified for Huntington Beach is
because of that. It needs to be updated and this setback issue was one of the major reasons
why it needs to be updated. It doesn't address sea level rise issues the way we do today.
So that's certainly one of the main concerns that needs to be addressed in the ultimate
update. There were some comments that this was a small property and doing this kind of
setback is a concern. I would point out this proposal on this lot, you have a 2,260 square
foot residence on part of the lot.
In addition, and this is the structure that we're talking about, it's nearly a 5,000
square foot structure that we're talking about.
So from our standpoint, we think there is some room there to accommodate this very minimal
five foot setback on all levels if they want the kind of articulation that they're seeking
for architectural appearance.
And then ultimately with this setback, yes, there are many structures that are developed
with the zero setback.
Our expectation is that with redevelopment over time, that all the structures will conform
to at least this minimum five foot setback.
There may be even larger setbacks in the future considered, but at this point, we're sticking
with five foot. So I think that's all I have. Thanks very much. Okay. Thank you. To everyone.
Appreciate it. With that, I'll return to the commission and I've got a list going here.
So I'll start with Commissioner Kalman, comments, questions. Thank you so much, Chair. A couple
questions for staff just to kind of clarify. The when Huntington Beach annexed Sunset Beach
from the county there was a large I think push to try to get the coastal
program certified. I think it really came down to what you mentioned but I think
also the encroachment issue was also a very large issue for multiple properties
down there which of which I believe this property is currently having an issue
with which will be remediated through this permit. I know I think the front
page of the Sunset Beach Pacific Plan actually states that this is not a
certified specific plan for coastal and that
staff city staff should have made the applicant well aware that
You're gonna have to go to and talk to the Coastal Commission in order to get the certified
to I think questions there is in the last draft the city presented for
Attempted certification which was would have been years ago and others similar
situations where you have
property sitting on the sand as opposed to having a concrete path or
Some sort of public road between this five foot setback that we're kind of attempting to do
It's pretty standard in your opinion. I
Think I mean, yeah in my opinion. Is that fairly standard? Yes
Whether or not the city actually incorporated that in drafts. I'm uncertain. It's been
Unfortunately a very long time since I've had a look at that
So then to the second and third floor setbacks understand the first floor you walk out
You're not walking on public property
You've got a little bit of and I think in the staff report
Discusses that but if you just go a little bit more detail under the second and third floor assuming that the second floor setback
Would start at probably 10 or 12 feet
If there was zero setback for the second third floor, there would be 10 feet above that 5 foot
so if you go a little more detail as to how that helps public access and
Futurist level rise just to kind of help folks at home understand. Yeah. Thank you for that question. So in
several
Commission adopted staff reports and findings there have been findings that talk about how important it is for maintaining a property
So at the second and third level if there's a zero
but setback when you go to wash your windows or repaint your home things like that you
are in a position where you have to encroach into a public space in order to
Repair and maintain your home. And so that's also another concern. We have with the zero foot setback on the upper floors
So have a scaffolding having scaffolding up for three months or something
If you're doing a major repair, you have a leak in your window
You're now sitting that scaffolding in the public right away
Yeah, I would also add that is the as the beach narrows
public is not very likely to walk right in front of a home with
With the balcony right above when that is actually public public property
So having a little bit of a buffer allows the public to actually enjoy all of the public beach
Even if it's 10 feet above right, okay. Yeah, and I think to note too that this is a very large
Two large buildings I should say
That for replacing something on small and it is on a corner, right? So there is also
A street that runs parallel to this. So
Yeah, I mean I think that it's kind of an unfortunate circumstance that I need to be still hasn't certified this and so we still
end up with
kind of some ambiguity, but I think that
staff has really laid out a history of
Conditions that this is not capricious
This is definitely something that there's a history of made a determination and this is kind of what we're doing going forward
And there's examples several examples of other properties that have been asked to meet these these setbacks
So I think that this you know, it's contemplating like well
What if we did, you know balconies in the setback I think but I think stuff laid out
I think perfectly that if you have to do maintenance and you're gonna require an encroachment
And it's not just an encroachment like on a street for a little bit or on a sidewalk
It's encroachment into the coastal into coastal resources. So which are the questions I had. Thank you
Thank you very much. Commissioner Presiado
Yeah, my questions are very similar and and so I while I appreciate that during
window washing or even a small
improvement, I'm still
wrestling with the loss of public space from a
overhang and so
Can you walk me through the engineering here? How does the public
Do they walk 20 feet high and knock into this thing or?
No, I said just to reiterate if you're walking on the beach and you get relatively close to someone's home
then
You are not likely to walk right next to their home, right?
And if the home is hanging to the zero-foot setback, even if it's above yes
You're not walking 10 20 feet up
But you're not going to walk right up to that home when it extends that far because it's clear that that's where it's extending
so the Commission has made findings in the past that have
Withstood legal challenge about the importance of having some
Some distance between the edge of a home and the beginning of public access on a beach so that the public does have actually
Use that the entire area to which they're entitled
So just to clarify because I see that we have in the public beach side of this property
We're putting we're requiring them to remove
any
Shall we say what is existing there that is in the public beach?
And we're requiring
more shall we say
indigenous plants or indigenous to the area and that kind of thing. So I'm just trying to figure out
should they not be required to do anything on the public beach side since it's Huntington Beach city
responsibility or ours. I'm trying to
understand both where they have responsibility on the beach and then they are encroaching on the beach if they have an overhang. So
which is it?
Do they are they in the beach and
Is it a public beach that they're at being asked to improve because they're the new owners of the property or?
Is it the public beach that maybe a state agency should improve since it's the public beach?
Yes, thank you for that question. So
There is a public beach and it is
Public space that was previously developed. I guess by a prior property owner with decks and
Some encroachments that was done without the benefit of a coastal development permit
We would not have permitted on any decks to extend beyond the property line to go into a public beach area
That that is for the sole purpose of public access
In response to that, this applicant has proposed to remove those elements and we are encouraged
that they're doing that.
We ask them to propose a landscaping plan.
So the native landscaping plan will include species that are appropriate for a beach dune
type habitat, which is consistent with this area.
to note that they are effectively remediating a violation and so that's
why it's coming from these current applicants because there is a violation
and the need is to restore the beach to the way it should have been in in the
absence of that violation. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Wilson. A couple
things. One is I concur with staffs recommendation based on the history of
of the site and the whole area.
I feel like just because you have other non-conforming
structures in the area doesn't mean your new structure
has entitlement to non-conform.
I think that's something we have to be aware of,
because it's about a trajectory.
And I want to speak to the overhanging part
of this discussion.
And when we design sidewalks, typically,
unless you have a six foot sidewalk in this,
I'm just talking about access and where people walk.
You might not have a setback for a building or a structure,
but when you have something that is a little bit less than that,
you set things back because you want
people to feel comfortable in the space
that they're walking through.
Typically, we call that the shy zone.
And so because people are shy to walk up
against a building or an overhang,
And the overhang, if the overhang is coming to the property line, it will affect whether
or not people feel comfortable in approaching that space.
Especially if people are on balconies and looking over the balconies and having activities,
that is a conflict zone from a comfort level for the public.
So from my perspective, these are minimal setbacks.
I would prefer bigger setbacks than this in general
if you're trying to account for that.
But I want to also just go to the part
about what it is existing and what's being proposed.
And right now, there's about 2,000 square feet
of livable space.
And what is being proposed is about 8,000 square feet
of livable space being built.
So I don't, the idea that there's a significant amount
of loss that would occur in terms of the setback,
I don't think, from my perspective, it's not significant.
I mean, I get square foot value
in these very high value locations,
but what's happening is the replacement
of four 1,000 square foot units with two units.
One is, I think 5,000, well, 4,900 square feet.
The other one's 22, a bit more than that.
And then a couple of pretty small ADUs.
So it's a pretty functional shift.
But again, it's a pretty significant
in square footage improvement.
And from my perspective, I think if the applicant
wants to have more architectural layers to that,
there's room for them to do that within the parameters
that the staff has put forward.
And so for that reason, I support the staff's
recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
Just made this statement that I was going to make.
And I just want to thank the staff.
I thought that was a very thorough discussion of the issue
and why this is important.
So I support staff on this.
Commissioner Kelly, I just want to echo those comments as well. Thank you
Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Jackson
Thank you. I appreciate the discussion because I was with Jose a couple minutes ago in terms of not fully understanding
the extent
My own ignorance so
My my friend Commissioner Kelly clarified for me
But just to make sure I'm clear in the end to articulate this at the end of the day
What the applicant is proposing?
would
include an overhang
That extends over the public space
No, no, it would extend to the very edge of their please be quiet. Okay, it's their property line
Yeah
It's the property line between public Beach and their private property
property line between the public beach and their property.
Okay, so back to the sidewalk example that Commissioner Wilson discussed.
All right, if I'm walking down the sidewalk, there's a setback.
My house.
It's a setback and I've got a balcony.
All that is on my property.
My balcony and everything, but there are some homes that have a balcony that extend
And over the setback, it's still on that said property does not extend into the sidewalk.
That's not what they're proposing.
Is that what they're asking?
That is what they're proposing and what the staff recommendation would be to pull all
floors of the house back five feet.
Set back from the public beach.
Okay, so if the first floor is set back and the other floors are not, if they're staggered,
but do not extend into the public space, then what am I missing?
I think that goes, it goes to the sort of the shy zone to borrow Commissioner Wilson's
terminology. And it's especially important when there is not a sidewalk because at
least when there's a sidewalk you know sort of the edge of the sidewalk and
even when there are sidewalks many jurisdictions require a setback so that
the public doesn't feel like they're walking right you know on someone's
property. I think when it's public beach it's even more important because there's
a less clear delineation and I mean they could put if they got a permit put a
offense up to something unobtrusive to delineation but you're still unlikely
to right walk right up next to someone the edge of someone's home even when
the it's the balcony that's on the property line because it's and as the
beach narrows there's going to be less beach and so you are effectively
narrowing it further on on the private property side by making it a space that
the public is unwilling to enter. If I may through the chair, one thing that
Commissioner Jackson, there's that part of it, but there's also what was
brought up before which is the maintenance part. So if your balcony is
up to the property line and these are fairly corrosive environments, right, and
you have to replace windows or whatever those things are, then you have to like
get ladders or scaffolding or whatever that is, and that will be in the public
right away? I understand that. That happens everywhere. Anywhere where
property is a butt public space, there are permits that are required to put
scaffolding in. Right. And what I'm saying is, in we don't, just saying as a
planner, you're moving towards conformance to something that doesn't
require those permits, doesn't have to require the city to go through those
processes, just simplifies everything when you have the appropriate
setbacks to be able to do that maintenance work and not have to make
those adjustments every time. And again I think what was said here before was
also this is a beach not a sidewalk. Like we're protecting
Something different than the in typical space. I saw I'm sorry to sort of like have a back-and-forth
No, no, no, I appreciate it to do the chair. You know you and I were
Thank you madam chair for your indulgence
Okay, thank you. All right
Vice chair heart
I move the Commission approved coastal development permit application five dash twenty five dash zero eight four seven subject to the condition set forth in the
staff recommendation I'm asking for a yes vote. Second. That's a motion by Vice
Chair Hart, a second by Commissioner Kelly. May we have a roll call vote, please.
Sorry Chris has stepped away, I'm calling him right now. I can call the roll if
needed. Thank you Miss Warren. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Jackson Jackson yes Commissioner Kelly yes Kelly yes
Commissioner Presiado Presiado no Commissioner not off I not off yes
Commissioner Hart yes Hart yes Commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes
Commissioner Kalmick yes Kalmick yes chair Harman yes Harman yes the vote is
eight yes one no thank you hey thank you very much thank you okay with that we
will break for lunch if everyone could please be back at 110 commissioners
were eating here thank you thank you everyone hope you had a good lunch we
We will continue on with the next item on our agenda.
That's item 13, the deputy director's report for the San Diego Coast District.
Mr. Schilling.
Thank you.
So I'll start by reporting an emergency action by the City of Carlsbad to repair a damaged
sewer line adjacent to Agua Haryanda Lagoon.
Follow-up actions by the city will be determined at a later date on that item.
The second item to report is the city of Oceanside's completion of adoption of the LCP Amendment
with suggested modifications related to their density in their downtown area.
Executive directors determined that action is legally adequate and certification could
be completed at this time.
And last, we're reporting six waivers for projects in Solana Beach in San Diego.
CDP amendment for a condo conversion in San Diego
There's no known opposition and we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to the waivers or the amendment in the report
Thank you. Any ex partes
seeing none any
public comments
Available for questions only great. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no objection the Commission concurs. Thank you
Thank you, so that takes us to item 14 B and this is the city of San Diego's LCP amendment
On their DNS a natural plan and Alex you're on D with our San Diego Coast District offices
Going to do the staff presentation on that
We've got a staff's PowerPoint if we could bring that up and Alex, please start when you're ready. Thanks. Thanks
Good day commissioners before we begin
Staff would like to thank the City of San Diego for the tremendous amount of work and collaboration that has gone into the D'Anza natural planning effort
This amendment reflects years of public engagement and planning. The City's proposed plans lay out an ambitious blueprint for storing wetlands, improving water quality,
expanding public recreation, and providing lower-cost visitor accommodations, with the overall goal of making D'Anza COVID to a more resilient,
ecologically rich, and publicly accessible part of Mission Bay Park.
Next slide, please.
The De Anza Natural Land Use Plan would amend the Mission Bay Park Master Plan, which serves
as the LUP for the Mission Bay Park segment of the City and was first certified in 1994.
However, the City has not obtained full certification of the park to incorporate it into its certified
LCP, and Mission Bay Park remains an area deferred certification under the Coastal Commission's
permitting jurisdiction.
Commission staff is recommending denial of the LUP amendment as submitted and approval
as modified by staff.
We want to underscore at the outset that staff is not recommending any fundamental changes
to the plan's vision, goals, land use designations, or the major projects contemplated.
The core elements of the city's proposal, the Habitat Restoration Framework, the expansion
of wetlands, the reconfiguration of lower cost overnight accommodation, the active recreation
facilities, and the Nature Center remain fully intact.
Instead, the suggested modifications are focused on ensuring that as this long-term vision
moves into future project level implementation, it does so with clear and forcible safeguards
that meet the requirements of the Coastal Act.
The modifications do not alter what the City proposes to build.
They clarify how future phases must be studied, designed, and permitted to ensure protection
of sensitive habitats, water quality, public access, cultural resources, and resilience
to seal the rise.
Mission Bay Park is a regional park in the City of San Diego covering approximately seven
square miles of aquatic and land recreation, attracting over 15 million visitors every
year.
The subject LCPA addresses approximately 505 acres in the northeastern portion of Mission
Bay Park, known as the De Anza planning area.
The area covered by the proposed amendment, noted in red, is the Greater De Anza Cove
area at the northeast corner of Mission Bay Park, bifurcated by the north-south flowing
Rose Creek.
To the west of the community of Pacific Beach and to the east outside the coastal zone is
the community of Claremont. Next slide please. Currently the project area encompasses from
west to east and north to south, the Kendall Frost Marsh Reserve Northern Wildlife Preserve,
Camp Land on the Bay, the Civic Beach Tennis Club, McAvoy Athletic Fields, Mission Bay
Golf Course, public parking lots and grassy fields, vacated lots of former mobile home
park, the Mission Bay RV Resort, and open water recreational areas. Next slide please.
The current Mission Bay Park Master Plan designates the 76 acres located on the De Anza
Peninsula in the heart of the project as the De Anza Special Study Area, a flexible planning
area in which a number of potential uses, both public and private, can be accommodated
under varying intensities and configurations.
The existing Mission Bay Park Master Plan's recommendations for the Special Study Area
consist of developing overnight accommodations, facilitating hydrologic improvements to safeguard
habitat quality, avoiding development detrimental to future adjacent habitat areas, and enhancement
of public use, especially along the waterfront.
Regarding the RV facilities, the current master plan recommends the overnight RV facility
should remain a part of the use matrix for the area.
Next slide, please.
The proposed amendment will replace the existing Diansa Special Study Area framework with a
new framework identified as Diansa Natural.
This slide shows that general land uses proposed for the De Anza area overlaid on an aerial
photograph of the existing area.
The camp land leasehold in adjacent open waters would be converted into salt marsh and mud
pan, while the peninsula east of Rose Creek would be reconfigured into a larger overnight
accommodation leasehold, new water channels, and recreational wetlands and uplands.
The proposed amendment includes recommendations to establish an interpretive nature center,
expand natural habitat, improve water quality through grading, channelization, and preserve
or expand lower cost recreational overnight accommodations.
Mission Bay and Rose Creek are federally listed impacted bodies of water and water quality
on the eastern side of Missionary Park is generally worse than the western half due
to muted title action.
To achieve the plan's goals of habitat restoration and water quality improvements, the amendment
contemplates substantial grading, dredging, filling, and landform modifications throughout
the planning area.
It is important to note that future projects envision dredging and filling of approximately
102 acres of shoreline and open water area to create wetland habitat, upland habitat,
navigation, swimming areas, eelgrass mitigation areas and associated shoreline features.
This would permanently impact the functional eelgrass habitat currently present along the
bay bottom and the open water segment of the project area.
Furthermore, the amendment includes a proposal to bifurcate the Anza Peninsula with two open
water channels to divert some of Rose Creek's flow through the Anza and onto Mission Bay
in the hopes of improving flushing in the cove and nourishing future recreational wetlands
at the tip of the peninsula. Next slide, please.
The amendment identifies recreational vehicle camping as a primary low-cost visitor serving
use in the project area and allows associated support facilities including internal roadways,
parking areas, markets and restaurants, laundry facilities, recreational amenities, pools,
open space areas, and public serving improvements. To facilitate the shifting of overnight accommodation
facilities due to the eventual conversion of the existing campground on the bay leasehold
west of Rose Creek to wetlands.
The amendment would expand the designated RV area on De Anza Peninsula currently serving
the Mission Bay RV Resort from its current approximately 30 acres to almost 50 acres.
While this would still represent a reduction from the approximately 75 acres providing
overnight RV and tent camping currently existing between the two leaseholds, it is the result
of balancing the various public recreational uses within the smaller development footprint
arising from the increased habitat area.
Development criteria require public shoreline access, publicly accessible multi-use pathways,
and public amenities throughout the low-cost visitor serving area.
The overall goals and policies of the De Anza Natural Amendment to the Mission Bay Park
Master Plan to maintain low-cost open space recreational uses, maintain low-cost overnight
accommodation, span habitat acreage, and improve water quality align closely to the goals and
policies of the Coastal Act.
However, after review of the amendment as proposed, Commission staff identified several
key areas where clear, enforceable language is needed to ensure that when the project-specific
components of this amendment come forward for CDPs, the applicable legal and scientific
thresholds that must be met to comply with the Coastal Act are clearly communicated.
I like to walk through the major areas where staff is recommending suggested modifications.
The City has raised concern about many of these areas, so I want to take a moment to
to explain why these categories of modifications are needed
and provide brief examples.
Next slide, please.
The De Anza Amendment, it proposes
extensive habitat creation and restoration,
including the conversion of existing open water
eelgrass areas and the creation of over 100 acres
of new wetlands.
Staff strongly supports this,
but because the changes affect functioning resources,
the plan needs clear policy direction
to ensure that project level proposals
avoid or minimize impacts and use methods
supported by current science.
Suggested modifications include clear limits
on habitat conversion and mitigation credit,
requirements for adequate setbacks,
buffers, and lighting to limit spillover impacts,
limitations on permitted uses in wetlands,
and performance standards and monitoring
of restoration projects.
Next slide.
Mission Bay is a popular destination
for swimming and other water contact activities.
The plan proposes significant dredging,
filling, and shoreline reshaping
and new tidal channels intended to improve circulation
and nourish wetlands.
Because feasibility studies have not yet been completed,
it is essential that future development
incorporate clear requirements for water quality protection
consistent with sections 302.30
and 302.31 of the Coastal Act.
Thus, suggested modifications require studies demonstrating
that the creation of any proposed tidal channel
will improve water quality,
that water quality monitoring be performed
and low impact design measures be implemented.
In addition, commission staff is making one minor change to suggested modification number
26.
At the suggestion of the San Diego Bird Alliance, staff is adding a prohibition on the use of
artificial turf in future development.
Thus suggested modification number 26 shall say uses of shredded tires or synthetic rubber
or artificial turf shall be prohibited.
Next slide, please.
The plan proposes major earthwork over an area with known cultural sensitivity.
Staff suggested modifications simply embed consultation and protection requirements that
align with Coastal Act section 30244 and reflect the requirements the Commission has approved
for other San Diego land use plans including Barrio Logan and Mira Mesa.
Finally, staff is recommending changes to convert certain advisory policies into mandatory
ones.
In many places, the amendment uses language like should, encourage, or may, even as sections
addressing sensitive habitat, water quality, and sea level rise adaptation. A land use
plan is not just a conceptual planning document. It is part of the certified local coastal
program and operates as a regulatory standard under the Coastal Act. Because of this, LUP
policies must be clear, enforceable, and directive wherever Chapter 3 requires a specific outcome.
Advisory language cannot ensure protection of wetlands, Esha, water quality, or cultural
The city suggested that compulsory language is unnecessary because its land development
code already contains mandatory standards.
However, the implementation plan must implement the LEP, not the other way around, and the
Commission has consistently required mandatory language in LEPs, both because Chapter 3
requires enforceable policy direction and because IP must directly implement the LEP.
suggested modifications replace advisory language mandatory shall or enforceability is necessary
to carry out the Coastal Act. These edits do not change any of the city's proposed land
uses or the physical components of the D'Anza natural plan. They simply ensure the long-term
vision for D'Anza is implemented in a way that meets the legal standards of the Coastal
Act. These categories reflect the types of policy adjustment staff is recommending. The
specific modification language is available if commissioners would like to discuss any
of them in detail. The Commissions, Ecologists, and Water Quality Expert are also available
to answer questions. Next slide. In conclusion, staff is recommending that the Coastal Commission
reject or propose the answer natural LUP amendment as submitted by the City of San Diego and
approve the LUP amendment as modified by staff. The motions and resolutions can be found beginning
on page six of the staff report. There is an addendum to the staff report that responds
to City's comments. This concludes the presentation.
Great. Thank you very much. I will turn to my colleagues. Are there any ex partes?
Commissioner Malley, thank you chair. Yesterday. I received an email from sir Andrew Meyer from rewild and the San Diego
for
Sorry, got what they're called now
Well, what was formerly Audubon society my bad. Anyway, I can be a good bird alliance. Thank you
I did not have a chance to this is the letter that was we've all received today
I didn't have a chance to review the email so but I did glance at it when it was in it also
So it's on the record that can I forward it to executive staff? Thank you
mission press Yata
It's kind of an ex parte. I met with a
Representative of the mayor. I indicated a few weeks ago how important it was to
See this on the future agenda
Which I communicated to Kate and I guess that's the extent of my ex parte
Great. Thank you very much with that. We'll open the public hearing and I will turn to our staff
We'll begin with the local government
Representative we have the applicant. Oh
Sorry Kelly stanko
Hello. Good afternoon. I'm Kelly stanko
I'm the deputy director of the climate preservation of public spaces division the city planning department and I am pleased to be here before you today
to present the DeAnza Natural Amendment
to Mission Bay Park Master Plan.
Ma'am, could I ask you quickly,
before you begin, how much time will you need?
I was just going to say, I have about nine minutes
from my presentation, a little less.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you so much.
Next slide, please.
DeAnza Cove is located at the northeast corner
of Mission Bay Park, a highly engineered aquatic park
developed approximately 75 years ago,
and is comprised of approximately 314 acres of land
and 191 acres of open water.
De Anza is currently home to recreation uses
enjoyed by 200,000 users annually,
as well as parkland, low-cost visitor accommodations,
and sensitive habitat.
A variety of recreation groups,
visitor-serving businesses,
and community-serving organizations
operate out of De Anza Cove,
serving community members and visitors alike.
The City of San Diego shares the concern and commitment
of the California Coastal Commission and its staff
to ensuring public access to the coast,
protecting, enhancing, and restoring wetlands
other sensitive habitats and protecting and improving water quality through storm water
management and habitat restoration. Danza was developed with these and other goals in mind,
including expanding wetlands, creating an iconic recreation destination, serving a broad range of
users, and providing a mix of uses that provides sustainable revenue generating lease holds to
support the park. Over the course of the eight-year planning effort, the city participated in over two
dozen workshops and public hearings and conducted online engagement through surveys and information
sharing. The adopted plan reflects the carefully negotiated balance of uses that will serve San
Diego for decades to come. Next slide, please. D'Anza Natural, as unanimously adopted by the
San Diego City Council, plans for improved community-serving recreational opportunities
that maintains active recreation acreage and offers community-based recreational facilities
for our growing population. New low-cost visitor accommodations, providing access to affordable
overnight accommodations camping boating and nature across 48 and a half acres and over 260
acres of habitat including over 140 acres of new wetlands that will provide new habitat improve
water quality and further the city's climate action and climate resilience goals. Next slide please.
We appreciate our collaborative working relationship with Coastal Commission staff
and have come to an agreement on a number of items and proposed modifications.
Other suggested modifications are not preferred by the City and in some instances
we find are unnecessary but in the interest of collaboration the City is not opposed.
Lastly, there remain some proposed modifications that the City opposes and cannot support.
These items are addressed in detail in the City's written response and I want to touch
on some of the key items in this presentation. First is prematurely excluding options that
merit further evaluation and public discussion. Key among these is the realignment of the
the pedestrian and bicycle pathway.
De Anza Natural is a plan with many goals and objectives,
and a key one is improving mobility connections
as well as safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
Precluding any and all impacts to wetlands,
regardless of mitigation options
and overall net crease in wetlands,
effectively eliminates the city's ability
to improve pedestrian and cyclist access and safety
in this area of the park.
The city opposes language that would prohibit impacts
to wetlands to facilitate mobility improvements
without future analysis of options, impacts, and benefits.
Second is excessive sea level rise requirements at this early planning stage.
Dansa Natural has been proactively planned to site improvements that are more permanent in nature
such as the more significant low cost visitor accommodation infrastructure and nature center
out of areas of anticipated sea level rise based on best available science.
Requiring these more permanent structures to be designed for disassembly
when they have been planned with sea level rise in mind is excessive and unnecessary
and the city opposes such language. Additionally requiring the entire southern portion of the low
cost visitor accommodations to facilitate marsh migration at this early planning stage
prior to development of the general development plan and further public outreach dramatically
impacts the provision of low cost visitor accommodations at the coast without a thoughtful
analysis of options and alternatives. Lastly, the city opposes the repetition of regulatory
requirements found in federal, state, and local laws and permits, as well as the use of compulsory
language and a long-range planning document, which I will address in greater detail in the
next slides. The city also opposes inclusion of regulations and mitigation standards that
conflict with the city's existing certified environmental regulations and guidelines.
Next slide, please. The Mission Bay Park Master Plan is a long range planning document
that provides a vision and policy framework for future planning and implementation over
a 20 to 30 year horizon. A long range planning document such as the Mission Bay Park Master
Plan identifies land uses, balances needs, in this case, recreation habitat and public
access and provides policy direction for future implementation.
As a long-range park planning document, implementation of DNS and natural will be followed by a
general development plan process, which involves extensive public outreach, development of
technical studies, and engagement with state and federal agency partners to refine uses
and identify improvements at a more granular level.
This is then followed by development of construction documents and obtaining permits from all local,
state, and federal agencies.
A long-range planning document such as the Mission Bay Park Master Plan does not finalize
the project design, include technical studies or permitting, which will occur during and
after the general development plan process, include regulations or compulsory language,
end public participation in the future of De Anza Co., or end federal and state agency
review and permitting.
Next slide please.
While it may seem beneficial at best and innocuous at worst to replicate regulations and requirements
that originate in other documents. Unnecessary repetition of regulatory requirements and
policy documents has a variety of downsides. First, as noted on the previous slide, a long-range
planning document establishes a vision and policies that support that vision. The policies
are then implemented through implementing regulations and permitting. A long-range
planning document is not regulatory in nature and therefore the use of the regulatory language is
not appropriate. The City's Land Development Code, which is also certified by the Coastal
Commission is supposed to and does implement the policies in this plan.
Incorporating regulatory language into a land use plan sets up conflict with existing certified
regulations and possible future changes to local, state, and federal regulations
in response to evolving needs, updated science, and improved best practices.
It can also result in unnecessary regulatory complexity, confusion, delays, costly litigation,
and undesirable outcomes.
Additionally, incorporating regulatory language
which may be superseded by future federal, state,
or local regulatory changes necessitates unnecessary
future land use plan amendments which are costly
and an inefficient use
of highly limited governmental resources.
Lastly, it is simply unnecessary.
As implementation of deans and natural
in any other land use plan is required to comply
with all applicable laws and master permits in effect
at the time of application.
Next slide, please.
The slide illustrates how the Mission Bay Park master plan and the NEANSA natural amendment
is implemented.
Again, the master plan provides that vision and policy framework.
That is then refined through the general development plan process, which includes site planning,
technical studies and environmental review.
The general development plan is followed by development of the city's capital improvement
program, which identifies projects for design and construction based on factors such as
need, benefit and funding availability.
Since the CIP is initiated, the city moves into project-level review and permitting,
including detailed technical studies, construction documents, environmental review, as well as
local, state, and federal permitting.
That is then followed by construction and post-construction operations and adaptive
management.
All of this occurs under the umbrella of federal, state, and local laws and permitting, including
the regulations, agencies, and permits shown on the right.
Next slide, please.
To conclude, DeAnza Natural reflects years of planning, stakeholder engagement, and collaboration
between highly varied stakeholders and users.
The plan represents a careful and thoughtful balance between habitat restoration, climate
resilience, recreation, public access, and low-cost visitor accommodations, and will
serve community members and visitors for decades to come.
Certification of the Master Plan Amendment allows the project to advance into future
project design, technical studies, permitting, and continued public participation, and allows
city to hopefully take advantage of significant funding opportunities that are currently available.
The city remains committed to working collaboratively with the Coastal Commission staff to implement a
resilient, publicly accessible, and environmentally responsible future for De Anza and respectfully
request certification of the De Anza Natural Amendment with only the proposed modifications
supported by the city. Thank you very much, this concludes my presentation. Okay, thank you very
much. We have Angela Dang available for questions and then we have
Council President Joe LaCava to speak. Joe LaCava you've been moved in you
should be able to unmute yourself and hope sorry about just one moment. Alright
Mr. LaCava.
There we go.
All right.
Thank you.
Chair Harmon, commissioners and staff,
I'm City Council President Joe LaCava.
And I have the honor of representing District 1
and the portion of Mission Bay.
As I look back at my time as a council member,
the Council's unanimous passage of the Dans and Natural Plan
stands out as one of my and the city's
more significant achievements.
The addition of 440 acres of wood new wetlands,
enhancing existing habitat makes the De Anza Natural Plan
one of the largest and most impactful environmental projects
in San Diego's recent history.
Advancing this plan to today's hearing is in large part
the result of the decade long effort by city staff,
excuse me, and our environmental and community partners.
And no one should be surprised that we came together.
This is one of the city's last chance,
whether your interest is habitat restoration,
resiliency to sea level rise, climate action plan goals, land
acknowledgment, this plan that he's at on a bigger scale.
Now, each stakeholder will tell you
they did not get everything they wanted out of this.
But at every step in this process over the past decade,
we would be introduced to a new stakeholder,
from golfers to boaters to tee ballers to so many groups
that are uniquely attached to DeAnsa.
Acknowledging these uses with the significance of this land
to the Kumbaya, each group works side by side.
we all work to acknowledge the history
and those neighborhood uses.
The plan before you, I believe, strikes the right balance.
I want to thank the commission
for your swift and thorough review
and appreciate your consideration
of the city's thoughtful responses.
As staff has explained, this is just the first step
in revitalizing the ANZAP and the city's current budget.
I was proud to add additional funding
for the next planning step.
With that allocation with the state grant application
we submitted earlier this year,
we are committed to implementation.
Thank you again for the time of afternoon
and I look forward to bringing your recommendations
and approval back to the city council.
Again, thank you.
Okay, moving to members of the public,
we have three individuals in the room
and then about five more on Zoom.
We'll be starting with Andrew Mayer,
Ali Linton and Sarah Benschen crown, bench crown.
Pardon me, Andrew Mayer, please go ahead.
Turn it on
Thanks very much. My name is Andrew Meyer. I'm the San Diego bird Alliance the bird Alliance
director of conservation and the rewild Mission Bay program manager I have had the honor and the privilege of pushing for rewilding Mission Bay for
several years and just a fraction of the time that many people in this room many people in the audience and
Many people online and in our coalition and living nearby have been pushing for rewilding Mission Bay
decades longer than I have. I want to say that Mission Bay has been drastically
altered in just the last 75 years, not a very long time frame when you think
about the Kumeyaay connection to this space this bay. A lot of our coast has
the same story as the destruction of habitat and the changes in what's
available as Mission Bay does. The Rewild Coalition created and built and
still growing to support science-based and resilient planning to restore tidal
Wetland Habitat in what we now call Mission Bay.
We support the great improvements
to the Dean's and Natural Plan
that the Coastal Commission staff has added.
They go a long way towards envisioning
and ensuring the tidal wetland water quality,
carbon sequestration, recreation benefits,
public access restoration that we all need.
These improvements are needed to satisfy
the long-term goals of the Coastal Act chapter three.
I have handed out this letter and a beautiful postcard.
This is just examples of the coalition organizations
the 101 organizations that are in our coalition
and the literally thousands of signatures,
protests, shirts, postcards,
signatures that we have had engaging the public
with this space and moving them towards supporting the city,
pushing the city, getting the city to use our public park
as best as possible.
I wanna particularly bring out the fact
that the Coastal Commission staff added that the island
that is foreseen as being low cost visitor accommodation
will change as sea levels rise.
That's excellent and needed.
That low-cost visitor accommodation should stay,
it should just move to a different part of the park,
should stay in the park, but move as sea levels rise.
The acreage commitment, expanding values
that the potential tidal tributary will be evaluated with,
and a need for an equitable access plan
are also ones that we ask for the plan to be improved with.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Allie Linton.
I'm really bad at that.
Hello, Allyson Linton.
I am a logo kumii from San Diego County.
I just wanted to come and echo what Andrew had said,
that we do support the D'Angelo natural plan
with the staff's comments.
And that's really important to us
because we are looking for site specific plant pallets
that are in synchrony with the natural habitat
and are culturally relevant.
We want to require the city to comply
with mitigation requirements to allow
for that balance and the harmony.
And we would like to echo again
that we wanna honor the native community
by ensuring a place for future Kumeyaay access
and reinstate their traditional practices,
restoring adds cultural value.
Without restoration to historic value,
there isn't anything of cultural value or accessibility.
So I thank you for your time and have a nice day.
Thank you.
Next up in the room we have Sarah Benchikrown.
She's not gonna go.
Oh, she's not gonna go, okay.
Give us just one second to pull up
the first three Zoom panelists.
We'll have Karen Zirk, Leslie Gallego-Stearns,
and then Carlos Calgado.
All right, Karen Zirk, you've been promoted to a panelist.
You should be able to unmute and go ahead, please.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Great.
Greetings, commissioners.
My name is Karen Zirk, and I'm the Executive Director
for the Friends of Rose Creek,
a community group that is part of the ReWild Mission Bay Coalition.
As most of you know, Rose Creek is the source of freshwater inflows into the De Anza Natural
Project area.
We would like to send our heartfelt thanks to Coastal Commission staff for their hard
work and dedication on this project.
The Friends of Rose Creek respectfully request the Commission deny the City of San Diego's
Land Use Plan Amendment for De Anza Natural is submitted.
However, we ask that you approve the plan with the very important Coastal Commission
staff recommended improvements.
We are especially appreciative of the sentence and recommendation number 11 that states,
this plan anticipates and plans for marsh migration to occur on the proposed De Anza
Island.
We are also grateful for recommendation number 12 that identify studies that need to be done
to support a channel between Rose Creek and De Anza Cove, however it contains a gap.
If channel studies conclude the channel will be unfeasible or not have the desired outcome,
the plan should identify how fresh water inputs to the wetlands on the east side of the creek
of the cove. On the east side of the cove will be addressed. In closing, the Friends
of Rose Creek strongly support approval of the DeAnsa Natural Plan with the Coastal Commission
staff recommendations. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Next up, Leslie Gallego Stearns, followed by Carlos Calado, and then Kristin
Northrop. Leslie Gallego Stearns, please go ahead.
Thank you. Hi everyone, hello commissioners and staff. My name is Leslie Gallego-Stearns.
I am the volunteer and outreach manager for the environmental nonprofit San Diego Coastkeeper,
working to protect and restore clean water for everyone in San Diego. As members of the
Riewald Coalition, led by the San Diego Bird Alliance, I do want to clarify and state that
we support the staff's recommended improvements to the Dansa Natural Plan as mentioned in
the rewild coalition letter that was sent and submitted earlier this week.
As one of the staff members managing our Mission Bay water quality monitoring program and engaging
over 500 volunteers and community members since the inception of this program back in
September of 2023, we aim to collect valuable scientific data at 10 sites in Mission Bay
on a monthly basis.
Of these sites, we have Kendall Frost Marsh and DeAnza Cove as some of the sites that
take water samples and monitor for different parameters and pollutants. Amongst these are
stormwater and urban runoff pollutants such as heavy metals like zinc and copper, nutrients
including phosphorus and nitrates and nitrates, and fecal bacteria. That being said, we support
the Coastal Commission staff recommendations to the D&S Natural Plan to ensure that we have
clean water and equitable access for the years to come. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next
Next up, we have Carlos Quiato followed by Kristin Northrop.
Carlos, please go ahead.
Mr. Quiato, looks like you've unmuted your microphone.
You should be able to go ahead and speak.
All right, moving on, we'll come back to you, sir.
We have Kristin Northrop.
Kristin, please go ahead.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Kristin Northrop,
and I am Policy Advocate
for Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation,
also known as SURF.
Surf was founded in 2008 by a group of surfers
dedicated to protecting California's coastal resources.
Surf is a supporter of Rewild Mission Bay.
Surf urges the California Coastal Commission
to approve the ANSA natural amendment.
Once the city of San Diego
incorporates the commission staff recommendations,
particularly on the recommendations
that more research on project impact
and long-term management, strong habitat
and enforceable protections for habitat, excuse me,
strong enforceable protections for habitat,
water quality and monitoring, adaptive management
and meaningful and ongoing involvement
of Native American communities
in planning and cultural resource protection.
These recommendations will make the project stronger
and help protect mission-based wildlife
and natural resources.
It will also ensure communities continue
to have access to the shoreline.
It will help address issues such as stormwater
and sea level rise.
We encourage the city to incorporate these recommendations
and resubmit the DNS and natural amendment
so it can be moved forward as a stronger
and more effective plan that reflects our shared commitment
to restoring and rewilding Mission Bay.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you.
We're gonna try Carlos Cayado one more time.
We've asked you to unmute your microphone.
You're unmuted.
You should be able to go ahead.
We're not hearing anything.
We're going to call one more name that we weren't
able to find, Charles Riley, really.
If you hear your name, please go ahead and raise your hand
so we can find you in the webinar.
OK.
We're going to try Carlos one more time as an attendee.
When you see that you're unmuted,
you should be able to speak.
We're not hearing anything.
I am speaking.
There he is.
Yeah, please go ahead.
All right.
Thank you very much for your time commissioners.
I am Carlos Collado,
the Conservation Advocacy Coordinator
at the San Diego Bird Alliance.
And I just wanted to piggyback on what Andrew and Ali said.
And with that, say thank you very much
to the Coastal Commission staff
and the commissioners here who are listening to us today.
We really appreciate the effort
that has been put into this project.
We also want to thank the city staff
for the work they have put in
and the collaboration between both agencies.
And a special thanks to President Lacava,
Council President Lacava for pushing us all forward
with this DeAnza Natural Plan and Rewilding Mission Bay.
And a special shout out to all of the coalition organizers
and members and all the volunteers
who have pushed Rewild Mission Bay for so many years now.
I just wanted to give a special thank you
to everyone involved for trying to push this plan forward
and make our mission bay even more beautiful
than it already is.
Thank you very much.
Okay, and seeing no hands raised,
there are no more speakers.
Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
With that, we'll close the public hearing
and return to our staff.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Just briefly, with regard to the city's comments,
I would say this is another case
we mostly agree on outcome, just not on process. We recognize that this plan is located within
a larger framework of city and state regulations, and project-level implementations will involve
additional study and CEQA and CDP review. But LUPs are the key part of the regulatory structure
of the local coastal program, and they must contain enforceable policies where the Coastal
Act requires specific outcomes. Having these policies in the certified LCP is what ensures
that future implementation plans and permits will include the protections that the Coastal
Act mandates. Advisory language cannot achieve that. It's also important to make sure that
the plan has language that identifies now that future projects have to be consistent
with the wetland, marine resource, and water quality policies of the Coastal Act to make
Make sure that from the very earliest stages projects are designed with these requirements
in mind.
For example, there are options to relocate bikeways in the plans in the plan, but it's
important to acknowledge that bikeways are not permitted use in wetlands.
The staff continues to recommend the suggested modifications as written in the staff report
and the addendum.
Staff also appreciates rewild coalitions and the bird alliance engagement and strong support
for the Diansa Natural LCPA.
Staff did evaluate each of the suggested editions in the letter.
With one exception, the prohibition on artificial turf, which staff has incorporated into our
recommendation, we believe that these requests are already addressed in substance through
the existing recommended modifications.
In several cases, the requested language we do think is overly prescriptive for a long
range LCP amendment. For example, the LUP cannot commit to an exact number or size of
wetlands created without specific future technical studies and permit level design and restoration
processes. Similarly, the timeline for implementation of these changes is going to depend on city
priorities and budget availability. With regard to one specific comment requesting
that the lighting standard in the plan be lowered from 3,000 Kelvin to 2,700 Kelvin.
We don't disagree with efforts to further reduce blue light emissions, however, staff
psychologist has evaluated lighting standards for other city of San Diego urban park areas
and notes that the difference between 3,000 K and 2,700 K is relatively small.
The existing modification requires fully shielded downward light facing lighting at 3,000 K
or lower which meets established dark sky criteria and is consistent with the type of
product availability for park light fixtures. The staff believes that the current standard
adequately protects coastal resources within this urban context and therefore we're not
recommending additional changes. And then again for these reasons staff recommends no
further changes beyond the addition of the artificial turf and we think the existing
Modifications fully address the resource concerns raised by the commenters
We do have our technical staff available for specific questions. Thank you great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it with that
I'll bring it back to the Commission and we will begin with Commissioner O'Malley
Thank you chair, I'll be brief
Today it kind of seems like a little bit of a Jekyll and Hyde tightrope as being a San Diego resident because this morning I was
Kind of in a state and now I'm in a very different state. I um, I
Live about 1.6 miles from this part of the bay and it actually means a lot
I was introduced to this program
The whole rewild effort probably about a dozen years ago when I had the really the privilege and opportunity to work not only with
the city and I think
The staff. I know Alex you've worked on this also a very long time. I appreciate it and
Council President LaCava and all of those folks who came up today and spoke
Had the privilege to work with them and I mean, this is just such a win
For our region our area
it's there's really nothing else like I've seen throughout the state and a very urbanized area to sort of come to this and
I just want to say thanks to you staff for also making amendments you did
And I'm fully supportive where we're at and because people have flights and need to leave all this end at that
But I'm also happy to make the motion when it's time. Thank you
any other comments
Seeing none commissioner not I just wanted to um, I think we
Earlier today. We've seen the importance of having clear
direction in land use plans and so that we have certainty and we have clarity and the language that
Staff is recommending in terms of shall versus should I think provides that type of clarity and certainty and will hopefully
Lead to less misinterpretation going forward. So
Thank you, mr. O'Malley. Okay. Thank you. I believe there's two motions. Um first
I move that the Commission certified a land use man land use plan amendment number LCP 6 Sa n 2 4 0 3 7 3
For the mission Bay Park segment of the city of San Diego is submitted and looking for a no vote
Thank you, that's a motion by Commissioner O'Malley a second by Commissioner Preciado, maybe we have a roll call, please
Yes
Commissioner Hart
No Hart. No Commissioner Jackson. No Jackson. No Commissioner. Kelly. No Kelly no
Commissioner Kalmick. No Kalmick. No Commissioner not off. No, not off. No, Commissioner presciado. No
cresciado, no
Commissioner Malley. No Malley. No chair Harman. No Harman. No, the vote is unanimous
Thank you. Next motion, please. Okay. I move that Commission certify the land use plan amendment number LCP six as an
2-4 0-3 7-3 for the Mission Bay Park settlement of the city of San Diego is submitted in a modified pursuant to this staff
Recommendation looking for a yes vote, please
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner O'Malley a second by Commissioner Presiado any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none the motion carries
Congratulations. Thank you very much
All right, we will move on to our final final item of the day that's item 16 a please
All right, and give us just a minute to swap staff out here
Yeah, and while we're getting situated here. There is a staff
PowerPoint presentation if we could bring that up
And then Alana Casey with our mapping unit is going to do the staff presentation on this matter
So as soon as she's settled she'll start
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and Commissioners.
Item 16A is the post-LCP certification permit and appeal jurisdiction map or post-cert map
for the Mission Beach and Pacific Beach segments of the City of San Diego local coastal program.
The map shows jurisdictional boundaries where the Commission retains coastal development
permit authority and where that authority was delegated to the City of San Diego.
Next slide, please.
The two maps before you today depict where the Commission retains permit authority as
whereas while geographic appeal jurisdiction applies.
The City of San Diego LCP became effective in 1988.
However, only one of the 12 LCP segments in the city currently has a commission-certified
map.
The maps presented today do not create new policies or regulations.
They serve one purpose, to show where the Coastal Commission retains coastal development
permit authority and where local coastal permits are appealable to the Commission as established
by the Coastal Act, and applied to on the ground conditions.
These maps are not intended to assess whether projects comply with relevant policies.
The maps presented today were drafted using modern GIS datasets, high resolution imagery,
and standardized mapping protocols that improved the clarity and accuracy of commissioned jurisdictional
boundaries statewide.
The mission and city staff worked collaboratively to develop and ground truth the data.
In addition to the maps as shown in the exhibits, upon adoption, the digital data will be provided
to the city to incorporate into their own GIS systems and tools.
Next slide, please.
On the Mission and Pacific Beach post-cert maps, areas where the Commission retains permit
jurisdiction are shown in blue diagonal lines.
Areas where coastal development decisions made by the city can be appealed based on
geographic proximity to critical coastal resources are shown in pink.
The line color along the outside of the pink appeal areas indicates why the area is appealable
to the commission.
In Pacific Beach, geographic appeal jurisdiction is based on one of three factors.
Areas geographically seaward of the route defined as the first public road are indicated
with a black border.
Areas 300 feet from the inland extent of beach are indicated with a pink border.
areas 300 feet from the edge of the coastal bluff are indicated with an orange border.
The entirety of the Mission Beach segment is appealable to the Commission because it
is seaward of the route designated as the first public road.
Projects within 100 feet of wetlands and streams are also appealable to the Commission.
However, neither the presence of streams nor wetlands is the controlling geographic appeal
criteria in the Mission or Pacific Beach segments based on data available at the time of mapping.
Next slide, please.
Since the City of San Diego LCP became effective in 1988, various draft maps have been developed
and used by district office and city staff to interpret commission coastal development
permit jurisdiction.
In the decades since, conditions on the ground may have changed and reference information
to accurately map coastal retained permit and appeal jurisdiction has become more available
and precise.
The maps considered for adoption today have been updated with recent aerial imagery, improved
access to historic photos and better elevation data. This allows mapped
boundaries to more clearly and accurately reflect current coastal
conditions. Next slide please. In summary, staff recommends adoption of MA2026-003
as presented. The updated maps improve the clarity of commission
jurisdiction boundaries and support more efficient and consistent permitting and
planning for the city, public and district office staff. The motion and
resolution are provided on page 4 of the staff report. This concludes staff
presentation we're available for questions thank you. Great thank you so
much. Are there any ex partes? Okay. Aylin and Chris I'll turn it over to you. We
have one individual available for questions and we have one person on
zoom Jeffrey Rosen. Jeffrey you've been promoted to a panelist you should be
able to go ahead and speak. Jeffrey you should be able to unmute your microphone
and go ahead. Ah, here we go. Can we start again? Go. Are we ready? Good afternoon. Okay, cool.
Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. I'm Jeffrey Rosen representing Defend Coastal Access.
We reviewed staffs August 10th, addendum for item F-16A. While staff notes that post-certification
maps depict statutory boundaries, the fact remains that Turquoise Street Public right-of-way sits
entirely within the map coastal zone as noted in item F-16A, Exhibit 3. Within that map coastal
the city is clearing offsite wet utility trenching, subterranean shoring and tiebacks as well as
curb and sidewalk encroachments through ministerial process one approvals without coastal
development permit review. This creates a significant physical and operational disruption
along an artery carrying more than 14,000 vehicles daily toward the Tourmaline surf park
and therefore is not merely a private concern. On July 16th we submitted a detailed enforcement
and the city's development. We
have a significant demand
supported by city plans and
exhibits to executive director
Hucklebridge. We submitted a
focus executive directory
boundary request and a July 29th
map review demand and none of
these received a substantive
response from the executive
director. On August 3rd,
right-of-way impacts must be addressed through coastal development permit review and enforcement.
This is therefore our fourth request. We ask Executive Director Hucklebridge to investigate
and if the criteria are satisfied issue a cease and desist order under public resources code
30809 directing the City of San Diego to halt unpermitted development within the
Turquoise Street public right-of-way and pursue any necessary longer term proceeding before the
Commission under 30810. In this respect we request a substantive written response and not another
referral to an inappropriate private application process. Thank you very much commissioners.
Have a great weekend. Thank you. We have one individual we've been unable to find in the
webinar Cynthia Chanda. Cynthia if you can hear me please raise your hand. Seeing no
one there are no more speakers Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you very much. I'll close the
public hearing and return to our staff mr. Schwing you know okay in terms of
the the comments that we heard they did not relate to the matter that's before
you today so I'll just hold my comments there perfect thank you very much okay
my colleagues comments questions or a motion thanks okay yes I move that
commission adopt mapping number two oh two six zero zero three pursuant to the
staff recommendation looking for yes vote. I'll second that that's a motion by
Commissioner O'Malley I seconded any objection to unanimous consent seeing no
objection the motion carries okay thank you so much thank you to the city of
Scotts Valley thank you of course to our staff for their excellent work and AGP
you guys are amazing we appreciate you and we'll see everybody next month in
Eureka this meeting's adjourned