Good morning everyone. Welcome to the Thursday session of the California
Coastal Commission. I'll call this meeting to order and may we begin with
the roll call please Chris. Yes Commissioner O'Malley? Present. Commissioner
Escalante? Present. Vice Chair Hart? Present. Commissioner Jackson? Here.
Commissioner Kelly? Present. Commissioner Lee? Here. Commissioner Oglesby? Here.
Commissioner Kalmyk here Commissioner Knothoff here
Commissioner Moreno present Commissioner Wilson here Commissioner
Brownfield here Commissioner Eckerly here Commissioner Williams here and chair
Harmon here we have a quorum great thank you very much now we'll move to the
virtual meeting procedures, please.
Good morning.
This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through Zoom.
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at cal-span.org.
If you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item, we recommend you use the CalSPAN website.
Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person through 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.
This is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking during general public comment may be given up to two minutes
to speak at the discretion of the chair requests to speak during the general public comment
period will not be accepted after 9am on each day of the meeting in order to provide the
opportunity for the broadest range of public participation you may speak on a specific
topic one time only each month those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public
comment are typically allowed 2-3 minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair we
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the
link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission
staff at 562-477-9089.
Again that number is 562-477-9089.
will provide you with a telephone call in number and instructions for how to
participate and provide testimony by phone. We will manage speakers coming in
and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer. When it is your time to
address the Commission, the organizer will invite you to turn on your video
and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone. Madam chair,
that concludes the virtual hearing procedures. Great, thank you Galen. Now
we'll move to agenda changes please. Mr. Schwing. Thank you and good morning to
the Commission and to everybody who's joining us for the hearing today. So we
have several items that are changes on the agenda starting with item 10a that
is CDP application 526 to 20 the Raffla application from Newport Beach that is
postponed. Item 10B, CDP application 5221, the Howard
application from Newport Beach, that is postponed. Item 12A, the
City of San Diego's LCP amendment on the Barrio Logan
community plan that is moved to consent. Item 14A, CDP
application 626 192 so Oceanside Harbor docks replacement that is moved to
consent and last item CD 14 be the CDP application 624 307 the Del Mar Beach
Club at a Solana Beach that is postponed and that concludes our agenda changes
this morning okay great thank you very much with that we will move to general
public comment please. Thank you. For members of the public I will be
announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite you to speak when it
is your turn. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes during general
public comment at the discretion of the chair. In order to allow for live video
testimony on zoom we will be bringing you in as 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 present in the room I will call your
names in order that they appear on our sign up list. When you hear your name
please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you approach to
speak. There is a raise hand function that will help us find you in the attendee
list. If you are using a phone for audio you can raise your hand by dialing star
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
to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
First up, we have Donna Brownsey followed by Justin Mojaneer
and Kent Sawatzky.
Donna Brownsey.
Good morning, Madam Chair, members.
So great to see you.
I'm here today as a resident of Fort Bragg,
which is a coastal community south of here.
Two issues, one is an issue that has the community
very riled up with respect to a fence
that was rebuilt as a result of construction
for the pavement project in Fort Bragg by Caltrans.
The fence now is quite a bit higher,
so we've lost our ocean view,
which folks are very supportive of.
And so I did mention to Mr. Williams, gave him a heads up.
So our understanding is that the city of Fort Bragg
is working with Caltrans, but I wanted to put it on your radar.
And Mr. Williams said he would follow up on that.
So the second item is something that is a more difficult issue.
I'm calling your attention to an August 19th,
2026 letter from the DTSC to the contractor Kennedy Jenks
who did the remediation plan for the toxic pond
at the mill site.
You've heard a lot about this.
This remediation plan was supposed to articulate
a way to clean up the dioxins
and other persistent contaminants
so that they would be rendered non-transferable.
This report is 16 pages of deficiencies
and not meeting current scientific standards.
I'm gonna send it to staff,
but I really hope that you'll put it on your radar
because this has been going on for over a decade
and with that super El Nino,
we are really petrified at the potential contamination
not only of our oceans, but of our coastal trail.
And I can just tell you, I see people eating blackberries
off the bushes that are growing in this toxic pond,
because there's no signs.
And so I let folks know about that.
But you can, just from that example,
see what the deficiencies are.
So thank you very much for your time.
I'm sure I'll be back with more updates.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next up we have Justin Mujanier followed by Kent Sawatsky and then a group starting off with Heidi Moore-Gynup. Justin Mujanier.
If you could press the button on the microphone, sir. Thank you.
Good morning commissioners and staff. My name is Justin Mujanier representing commercial aquaculture and coastal dependent food production industries in Humboldt Bay.
I wanted to highlight the new 2026 California Sea Grant
Mariculture Report.
Humble Bay is a critical nursery for the entire west coast
shellfish industry.
On top of producing over half of California's market ready
oysters, we supply seed to 66% of all west coast shellfish
farms.
And that seed accounts for 46% of Pacific oysters, kumamoto
oysters, and middleland clams produced on the
entire west coast.
It supports over $155 million in regional economic output.
And crucially, Humboldt is the only bay in California
with a high health status
required to export seed interstate.
Under California law, aquaculture is agriculture.
It is marine farming, and with that comes
the same statutory land use protections
as terrestrial crops.
Yet, as Humboldt Bay evaluates rapid industrialization,
our aquatic farms face serious long-term threats
as well as regulatory squeeze.
The Ocean Protection Council newly released
state aquaculture plan calls for expanding
sustainable mariculture and reducing regulatory burdens,
all while protecting the clean water it depends on.
Furthermore, the Coastal Act explicitly mandates
priority protection for coastal dependent aquaculture,
but that priority is meaningless without the clean water
that we depend on.
Humboldt Bay is unique in California.
It is the only bay in California that can support
this industry, and it's critical to the entire
West Coast supply chain.
As Humboldt County updates its local coastal program,
we urge the Coastal Commission to ensure strong guardrails
to protect support and expand coastal dependent food production.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Kent Sawatsky, and then the group
starting with Heidi Moore-Gynup, and then Lonix Landry.
Kent Sawatsky, please go ahead.
Kent Sawatsky, I was explaining to staff.
That's my adopted name.
I found out who my birth parent was,
and he went by Red Sutherland.
So I'm also assuming my birth parent's name
my genetics from him. My life's been very easy and I inherited from him something which
I refer to as level 10 functional autism. It's a spectrum and some of us are very functional.
Other ones have hard times. Yesterday you had a very well-spoken person who came in
who was Ivar Skavdal. He also is on that particular part of the spectrum. He's an engineer. And
I appreciate people like that. I appreciate everybody coming and speaking. I appreciate
you listening to us. I'm really big on public participation, as you can see, may come tomorrow.
I did do a question in advance. I was going to do a point of order. They said I cannot
speak on yesterday's topics, even though it's on today's agenda. I appreciate that, and
I can work in generalities, not my first rodeo. Basically, I have a problem with information
not given to you accurately because you cannot make accurate decisions.
And I've always there saying I think a bold face, bald face, and bold face lie.
But the biggest lie is a lie by omission.
And I see this commonly when your staff has an agenda or an idea that they wish to push
forward.
They don't necessarily provide all the truth to you to make informed decisions.
And that's unfortunate when that happens.
So when you do ask questions of your staff, I strongly support question authority.
And that when you kind of sense something, something might not be quite right to go ahead
and get to the bottom of it and continue with your questioning stream that you have.
Sometimes you get one answer from staff and then you just are quiet.
Follow through just like an attorney would do during the deposition.
I do worry a little bit, as the prior speaker said, of things happening in our Humboldt
Bay here.
with kind of people who know if we put a heavy lift terminal in here, I'll speak tomorrow.
Thank you for my opportunity to get that for today.
Thank you.
Next up we have a group, the order we have starts with Heidi Morgana, followed by Lonyx
Landry, and then Allison Hum.
Heidi Morgana.
Welcome, my name is Heidi Morgana, and I have the incredible privilege of serving as the
the Director of Tribal and Government Affairs
for the Blue Lake Rancheria.
Myself and my colleagues have a deep appreciation
for the California Coastal Commission
traveling to the Wiggy, otherwise known as the Humboldt Bay.
I would like to welcome you to the unceded ancestral
territory of the Wiyap people.
We appreciate your advocacy and diligence
in support of the coastal communities,
and we hope that you enjoy all that Humboldt has to offer.
We have a robust cross-state offshore wind port communities
partnership, which is comprised of approximately 26 different
entities, organizations, and groups from the core hub
network and the impact project.
We have to put our slide deck up.
I'm so sorry.
And the time continues.
Hey, Mike.
Good to see you.
Thanks for your patience.
Sorry about that.
Just one moment.
We're just getting your presentation over to AGP.
So we'll have it up on the screen for you in just a minute.
It's a cute slide dick almost there
Okay, I won't start over and
You can advance to the second slide. Thank you so much and I'll keep it under too
As you may know, Humboldt County has a complex history of extraction.
We experience the gold rush, the timber rush, the cannabis rush, and more.
These extractions have left legacy pollutants and dioxins, harms to the environment, our
air and our waterways, harms to people, especially our indigenous people.
We have a unique opportunity for a no regrets offshore wind industry and to do better than
in the past.
Together, so sorry, we believe offshore wind development must create lasting benefits for
California communities by improving health, well-being and economic opportunity, while
ensuring that no community bears a disproportionate share of the burdens including air pollution
and other environmental impacts.
We believe responsible offshore wind development can protect cultural resources, respect tribal
sovereignty and avoid disproportionate impacts to communities closest to this work.
As communities at opposite ends of California, we are connected by our potential roles as
offshore wind industry hubs, particularly through the development of wind terminal infrastructure
at our ports.
While our histories, cultures, economies, environments and governance structures are
distinct and we have found common ground and shared commitment to community-centered development,
our partnership demonstrates that regions separated by geography and experiences can
be united in purpose.
We invite the Commission to learn from what we're building together and to see the value
of cross-state collaboration and shaping an offshore wind future that works for
all Californians. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up we have Lonix Landry.
Hello commissioners and staff. It's an honor to be here before you today. My
name is Lonix Landry and I'm from right here. Born in Ray's, Eureka, California. So
I'm attending today's meeting in Eureka, my hometown, as a member of the Core Hub,
standing in solidarity with the members of the MPACT project.
Together, Core Hub and the MPACT project are thinking deeply about the long-term
future of our coast, our economies, our communities, and the broader offshore
wind supply that we all connect regions of California that will connect our
regions. I'm asking you to be as audacious as we are, be as audacious as
and we are in that we reverse this process of placing, placing profits above all. I want
to see people floor in Fauna priorities before the profits. And that's how we get things
right in our nation. And that's how we do all this, this audacious work. California
can demonstrate the coastal development, economic opportunities, renewable energy, environmental
stewardship, cultural protection, and community wellbeing do not have to be competing goals.
We believe California can set a national example for how these priorities will advance.
I learned earlier this summer that people look to this region as having that audacity
to be the domino that falls to tip us into something different, hopefully something better
for humanity.
Those are the things we definitely strive for.
So I'm asking you all to be able to find that sweet spot and thread this needle.
The vision is reflected in the letters submitted by the Core Hub and the Impact Project.
In this letter, we highlight three important authorities the Coastal Commission processes
possesses to meaningfully shape offshore wind port development projects.
I'm not going to go over them now as I had out of time.
So basically we really want our partners to demonstrate and this whole project to demonstrate
that regions separated by geography and experiences can be united by purpose.
We invite the Commission to learn from what we're building together and to see the values
of the cross state collaboration.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next up, we have Allison Hom.
Hi. Good morning, everyone. My name is Allison Hom.
I'm an attorney with Natural Resources Defense Councils,
Environment, Equity, and Justice Center,
and a member of Trade, Health, and Environment,
The Impact Project, an environmental justice coalition
based in Southern California,
standing in solidarity with Core Hub members.
The Impact Project in Core Hub and
our partnership is rooted in a shared vision.
First, we believe that no one,
No community should be forced to become a sacrifice zone
in the pursuit of economic or energy development.
And second, that communities across California
should have the opportunity to thrive
through a just and equitable clean energy transition.
Together, we advocate for policies
that uphold the integrity of environmental review,
eliminate toxic emissions in neighborhoods,
advance energy equity,
and support the responsible development
of energy infrastructure.
We also engage with the agency
shaping California's offshore wind future.
We work with the California Energy Commission
on offshore wind planning,
Proposition 4 climate investments,
and statewide discussions on ports,
workforce development, and supply chains.
We have welcomed opportunities to engage
with Coastal Commission staff on approaches
to coastal development that protect both people
and ecosystems for generations to come.
At the local level, we work directly with ports,
environmental justice partners, tribal nations,
and indigenous communities
to identify practical pathways
for advancing our shared vision
through robust environmental review
and community driven engagement.
Our experience has shown that projects are stronger
when frontline communities, tribal nations,
and indigenous partners are engaged early and meaningfully.
People don't oppose all projects.
Next slide, please.
People oppose bad projects.
That's why we're here today,
to help ensure offshore wind is done right
with communities at the table from the start.
Environmental justice means ensuring
frontline communities have a real seat at the decision-making table and that
the transition to clean energy improves quality of life rather than creating
store rather than creating new burdens. That's why environmental justice is a
priority for us and that's why the stories that you'll hear from Long Beach
residents are so critical today. Thank you for hearing our comments. Thank you. Next up we have Paola Vargas.
Yes. Hi everyone. I am joining today's meeting as the East Yard communities
for environmental justice Long Beach and South Bay organizer and as a member of
the impact project standing in solidarity with core hub where our
communities in different regions connected by the same struggle for clean
air water and soil for Long Beach residents this conversation is very
personal for decades many of our communities have been boxed in by
expanding freight and industrial infrastructure in the name of economic
benefits frontline residents have been forced to pay the cost of industrial
pollution with our health. We are forced to breathe polluted air and are
surrounded by cumulative environmental burdens. This reality was shaped by
decisions that too often happened without meaningful community
participation and decision-making. Next slide please. Because of the first-hand
harm we've experienced from the energy sectors, our communities support climate
action and recognize the urgency of transitioning to cleaner energy systems.
We understand the potential opportunities that offshore wind can
bring. However, renewable energy projects must not create
sacrifice zones and require communities to accept additional
environmental or public health burdens. For Long Beach success
means challenging the status quo and reversing historical
injustice. It means engaging residents early, centering
environmental justice, evaluating cumulative impacts,
protecting public health, and creating benefits that are
tangible and lasting for surrounding communities. Next
If offshore wind development cannot demonstrate that California can both
address climate change and improve conditions for communities that have
been overwhelmed by pollution we need to reevaluate the conditions under which it
moves forward. Long Beach and Humboldt have come together to ensure that
community voices shape this new industry from the beginning rather than after key
decisions have already been made. The opportunity before us is to create a new
model for equitable coastal development that other communities can follow. Thank you.
Thank you. Next up, Terrell Golden. Good morning. Pleasure to be here before you and I thank
you for this opportunity. I am joining you today as president of the West Long Beach
Association and a member of the impact project standing in solidarity with
Coor Herb. Long Beach offers important lessons for communities across
California. West Long Beach sits alongside major free quarters industrial
facilities and port operations. Residents have a first-hand
It has a first-hand feel for what has happened to a community when proper procedures are
not followed to including at the beginning of projects.
We have a long history and an eight-year life expectancy shorter than anybody else in Los
Angeles County.
Some reports have it as high as 14.
With this type of looking backwards and finding out great mistakes that are directly impacting
the residents of our community should not happen to no one.
When moving forward, the permitting process must observe human beings and not dollar costs
like most of the information is given to you.
They want to use economic value in place of human lives.
That should not be accepted at no time by no one.
Next slide please.
As California moves forward and enters a new era of offshore development, strong environmental
protections, public health significance, safeguards, and agency accountability must be the baseline,
not the afterthought.
You can't change nothing that's already happened.
You can improve your joint pool.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up, Tina Manos.
Next slide, please.
My name is Tina Manos.
I live in Samoa, the site for the planned heavy lift marine
terminal.
Here is the Samoa Peninsula.
And unlike in Long Beach, where air quality is the main concern,
we have other risks, things like lead contamination, water
quality, sewage issues, and poverty,
along with disproportionate levels of ill health.
Slide.
Here we see the town of Samoa itself, the marine terminal,
and wet storage areas.
The red outline areas show where people live.
Single-family homes in old town Samoa to the right,
and the denser housing community that is the Rex town
homes in the middle.
Slide.
As for the history, the indigenous Wiat people
lived in villages here.
Then came tent camps to support a growing logging industry.
In 1912, Samoa became a company town
and remained so until the town was purchased by Dan Coe,
a local developer, who built the townhomes
and who is now rehabilitating homes in Old Town
to sell to people like me.
Coincident with that, there has been considerable work
on infrastructure.
Keep this slide, please.
Residents enjoy living in Old Town,
a lightning diverse community
that is quiet in the evenings and weekends.
We bought our homes with many promises
as to what the community would be.
Unfortunately, Samoa has been plagued by infrastructure,
improvement delays, as well as health and safety issues,
including concerns about lead abatement,
poor road conditions, dirty water,
along with insufficient code enforcement by the county.
Please, the slides got off.
What we have, we have a lot of concerns
regarding the large-scale reindustrialization of our town.
Our primary concern is noise.
For example, in the current plan,
we have over 4,000 piles to be driven.
Vibration, if you could advance a slide.
Thank you.
Back up a slide.
Your time is up, ma'am.
Could you finish your thought?
I'm sorry, the slides got off.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up, we're gonna have Ashley Rome,
then Alicia Bixler, then we're gonna move to Zoom
for Tina Calderon.
Ashley Rome, please go ahead.
Hi, thank you for having me.
I live in the Phyllis Rex Town Homes.
They're the low-income property by Danko.
We're the closest people to the project.
I wish that there were more people in our complex
that could come and talk to you,
but we're working or low-property people.
There's more kids that live in the townhomes
than there are adults.
It was built in 2020.
Next slide.
We're really concerned about the noise.
It's already loud because we have a lot of construction
going on by Danco.
We're concerned about the safety for our children.
The people in the townhomes right now
currently go over there and walk their dogs.
They smoke.
We're concerned that the kids might go in there
and get hurt, we are concerned about a lot of the people coming in and out of there from
out of town and just how this is going to affect. I personally, I go to school and a
lot of the kids there do too, so we're concerned is it going to affect their learning. Next
slide. Oh, and that's it. Thank you so much for having us and we're thankful, thanks.
All right, we have Alicia Bixler then Tina Calderon on zoom followed by Susan M
Simon thank Alicia, please go ahead. Can you actually please go back three slides?
All right
Hi, everyone. My name is Alicia Bixler
I'm with Redwood Community Action Agency the peninsula community collaborative and core hub
As a member of core hub one of the things I do is lead outreach and education
Around the heavy-lift marine terminal project and since the beginning of this year
we've held a series of listening sessions and workshops
to really understand community concerns,
and specifically in Samoa and at the Felix Rex townhouses.
You can see in that slide there
how close the town homes are to the proposed development.
It's literally, it cuts right across in front of them.
Next slide.
And then just to provide a little bit of background
to the town homes, this is an 80 unit,
low income subsidized family housing unit built in 2020,
mostly single parent families working low wage jobs
with approximately 180 children living there.
So in terms of quality of life,
this is a very connected community, close to nature.
And children there are free to roam because it is safe.
However, there's a legacy of industrial pollution
and children regularly access the site,
use it as recreation even though it's polluted.
There's poor transportation and road access.
There's a dirt road getting out to the townhomes,
which is on the edge of town,
kind of cut off from the rest of town,
and students can't even walk to get to school,
especially when it rains.
It's a food desert with lack of basic services,
limited opportunities for children,
and ongoing construction noise impacts.
Next slide.
I mean, as Ashley said, there's a whole lot of concerns,
noise and vibrations, health and safety.
What does it mean to live next to an industrialized port?
What are the compounding impacts from emissions
and sound and vibrations, especially on children?
Again, people are gonna lose their access to the bay,
loss of the open space.
There's concerns about the handling of toxic waste.
How are people gonna be protected
when cleanup efforts commence?
This community, people really love
to go outside their house and birdwatch.
This project could take away everything
that they care about without offering anything.
And again, this is a construction project
without promised resources.
There's no store, there's no gas station,
there's no reliable transportation.
These things were promised to this community
when this apartment complex was developed
as a part of the Coastal Development Permit, thank you.
Thank you, moving to Zoom for Tina Calderon,
followed by Susan M. Simon, and then Elena Tillman.
Tina Calderon, you should be able to, go ahead.
Thank you, Meeha Commissioners.
My name is Tina Calderon,
I am a Tongva and Chumash culture bearer,
and I serve as the Ocean Protectors Program Director
for Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples,
which is a California indigenous-led grassroots
environmental justice organization based
in the unceded ancestral homelands of the Tongva peoples,
also known as Los Angeles, California.
At SPI, our mission is to build the capacity
of native nations and indigenous peoples
to protect sacred lands, waters, and cultures.
Through all of our work, we support native nations
and their ability to reestablish relationships
with their ancestral homelands and waters.
Our focus is on creating systems
that prioritize indigenous knowledge and protocols
grounded in intergenerational respect, reciprocity,
and connection.
Next slide.
SPI is honored to partner with the MPAC project and core hub
to give voice to all of the lands, waters and peoples,
which includes all life, human, plant and animal
on the North and South coasts.
We are also appreciative
of the California Coastal Commission Board and staff
and acknowledge the important work you do
to protect our environment,
especially the entire Pacific coast
and our sacred salt waters.
We trust the California Coastal Commission
to permit responsible and safe renewable energies
such as offshore wind, but only when the ports
can ensure that studies show no harm will result
through the entire process, and coastal communities
will not bear an unsafe quality of life.
Thank you, on behalf of our coalition,
for allowing us to present to you today.
Much appreciation.
Thank you all, all right.
Moving on to Susan M. Simon, followed by Elena Tillman,
and then Carol Toy.
Susan M. Simon, you should be able to go ahead
and unmute yourself and go ahead, please.
Good morning, Coastal Commissioners and staff.
My name is Susan Simon and I am the co-chair
of the Embarcadero Coalition in San Diego.
My comments today are regarding the Port of San Diego's
master plan update that has been submitted
to your staff for review and ultimately your approval.
First, I would like to talk about trust.
By definition, trust is the firm belief
or confidence in the reliability, truth,
or character of a person or thing.
By extension, public trust definition includes
that whatever trust citizens place in its officials
must be respected.
The Port of San Diego is entrusted
with the management of public trust lands,
yet they are not trustworthy.
Our trust in them has been violated
due to their own malfeasance,
which is the intentional commission of an illegal,
dishonest or wrongful act,
especially by someone in a position of authority.
Why can I say this?
Because it is true.
Here are some examples and these are only limited
to the small area of the Embarcadero.
So imagine how many other areas
likely have similar violations.
Violating a coastal development permit
by allowing a fifth restaurant to operate
in the North Embarcadero's port side pier,
an area reserved for the public
for the building blocking water access.
It took almost a year of citizen complaints
to get this resolved.
Violating another coastal development permit
by allowing a private reading room
in the Intercontinental Hotel
area that was supposed to be a public deck. Coastal Commission enforcement division has been
has become involved as it has not been remedied after more than one year.
20 years after approval for the Midway Museum, the Coastal Commission had to threaten legal action
to get the port to move forward with the required loss of public space that will become Freedom Park.
Unfortunately, it's more of a parking lot than a park. Loss of several promised parks in favor
less than $3 billion.
That is a number of more
development. How does this
relate to the PMP? The port
developed new terminology that
is not reflected in any laws or
regulations governing public
trust lands. Terms such as
coastal enhancing instead of
the accepted visitor serving.
No longer differentiating parks
from plazas. Combining them
into one category when they
have very different uses. And
not providing a breakdown
of this. Likely because they
don't want anyone to be able to
determine how much green space
they have or were allowed to be
and how much green space they have
or we're allowed to be taken here.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Okay, next up we have another group
with Elena Tillman, Carol Toy, and Robert Davidoff.
I believe we have a presentation.
All right, Elena Tillman, please go ahead.
My name's Elena Tillman,
I'm with the Sierra Club Steel Society
and I do have a video to pull up, please.
One moment, it's coming right up.
This is an update from last month
and what Marine Mammal Protection Act violations
continue to look like at La Jolla Cove.
When one person approaches, others follow.
The animals have fewer places to retreat
while the crowd continues to grow around them.
And these aren't isolated incidents.
This footage shows repeated human intrusion
into wildlife space,
especially when Rangers or Seal Society
volunteer docents aren't present.
Sea lions are also a sentinel and keystone species
and deserve our respect.
Rangers have been phenomenal,
but simply having a ranger on-site is not enough
if they cannot see or respond to violations.
We're asking everyone to give the sea lions
just a little bit of space.
Right now they're resting on the shoreline.
They're also regulating the body temperature
like this means that they're trying to cool down
as well, but so let's give them space.
Remember the sea lions are wild, several hundred pounds
in weight.
Thank you very much folks, have a great day.
Often cones without tape are not enough
to prevent people from exceeding them.
problem doesn't end when the sun goes down. Harassment continues on into the
night. These animals need meaningful space to rest without being constantly
surrounded day and night, photographed at close range, or forced to navigate
through people. These are wild animals not an attraction. Education matters but
education alone is clearly not working. La Jolla Cove needs proactive management,
consistent ranger presence in the sand, cones and tape when necessary, and
and enforcement when these protections are ignored.
Protecting wildlife requires more than just rules on paper.
It requires putting those protections into practice.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Carol Toyi.
Hi.
Yeah, I have a slide deck.
One moment.
So good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
My name's Carol Toyi.
I'm speaking on the behalf of the Sierra Club Seal Society.
We are here to give you an update on the situation as a COVE.
as we've done regularly for the past few years.
Next slide, please.
Over the past few months,
the incident where a young man kicked a sea lion
on the wall at Pointe-Nahoya,
as well as viral videos
of people crowding around sea lions at the Cove
have brought a lot more attention to the situation.
The suggestion at the last CCC meeting
that the Cove might be temporarily closed
has also been widely reported in the press,
and people on both sides have taken to social media
to voice their concern.
Some feel strongly that the Cove should be closed
regular cove users like swimmers and divers who know the area well have proposed alternatives
like limiting to ocean access only. Next slide please. As you know we have been involved with
the issues at the cove for many years so we've been reaching out to concerned parties to build
bridges and share the background and history of our efforts with the city and the CCC.
We've reached out to the Hoyek Swim Club to local divers and long other long-term cove users to
to build a consensus around the immediate steps
that can be taken, which are asking the city
to fully implement the management protocol
it already committed to back in June.
Next slide, please.
The city agreed to a plan
that has still not fully been implemented.
All those protocols need to be put into effect now
before any conversation about other longer term solutions
like restricting access to ocean users,
which can take place if the situation does not improve.
Lifeguards need to be fully on board,
actively supporting the plan.
We support keeping the La Jolla Cove open
with the city actively managing the area
to prevent harassment and keep people at safe distances.
From the sea lions.
I'll now hand over to Robin Dabidoff.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So we have Robin Dabidoff, followed by Janet Rogers
and then Chely Hilkama.
Robin Dabidoff, please go ahead.
Hi, can you hear me?
We can, yes.
Okay, I'm Robin David Opseer, Club Seal Society Chair.
Next slide, please.
In June, the city agreed to management plan
for sea lion pupking season with one clear goal,
protect the pups, reduce the risk of disturbance
and abandonment.
But implementation has fallen short.
Rangers were supposed to be positioned on the beach
to interact with people.
Instead, they are staffed at the top of the stairs
with a bullhorn.
While this has had an impact,
Rangers need to be on the beach regularly
at critical wildlife interaction points.
Cones and tape were supposed to protect the pups.
Instead, they haven't even been tried
due to pushback from lifeguards.
A-frame signs meant for the beach.
Instead, they're locked to the stairs
where the tourists don't notice them.
Cones on the western stairs when sea lions are present
are regularly used.
However, visitors don't understand why they're there
and walk right past them.
A simple tape between the cones
would clearly indicate to visitors to stay back.
The result of this partial implementation
is crowds that aren't controlled
and pups that are left vulnerable.
Next slide please.
Since the recent social media interest,
the city has publicly described the same protocol
on their official website.
City Council President Joe LaCava said rangers
are to provide crowd management and cones
to be placed around pups when possible
to create a buffer between people and wildlife.
So our question is simple.
Why isn't this being implemented?
We've asked for meetings with the city for three months now.
None have been scheduled.
Next slide please.
Our ask to the commission today is to urgently request
that the city instruct their rangers to place cones
and tape around kapups and injured animals,
station rangers regularly on the beach
and order four additional A-frame signs
and direct lifeguards and rangers to work together
to implement this protocol.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to Janet Rogers,
followed by Chely, and then George Hilkama.
Janet Rogers, please go ahead.
Yes, I'm waiting for my slides.
One moment.
Thanks.
I'm Janet Rogers,
co-chair of the Embarcadero Coalition in San Diego.
Please walk the Embarcadero with us to see the problems.
Next slide.
In the Port Master Plan amendment ask where are our parks?
The port doesn't maximize public access,
but they have the money.
Med income for the last two years is 94 million
and 71 million.
They locked up $20 million for 20 years
since they didn't need it.
Next slide.
This map shows the Port Master Plan.
Next one, yeah.
This map shows Port Master Plan since 2000, 26 years ago.
It's a lie.
The crosses show the green spaces eliminated
over the last 15 years.
The map and the text are the same
despite numerous amendments, coastal permits, and plans,
but changing the map and text
will expose the destruction of green spaces.
The port actively supports concrete and hotels
since parks don't generate money.
Next slide.
The port keeps destroying the parks in the Embarcadero.
Where is the proper reconciliation
of promised and delivered parks?
The reconciliation in the CEQA EAR is a joke next slide.
This table shows some of the problems.
Central Park was removed,
but where is the required 3.3 acre park?
The master plan still shows
the second major park of Broadway landing, like.
The crescent pier is still on the map
and attacks another line.
The North and Baccadero shows a 65 foot wide green parkway
from Laurel to Broadway never built
but changed to concrete in the amendment.
The convention center expansion will eliminate
the Fifth Avenue landing park with no mitigation.
Royal Oak Park is planned for destruction
with the seaport project with no mitigation for the acreage.
Please park still in the master plan
after being lied about for 15 years
should have to stay or be fully mitigated.
Please reverse the pattern.
Fix the amendment and make the port
us our green space and public access to the bay and our land. Thank you. Thank you and for
Chaylee Hilkema please go ahead and unmute yourself and start your video. Good morning
commissioners. My name is Chaylee Hilkema and I'm a Newport Harbor mooring permit holder.
Newport Beach plans to end mooring permit transfer system but allow transfers of similarly situated
the city's city's city's city.
use along with a gift of free boat birthing at their docks and a city approved private profit
making opportunity to rent dock space for their personal gain which can amount to many thousands
of dollars per year. Members of the public can't walk freely on private docks or burr their boats
at private piers so how exactly is their access insured? In contrast, mooring permit holders don't
have exclusive use rights to their moorings when they're empty the city sublets them to members of
of the public and keeps the fees, though it's the permit holders who pay to maintain the
mooring tackle. So essentially mooring permit holders provide access for the voting public.
How will the city justify transferability of residential peer permits whose dock transfers
add more than a million dollars of private profit to home sales while it denies mooring
permit holders the opportunity to simply recoup some of what they paid for their permits and
tackle maintenance. It seems to me that such an equitable administration is not only fair,
it may also be illegal. Thank you.
We'll have George Hylkama followed by Samantha McDonald and then Bud Coomans. Mr. Hylkama,
please go ahead.
My name is George Hylkama. I've been a member of the Newport Morning Association Board of
Directors for 30 years.
More than 100 years ago, Newport Beach policy makers invited voting members of the public
to create moorings in Newport Harbor.
Mooring permits were eventually regulated,
and they've been bought and sold on the open market
for at least since the 1940s.
I bought my permit 40 years ago to have a place
to start my sailboat, a human angler and sea witch catch
named Sea Dragon.
So that bit of tide lands between my mooring cans
has been kind of a second home for me.
I've enjoyed the community of boaters
that have sailed into my life.
many became neighbors and dear friends.
So when the city told us that it intends
to end mooring transfers, again,
I only remember the countless hours
I've spent on committees addressing this same issue,
but I felt concerned for people I care about
who's lost, who will lose their access to the harbor
because they won't be able to afford the city's
outrageous 300 to 500% mooring rate increases,
and they'll probably won't be able to sell their boats
if new owners can't get a transferred luring permit
because it's getting harder to find
reasonable places to store boats.
Historically, the city's dealings
with luring permit holders have been focused
on revenue generation.
We've paid more for less for decades.
It seems there's been a concerted effort
to gentrify the harbor where only the wealthy
can be able to be recreational boaters.
I recognize that as Thailand's manager,
the city has fiduciary responsibilities,
but it also has a duty to promote and protect
trust purposes like public access and recreational boating.
Making even more money out of more permit holders
shouldn't be a measure of success.
A couple of weeks ago, I enjoyed visiting my nephew,
Matt and his son, Evan, who live in Michigan.
Evan was eight when he last visited.
I took him sailing in my
thank you. Oh, oh, can you finish a sentence? Oh, it's real well. Okay. Thank you. Thank
you very much. Next up we have Samantha McDonald followed by bug humans and then Adam lever
ends Samantha McDonald, please go ahead. Hi, sorry. We can't really hear you that well
on here? Is there any way that you get closer to your mic?
I'm so sorry, can you hear me now?
Very vaguely.
Oh no.
Are you even, is this better?
Yep.
Okay, awesome.
Hi, I'm Samantha McDonald, live aboard Newport Beach.
Surprisingly, I'm not here to talk about moorings or live aborts today.
I just want to make you guys aware that two days ago,
the city of Newport Beach passed the first reading
of an ordinance, 202615, that's going to make it unlawful for minors to be on public beaches,
piers, public plazas, right of ways, during or between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. on major holidays
of Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day. The ordinance also authorizes temporary public
safety orders to close or restrict access to beaches or public property. My concern
with this ordinance is that it's going to restrict public access to the coast during
peak daytime and evening hours on major holiday for kids, and it's in an area
between the first public road in the sea without any coastal development permit.
Imagine being a 17-year-old on 4th of July and you're learning that you can't
go to the beach with your friends when the sun is out, unless your parents are
right next to you, or you're a kid living on the morning and you can't go to shore
to watch the fireworks because the public dock is blocked for kids without
their parents, even if you're 17. From what I understand, this Commission has
as explicit stated positions
that beach curfews need a permit,
it may constitute development under the Coastal Act
and requires CDP.
There isn't much time before the second reading,
I'd really appreciate this commission to review that ordinance
and determine whether it requires
a coastal development permit for this commission to review.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up we have Bud Coomans presenting with Adam Leverins
and then Robert Hall.
Bud Coomans, please go ahead.
Good morning.
I have a slide, please.
One moment.
Great.
And then I wonder if Mike Fleming can go ahead
of Adam Leverance after me.
Same computer.
Same computer.
He does not.
OK, same computer.
Yes, please.
Yeah, that'll be fine.
Please go ahead, Mr. Kumans.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right, good afternoon.
I'm Bud Kumans.
one. On the top of this slide is a section from statute which grants the City of Newport Beach
a level of management authority over state-tied and submerged lands. It indicates that the city
may lease those lands for a period not exceeding 50 years for purposes consistent with the trust.
The blue text in the middle section of the page is included within numerous state lands documents
And I quote, recreational boating is a water-dependent use that is generally consistent with the common law public trust doctrine.
The California legislature has identified private recreational boating facilities as an authorized use of public trust land.
End of quote.
And on the bottom of this slide, we have images from a mooring permit issued by the city
granting to a member of the public an authorized public trust consistent use.
the contract. Moring permits
detail that rent shall be paid
for use of the submerged land
over which the boat sits. In
Newport, the privilege for
offshore mooring requires paying
rent higher, sometimes multiple
so, than most other users,
including 12 of 14 commercial
for-profit permit holders. The
mooring permit transfer fee to
that the city has to pay more
than the city charges for other
recreational use permit
transfers. I'm not suggesting
that anyone needs to pay the
city more to be able to vote
here but that rate should be
fair and consistent for all.
This would be relatively easy
to do where the city to adopt
usage of the state lands
But that's another subject. Thank you very much. Please allow Mike Fleming to go next.
Thank you. Yeah. So Mike Fleming, Adam Lebrens, and then we'll move to Robert Hall.
All right, Mr. Fleming. Hi, I have a slide as well.
I'm a Coast Guard licensed captain. I work in the harbor and I've lived aboard for over 40 years on
thank God, bigger and bigger boats, but I have a lot of experience in the Live Aboard community.
Now, is this my slide? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay, so this is, you know, rather than go through each one of
these benchmarks of when a lease was issued that was outside the consistent use of the public trust
doctrine that somehow they built Balboa Bay Club and they didn't know there was going to be any
residences in there somehow and it's been they've been dancing around this residence on Tideland
property for ages and you know it's it's a jewel of the harbor we no one would want to see the
Bay Club go away it's it's a wonderful way of enjoying the harbor but the same respect
a different permit group is being singled out and basically forced out of how our life has been,
at least why it's mine for the last 40 years. It's nice to be able to get up, get in my boat,
and go to work all in the harbor. And we have been over-regulated compared to any other permit
group. We have 12 pages of regulations which we are compliant in. We are the most obedient
of the pets in the harbor and yet we're the ones that are going to be eliminated. And when you say
eliminated, we're the liveabords who have more experience of what's going on. When there's a
big wind up, we're the ones that's letting the harbor department know who's dragging onto you.
When a boat's going down, we let you know and many of us have pulled people out of the water
and saved lives and having us to be the ones that are eliminated,
I don't know what is the problem with limit boards? What is trying to be solved? I don't understand.
Thank you. Moving to Adam Leverins followed by Robert Hall and then Dr. Joanne Leslie.
please go ahead Mr. Levern. Good morning and I again apologize
for our persistence but we are trying to save
people's homes and livelihoods and as you've seen the granting statute
also known as the Beacon Bay Bill allows leases of up to 50 years
for purposes that align with the public trust.
The Balboa Bay Club is the city on this past Tuesday gave them another
year lease which makes 128 years of a use that state lands in their staff
report describes as non-conforming and inconsistent with the public trust. I'm
not arguing that anyone lose their housing especially historical housing.
The whole harbor is surrounded by housing the lower harbor but the fact
I have a lot of time as well.
The fact that a nonconforming
inconsistent use with room
rates in the hotel last month
of up to $809 a night, there's
apartments over there that pay
$4,800 a night.
If there's enough money, you're
afforded coastal access.
Whereas me having a mooring
permit for less than three
years statutorily allowed up to
lands and the same real property manager at the city are doing this. Gentrification,
we probably can't stop it. But the hypocrisy of gentrification in Newport. If I have $12
million to buy a house, I can have coastal access. If I've got $30,000 to buy a mooring
permit and a boat statutorily allowed public trust consistent I have to lose
my access something is clearly wrong here and you've been hearing from me for
almost three years now help please the city and state lands clearly after
council on Tuesday their favoring access to those with far greater means
Thank you Mr. Lever, and for Robert Hall, if you could go ahead and start your video
please, then we'll move to Dr. Joanne Leslie followed by Dr. Azi Sharif. Mr. Hall please
go ahead and unmute. Mr. Hall, there you go. I have a slide please. One moment. We never
received a slideshow presentation from you Mr. Hall. Oh yes, I did send one in. I even
labeled it correctly.
But anyway, I wanna talk to you about a playground
that they're putting out in Sunset Dunes in San Francisco.
There's a new playground called Shipwreck Cove,
which on the surface is really cool.
It's gonna invite kids to play in this shipwreck
that they're creating along the roadway
that they closed for this beach.
The problem is that they're gonna bring in
artificial turf for this.
You know, it's supposed to be,
it's advertised as a sand exploration,
but they're gonna bring in artificial turf.
I'd ask that you please do not permit
artificial turf at sunset dunes.
Coastal Commission guidance for addressing plastic pollution
and coastal development permits
and local coastal program says,
use non-plastic materials,
avoid the use of rubber playground servicing
and artificial turf.
evaluate potential for discharges of plastic pollution,
evaluate toxicity of plastics,
estimated that five to 10% of the plastic blades
are broken off and released annually.
A study in Spain found that artificial turf fibers
are a significant contributor to plastic pollution
in the aquatic environment.
The artificial turf grass blades pose toxicity concerns
and they have PFAS forever chemicals in them.
My last slide was supposed to be this really cool image
of a snowy plover there under stress out at the beach there
because of all the human impacts that fireworks
that have been brought out there
and trampling of the dunes by the thousands of people.
So this playground is a good thing
to help educate the kids about the dunes,
but at the same time, it's bringing an artificial turf.
My image was of a snowy plover
that we constructed out of micro plastics
from the once a month beach cleanup that I do.
There's all kinds of plastics on the beach
and I would like to reduce that
and please keep artificial turf off our dunes
and our beaches, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hall.
We're gonna move on to Dr. Joanne Leslie,
followed by Dr. Ozzy Sharif and then Zachary Kabatting.
All right, Dr. Leslie, please go ahead.
Thank you very much, commissioners.
My name is Joanne Leslie and I live in Santa Monica.
I've lived here for almost 30 years
and I've seen a lot of changes over that time.
Housing has gotten enormously expensive
and I know this is the same
in many coastal cities in California.
So I've come here this morning to speak in support
of stronger short-term rental regulations
throughout the California coast.
Housing supply is very limited along the coast.
Our coastal cities can't always build more housing.
And unfortunately, in my view, within that,
there's too much emphasis on building market rate housing
and not enough on building below market rate housing.
So in addition to building more affordable housing,
we must use every tool we can
to protect existing rental units.
This is where you come in.
Please stop letting expensive, unhosted short-term rentals displace housing.
Supply is everything.
If rents are affordable, many fewer people end up unhoused.
There's a large body of literature to suggest that short-term rentals lead to higher rents
and increase homelessness simply by taking units off the market.
communities like Santa Monica get squeezed at both ends. It's difficult to build new housing and
without strong regulations, all forms of housing on the coast get snapped up by speculators, leaving
the people who work in critical teaching house hospitality and service jobs in our coastal cities
with nowhere to live. We don't need more luxury hotels in Santa Monica. We need more affordable
housing. You can't completely solve the housing crisis, but you can be part of the solution
by supporting stronger short-term rental regulations throughout the California state.
Thank you. Thank you Dr. Leslie. Moving on to Dr. Aziz Sharif and followed by Zachary
combating. Dr. Sharif, please go ahead. Oh yes, good morning. I have a video also today.
One moment. Sure. Good morning, commissioners. I'm Dr. Ozzy Sharif, executive director of
Wildlife Jewels. Through our ISE program, we conduct extensive field monitoring along the
La Jolla coastline. Since April 1, we have documented 91 seabird entanglements between
Children's Pool and La Jolla Cove. 77% were at Point La Jolla alone. These are minimum
numbers documented. We cannot survey every section of the coastline and many areas are
inaccessible. What you're seeing are different birds caught in fishing line hooks and lures.
Of the 91 documented entanglements, Wildlife Jewels has been able to rescue only three.
Many are just beyond the barrier at Point La Jolla where the city's bluff closure restricts
access. Others are on cliffs and rocks that cannot be reached. We can see these birds
but we cannot get to them. Many remain entangled for days, and we have repeatedly documented
unreached birds later found deceased. California seabirds are already facing an ongoing mortality
crisis. Starvation has been identified as the primary cause of widespread deaths, while
emaciated and deceased birds continue to report it along the coast. Including approximately
50 dead cormorants found at Zuniga Jetty in San Diego in late August with the cause still
unknown.
Unusually warm waters and marine heat waves are also stressing the food web and NOAA warns
that a strengthening El Nino could worsen these conditions in the months ahead.
These birds are already struggling to survive.
Fishing gear entanglement is another deadly threat and one we can prevent.
They have repeatedly documented fishing activity and chumming within and along the marine protected
area boundary. This is not an isolated incident. It is a repeated pattern and prevention is
urgently needed. We urge the commission to strengthen protection and enforcement in this
critical coastal habitat and to support expansion of the marine protected area around Point
La Jolla to prevent fishing gear entanglement. Thank you very much.
Thank you Dr. Schrief. Moving on to Zachary Kabating followed by Kent Allen and then Brian
Zach, Zachary Kabatting, please go ahead.
Good morning commissioners and thank you for your time.
My name is Zach Kabatting and I'm a recent graduate
from Scripps Institution of Oceanography
with a master's in marine biodiversity and conservation.
I live in San Diego and I'm a local diver.
And today I wanted to just give a quick comment
about the La Jolla Cove sea lion issue.
I asked that the Coastal Commission consider solutions
that will better protect the sea lion workrae at La Jolla Cove
while also maintaining water access for swimmers, divers,
and snorkelers.
Harassment of the sea lions is undoubtedly a serious problem.
And I know that many swimmers and divers in our community
really care about protecting these animals
and wanna be able to protect the incredible experience
of diving with them so that we can share that
with future generations.
That being said, it must be emphasized that La Jolla Cove
a really unique access point that is unlike any other in San Diego County. La Jolla Cove is
sheltered from South Swells making it one of the safest places to swim and dive in San Diego
County. It's part of Montlois State Marine Reserve so it's a space where we can be immersed
in a fully protected ecosystem and it's a space that really encourages non-extractive recreation
in the ocean. This is also one of the only places in San Diego where you can easily and
affordably access a no-take reserve and easily and affordably access a kelp forest. So closing
the cove would make it significantly harder to connect people with the ocean and build
stronger support for marine conservation efforts. So we asked the Coastal Commission to support
enforcement and education measures that haven't been implemented, especially the management
protocol that the city previously agreed to uh in June which was mentioned by the Sierra Club Seal
Society. So thank you so much. Thank you very much. Next up we have Kent Allen followed by Brian Zak
and then Leslie Honda. Kent Allen please go ahead. Can you hear me? Yes we can. Okay hi I'm Kent
I'm a resident of Hermosa Beach, a lifelong South Bay resident of all the beach cities.
I'm calling this morning to report a violation of the municipal code by your commissioner,
Raymond Jackson, who lives in Hermosa Beach in the coastal zone.
Additionally, Jackson is-
Sir, please confine your comments to the Coastal Act.
Matters relevant to the Coastal Act.
This is regarding the Coastal Act.
You'll hear it in just one moment.
Additionally Jackson is in violation of his own CC&Rs of his condominium association, which was submitted to the state of California
Thank you, sir. This is not relevant to our purview here at the commission
Alrighty, we're gonna go ahead and move on to Kent Allen followed by Brian's. Oh, sorry Brian Zach
Followed by Leslie Honda and then it looks like we found Eric Fletcher. So Brian Zach, please go ahead
Yes, hello everybody. Good morning commissioners. My name is Brian Zach and I'm a local operator the diver and ocean advocate here in San Diego
And I just wanted to touch base in sea lions. I personally believe that we can
Have protection for the sea lions without taking away responsible public access to the ocean
I wanted to be clear that anyone that's harassing or harming wildlife should be held accountable
However, we shouldn't be punishing thousands of responsible swimmers, snorkelers, and divers
for the actions of the few.
Instead, I'm asking for a stronger management solution, as I saw some other people have
as well today.
Please give the citizens of San Diego and responsible ocean users the tools and support
to help.
We need increased city ranger presence, stronger coordination with NOAA, NOAA, and other wildlife
agencies.
We need clearly marked wildlife buffer zones using cones, tape, fencing or other temporary
barriers and most importantly actual enforceable citations and meaningful penalties for people
who cross those boundaries and harass wildlife.
The city already recognized that visible enforcement and accountability are essential and we need
to put those resources where the problem is actually occurring.
I also think we need to be careful about social media narratives surrounding the sea lion
mortality.
The recent attention is important, but mortality and pup strandings are very complex and NOAA has documented major effects,
particularly during El Nino and marine heatwaves that include changes in prey availability, malnutrition, reduced puff survival.
We need more science, more data long term, not just social media alone or contextually incomplete statistics to determine what is causing mortality and what management actions can actually help.
Finally, I just wanted to say remember the history
of the La Jolla and the Matawahu underwater marine park here.
It's the diving community that's helped fight
for the protection of La Jolla's underwater environmental
in the first place.
Please don't remove the very people
who helped create the conservation legacy
that we are trying to protect.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you, Mr. Zach.
Moving on to Leslie Honda, followed by Eric Fletcher.
Leslie Honda, please go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
and the public, I'm Leslie Honda lead ornithologist at San Diego bird Alliance. We support the statements made by SEAL Society, Wildlife Tools, and Eric Fletcher.
I urge the Commission to continue prioritizing protecting marine wildlife in La Jolla as the rich biodiverse marine ecosystem and sensitive habitats need protection now more than ever given the unprecedented oceanic conditions with the super El Nino.
The city of San Diego should not spray a bio-cac on the bluffs as the chemical ingredients
bit and sless are heavily toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects.
International bird rescues blue bands and NOAA's marine mammal orange tags show wildlife connectivity
to areas beyond La Jolla to the Channel Islands in Mexico and local actions may affect wildlife
outside La Jolla.
We cannot afford to let the city of San Diego pollute the IUCN globally recognized green
marine protected areas and harm wildlife with an ineffective non-scientifically based management
practice that costs taxpayers. Worldwide marine wildlife is struggling to survive with world
oceanic temperatures hitting record highs as of August 2026 and our call to action in these
unprecedented times is to prioritize protecting wildlife in habitat in California to help secure
the existence of future wildlife populations. Humble penguins in the Galapagos did not breed
this year with researchers anticipating breeding will not resume until after Elmer subsides.
Australia temporarily evacuated research staff from the Quarry Island ahead of the
elephant seal breeding season to protect workers from the psychological trauma
of spending months surrounded by suffering animals in decomposing carcasses while being largely
unable to help. This decision was made after more than 13,000 elephant seal pups died on
nearby Heard Island. We applaud the Commission's leadership with science-based decisions,
Sea birds and marine mammals have thrived in the disturbance free space with the Point Laquia closure
Please do not allow the City of San Diego to spray bio cack in Laquia. Thank you for your time
Thank you very much. Okay, we have two folks. We haven't been able to find in the webinar
Eric Fletcher and
Jennifer Riggin if either of you can hear me. Okay, it looks like we have one
All right, it's possible this maybe one of them under the name cat
We're gonna go ahead and allow you to talk is this Eric Fletcher or Jennifer Riggin
This is Jennifer Riggin. All right, Jennifer Riggin, please go ahead. I
Have a video one moment
It's coming up right now
Please go ahead
Hi, my name is Jennifer Riggin. I'm a snorkeler freediver and hobbyist photographer
I fell in love with the cove the first time I snorkeled there three years ago
almost to the day. The reef, the kelp, and especially the wildlife make the cove unlike
anywhere else in the country. I'm here because I strongly disagree with closing the cove before we
adjust the human behavior that created this problem. We already have laws that prohibit
harassment of marine mammals. Why aren't we enforcing them? Why aren't we citing and
finding the people who choose to get too close, chase, or even touch the animals? Honestly,
jumping straight to close the cove feels like we're saying we've tried nothing and we're all
of ideas. I understand that jurisdiction is complicated. Federal protections limit what the
city can enforce, but that doesn't mean the city is powerless. We can create local rules and
regulations that support federal protections without interfering with them. Distance requirements,
conduct rules, and penalties for unsafe behavior. Other coastal cities already have conduct rules
that support federal protections, so can we. We don't need to close the cove in order to protect
wildlife, we need clear local rules and actual enforcement. When I first started snorkeling here,
I was afraid of the sea lions. They're loud, they're fast, unpredictable, and I kept my distance.
But they had other ideas. People don't realize that in the water, they tend to seek us out.
They're curious, playful, and they choose when to engage. Every photo and video I've taken was
because a sea lion approached me, not the other way around. They seemed to enjoy human interaction on
some level. Responsible swimmers, snorkelers and divers are not the problem. We swim there because
we love the cove. We're often the ones reporting injuries, dangerous conditions, and when people
behave badly because we care. Closing the cove won't stop the people who break the rules,
and it wouldn't have stopped the attack that started all of this. The few ruin it for everyone
else. La Jolla Cove is the most biodiverse beach in the country. It's not just another beach.
It's a full-on classroom. Please protect the wildlife and force the laws you already have
to meet the local rules we still need and keep this access open for responsible ocean users.
Thank you. Thank you. One last call for Eric Fletcher. We did see you briefly on Zoom but
disappeared. Eric Fletcher. All right, I'm not seeing Eric Fletcher. We have no more speakers.
I will note that we do have Brian Elliott who is the deputy chief of staff and policy director for council president
Joe LaCava for questions about the sea lions at La Jolla Cove on
Zoom and available for questions about that great. Thank you very much. And thank you to the public for your testimony
We really appreciate it. So I will return to the Commission for questions
Comments and we'll begin with Commissioner O'Malley
Thank you, Chair Harmon. I want to just speak on the COVE issue. First I want to thank all the people who
came to speak about the COVE today and all the folks who've reached out over the last
month to me. I've gotten kind of an exploded
inbox in my email, which was, but I really appreciate the outreach. And I just want to kind of put out there that I'm one of you.
I snorkel and swim there pretty regularly.
So I understand, you know, your take. I also, you know, to the sealant, sea lion folks,
I want to kind of say that I absolutely agree with the proactive management approach that you're talking about. Rangers in the sand, constant, present,
enforcement ropes, you know tape, really essentially the implementation of that protocol that was
presented to us by the City and the Sea of Society a few months back, and I think that could be a workable solution.
That said, it hasn't happened, and I don't know if it will happen in the future. I want to just kind of
Mentioned a little bit more about last month when I spoke about partial closure really what I was
Envisioning it was very much like what the swimmers and snorkelers and others the divers envisioned where beach access
ingress and egress to the water is preserved, but folks need to view wildlife from up above and
I
Think that for now might be the only workable solution then perhaps
If we if the city can do a phased in management of proactive approach to see what works or not
But it's sort of envisioned. This is sort of more or less a reset like my fellow Commissioner presciado mentioned last month
That said I know there's a lot of trickiness here and I spoke with
Brian Elliott who's on the phone we continue to talk this through and I'll just end by saying that you know
I continue to offer up my
my
ability to be a liaison and we welcome a meeting with the city reps and the SEAL Society and other water rec folks
Within the next few weeks to discuss this and how we might move forward. So appreciate y'all showing up and thank you
Thank you very much. Commissioner Wilson
Just a couple couple notes, I want to really thank all the folks from core hub and impact from coming here today
It's great to see that Alliance. It's great to see communities learning from each other
It's really important
That we
Take into account frontline and impacted communities
I think this is this is this is what we do was why we have programs to do it
And I think it's very very important. I want to note that is in stark contrast to the offshore oil
efforts that are being
promoted by the federal government right now.
In terms of the community engagement at any level.
And so I want to just really, there's just such a stark
difference between the, just even the culture of these,
of sort of the energy industry and folks that are advocating
are advocating within these two spaces and I'm hopeful for a success in a clean energy
transition that also has strong environmental justice components to it and again we're just
not seeing that from the efforts around offshore oil.
I want to also emphasize that as I think the staff here knows about me, I'm a big proponent
of aquaculture. And I appreciate the comments that we received from those folks, and also
understanding that sea changes in the ocean have big impacts in our bay. Acidification
can have a huge impact on the seed production that was talked about here. So again, Humboldt
Bay produces 80% of California's oysters.
And I think it was 60% of the seed stock
for the entire West Coast.
And that is because Humboldt Bay's water quality is so good,
and it doesn't have pathogens that invade the seed.
But also, the seed is really dependent on the acidity
of the water because if the water's too acidic,
they can't produce, they can't grow shell.
So, I just want to emphasize that we need
to both protect aquaculture from sort of the immediate
and the global impacts as well.
It's very important that we have that context.
And I have one question which was around Newport Beach
and the curfew that was talked about
talked about. And I want to see if staff knows about that. Thanks.
Thank you through the chair. And we do appreciate the public comments on that. That particular
matter, it is not something that our staff was made aware of that the city was working
on. So we do need to look into that and follow up with city.
Thank you very much. Commissioner Lee.
Thank you.
I also wanted to echo my thanks to Core Hub and the people from the Phyllis Rex townhomes,
from the greater Samoa area, and even from L.A., our Tivangar, and Long Beach for sharing
their testimony and their concerns.
I will be touring there later and looking forward to seeing firsthand and hearing and
getting a deeper understanding of all of the elements that they're facing right now.
I also really appreciated this message of balance
and not any opposition at all
to finding clean energy infrastructure,
but to seek how we can find renewable energy solutions
while preserving and protecting the quality of life
for our frontline and fenceline communities
that are usually disproportionately impacted.
I spent five years at the Port of Los Angeles
and nearly 40% of all of the goods
that come into the United States
come in through the San Pedro Bay.
it is the cleanest and fastest and most effective way
to get goods into our country
because LA is the cleanest port on earth.
It also keeps costs down for all of the people
in Southern California and beyond who receive those goods,
but at the same time, all of the surrounding neighborhoods
are critically impacted by the activities of the ports,
and so that balance is incredibly important to maintain.
So thank you for coming out as a coordinated group
and for your comprehensive testimony.
look forward to seeing you all later. Thank you. Vice Chair Hart. First, I
wanted to align myself with the comments that were just made by Commissioner Lee
and although I'm not up in Eureka for this meeting, just wanted to also thank
you so much for going to visit that area personally. It sounds like the Phyllis
Rex Town Homes is such a really great affordable place to live and so I think
it's really important as we move forward to balance and my gratitude also to Commissioner
Wilson because I know he's involved in on top of it as he said um with regard to the San Diego
situation particularly the La Jolla Cove so one of the um speakers talked about this idea of limiting
access to swimmers and to ocean access you know that makes a lot of sense to me you don't see
anyone generally speaking lying around on those beaches or wanting to you know sunbathe or
whatever. Most of the time people are accessing the beach there to do selfies to get closer to
the sea lions. I mean based on my several visits there I'd be curious what Commissioner O'Malley
thinks about the idea of simply particularly during popping season just limiting access to
people that are going in the ocean to swim or otherwise access it, which it sounds like is a
very important issue. So I'd really like to hear your thoughts about that from the staff and also
Commissioner O'Mellie. With regard to the artificial turf on Sunset Dunes, that doesn't
sound right. I know that's outside, you know, someone now has brought that to our attention.
So I'd like to hear from staff if you were going to follow up on that, because clearly just right
there on the ocean. It's such an amazing asset for the city. It would be a shame to see artificial
turf put in there. It just seems unnecessary. With regard finally to the Fort Bragg issue,
I was also wondering if staff could respond to former Chair Brownsey's comments, to Donna Brownsey's
comments on the issue with that pond, and particularly in light of El Nino. So those are
my if you keep track of them and if I need to circle back I will but I have a
couple one for Commissioner O'Malley and also for staff on those questions.
Staff I'll turn to you first and then Commissioner O'Malley.
Thanks Commissioner Hart for the question. I think there's been a lot of discussion
about different types of solutions for the La Jolla Cove and that's definitely
one that's been floated and I think under discussion I think Commissioner
or Mally mentioned something similar about there's just,
we're still in the, trying to figure out the best way
to get through this issue where we're still,
I think everybody's loath to completely eliminate access,
public access to this beach area.
And that's understandable,
especially for those that are not,
are using the resource wisely,
are trying to access the ocean
and are not causing harm to the wildlife
That's that's there. So that's definitely solution. I think we would be interested in
Exploring at least with the city and then how to do that. I mean that that's the next question is the how
So I think we're we're open pretty much at this point to all solutions
That could address the challenges we see at La Jolla Cove and that's definitely one
But I would turn it back to the commissure on Malley if he has any additional thoughts. Thank you, Dr. Harlebridge. Thank you chair
Yes, and thank you vice chair heart
What you're talking about is pretty much, you know, what my comments were getting at, I think that as I talked to some folks and the people who recreate their people who've been going there for 20 years, I've almost never seen someone just put a towel down on that part of the cove.
It's kind of an awkward place to have as just a beach. But as far as ingress and egress, it has always been very cherished by the folks of San Diego, including myself.
And I think because the city has not been able to implement for various reasons its protocol that it came up with
You're seeing just sort of the you know quite frankly the abuse of the wildlife in that area
Constantly so, you know partly what I was you know from last month in this bunch kind of positioning
I from what I gained in the community of San Diego as I'm talking to folks especially over the last few months
The idea of having wildlife viewing be from above and then the beach just be for Ingress in Ingress and I don't know
Again, how as you mentioned exactly we make that work
But there may be some openness folks in the city and certainly, you know interested folks in doing that
And so I've actually you know reached out to to the council president's office and hopefully we'll be meeting with them in the next few
weeks to kind of discuss
if we might get there, but I think
It's sort of the reset I mentioned if that is sort of the baseline
And then we can sort of phase in a potential active management of the cove
That might be a better way than just sort of trying to kind of undo what has happened, you know
What exists right now? So yeah, I'd be very much in favor of that and I think it is a workable solution
But we'll and we'll continue to sort of advocate for that. But um, yeah, and I don't know I know
Mr. Elliott is on the phone from the council president's office if you know, I don't want to put him on the stop spot
But if he has anything that he might add as far as you know
If the city is open to that or or you know, certainly, you know moving in that direction
But yeah, I appreciate your comments if I stare and I fully agree
Thanks. If I could just briefly through the chair just make one suggestion or one idea, which is that you know
they post at the top of
some kind of a
Something that have a sign in for people that are going in the water
So in other words at the top if you're going in the water through that location you sign in when you come out
You know you so in other words it kind of creates a record of people that are going in and out of the water there
And I think it's justified for safety reasons anyway
Mr. Henningson. Did you well? I'll turn to Luke in one second. I just wanted
I know we were maybe going to see if the city
There is a question here.
I was just wondering if the
representative wanted to speak.
There he is.
Mr. Elliott.
I'm not sure.
Commissioner O'Malley said we
don't mean to put you on the
spot.
Do you have any thoughts?
I think he did mean to put me
on the spot.
But happy to.
And no, I think we're.
This is conversation.
This conversation is really
starting to drift in that
direction of.
What access looks like.
the city of L. A. Parks and
we're kind of looking to them to see if they also want to take up this issue with their boards and
You know this feedback and the public feedback of how we're implementing is really helpful
Thank you. Okay director Hucklebridge through the chair
I can continue down the commissioner Hertz list of questions. The next I believe was related to the sunset dunes
Comment and I would turn it over to Luke Kensington who sorry Henningson
who is our in our North Central office and works with the city. Luke, do you have any thoughts on that?
Yeah, thank you Kate. And thank you Commissioner Hart. I can provide a little more
context around
What that public commenter was referring to? I don't think we would call it artificial turf
but there is a new
relatively small play structure area at Sunset Dunes Park
With you know, when you have a plate structure area for kids, of course, there's a lot of concerns around safety and ADA requirements and
You know in case someone falls that kind of thing the vast majority of the surfacing is sand and natural
for ADA compliance, there is a
small amount of the play mata
surfacing
material
that has been used and approved by Commission and Technical Services staff as
relatively benign and for example, earlier this year,
there was a waiver with the city of Morro Bay
where technical services staff recommended the use
of the play modest servicing material
to kind of strike that balance between safety
and ADA requirements while also minimizing the use
of those sorts of materials.
And if there's any other questions around that,
I'm happy to provide more information.
Okay, next question I believe was just to respond to,
Thank you, Luke.
And let me know, Commissioner Hart,
if you have any follow-ups for Luke, but.
Well, I just want to say, I assume, then,
we don't have a plastic situation there
where you have microplastics.
I mean, I'm assuming this is something that's been approved.
Correct.
So I think it was done.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Yeah, no, it's a different material.
It doesn't have the same shedding and concerns
that we usually see with turf.
And it is a different material.
It is made of, it is an artificial material,
include some amount of that.
But it is a small amount, and that particular material
I think we think is appropriate for this place.
Next, the last question was just to respond
to Donna Brownsey's comments.
So this is the first, I think, we've heard of the report
that she was mentioned.
So she said she would pass it on to us.
We will review it and sort of see where that would take us.
So I don't have a direct response to the comments
at this point.
OK.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Thanks.
I did want to also echo my appreciation for the Core Hub
Alliance that came together.
It's great to see folks from North and South
and remind people in the South that we're
going to celebrate the Coastal Act on October 10
in Long Beach, and that would be a great time to see everyone and talk more about some of
these issues. And I think one of the, I appreciated their, their message about involving communities
up front, because as, you know, I worked at NRDC for many years, and LA Port and Long
Beach Park are now cleaner because of a lot of litigation that we engaged in to help electrify
the ports there, and the communities there were not engaged early on and have suffered
very serious health impacts.
So as we move to clean energy future, and I was very also encouraged to hear support
for wind energy done right.
I hope that we can get that back on track despite the federal government's opposition
to clean and smart energy.
And I think we have a chance to get that right
and involve folks up front.
So I really appreciated hearing from that coalition
and look forward to working with them more.
Thank you.
Commissioner Kelly.
Thank you.
I want to align myself with the concerns voiced
by Vice Chair Hart.
um, I think the play modest surface, um, option while I appreciate, um, Dr.
Hucklebridge's comments about, um, the usage of it in the site.
I do know based on the fall standards, that is, you know, a priority product
for eco-friendly solutions, but also in a sand related environment and a, and
a permeable, permeable option, there are concerns that I think we should evaluate.
I think especially if we're using it,
you know, up and down the coast is a priority material.
I do know it's a, it is a good material
and it's a good alternative
to some of the other playground materials
that are out there.
But I do have concerns about how the interplay
with the sand and over time,
if it will break down the material.
So I do think it is something we should keep an eye on
and ensure that over time,
as it may begin to deteriorate
because it's a recyclable material
with some PVC and other things in it,
depending on which playmata option you're selecting,
that it is something that could ultimately degrade
and end up in the ocean.
So I do think we should be mindful of that.
There aren't a lot of good solutions out there.
And so I think that's also a problem
because we do wanna create those play environments
along the coast.
And I think with respect to what's happening in San Diego,
I do, you know, when we experienced it in person,
what is happening in the Cove and La Jolla,
it does not seem as though many people
are actually accessing the water, what we observed.
It was more of a very frenzied environment,
almost like a petting zoo, and it was very disturbing.
And so I think prioritizing access to the ocean
while protecting the sensitive area,
I think there could be a really good solution there.
And I appreciate the comments of our local partners
in the San Diego area and just continuing to focus on this.
and it continues to be a problem and very concerning
both for the safety of humans
as well as the safety of the animals.
And so I think a better solution has to come forward
and so I appreciate everyone's work
on trying to come to solution on that.
So thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
Any other comments?
Seeing none, we appreciate the public for your participation.
I'm gonna suggest we take a very quick break
everyone could please be back at 1055. Thank you. Alright, thank you everyone.
Appreciate your patience. We're gonna return to our agenda and we are at the
administrative calendar. Mr. Schwing. Thank you. So yes, item five is the
administrative calendar for all districts and units on the agenda today.
There's three projects, one each from Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Dana
a point. There's no public interest on item 5a, however on 5b and 5c we did
receive some comments. On item 5b, which is related to a or perhaps that's 5a, I'm
sorry, we received comments on a dock system in Huntington Beach where the
property owner indicated a concern about the dock encroaching on their water
However, staff reviewed the plans approved by the city and those indicate the proposed
dock is within the applicant's site and not the adjacent site.
We also did receive comments in opposition to item 5C, which is the proposal by Orange
County Parks to install a 114-foot long, 6-foot wide recycled polyester beach mat across
the sandy beach area at Baby Beach in Dana Point Harbor in order to facilitate
ADA access to the beach and the water. The opponents raised concerns about the
potential for plastic debris and toxicity associated with degradation of
plastic products and urged the use of a product made of natural materials. The
applicant OC Parks did consider that product identified by the opposition but
found it wouldn't be suitable at the subject site. Staff's conclusion is that
the project remains approvable as recommended and we would point out the
special conditions require regular inspections of the material, prompt
repairs, and removal of the mat if the if debris generation becomes a problem.
Also in the report addendum staff added a special condition requiring the
applicant to consider a product made of natural materials whenever replacement
of the mat system becomes necessary and that would come back before this
commission as an amendment to the permit. So staff believes the recommended
conditions will address the concerns and continue to recommend approval and I
would note that if there are any other questions or concerns of course our
staffs available for questions we do have our water quality staff available
today as well. I do understand OC Parks is available for questions as well.
Great. Thank you very much. Are there any ex partes? Any public comments?
Yes, we have one public commenter, Ann Cantrell speaking on item 5C. Ann Cantrell.
Good morning, Ann Cantrell, Sierra Club Coastal Committee. I am 93 years old. After breaking my
hip last year, I really appreciated being able to access most places with a
wheelchair or walker. However, I oppose this proposed beach access solution,
which appears to be not only for the disabled. One of the correspondence
stated plastic mats will solve having to walk on hot sand. Plastic materials can
be 20 to 80 degrees hotter than the surrounding areas. Wearing shoes is a cheaper solution.
Please require a natural material, not plastic. Plastic breaks down and even more quickly with
sun and salt water. Plastic degradation can cause human and animal hormone disruption,
cancer risks, ingestion and starvation in marine animals,
food chain contamination, greenhouse gas admission,
soil and water pollution.
Yesterday, Dana Point declared a local emergency
after one home was nearly swept into the ocean
by heavy surf and eight more red tagged
because of damage from waves and high tide,
putting anything on the beach appears to be foolish.
With expected climate change,
please reconsider this project.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We actually do have one other speaker, I believe,
Diane Wokey.
Diane, we see that you signed up for item 10B,
which is actually a postponed item,
but we do see that you submitted a presentation
under this item.
So we'll bring up your presentation.
And Diane, when you're able to, go ahead.
Actually, I did send an email asking that it be changed
to 5C and I also have a PowerPoint, thank you.
Diane Wolkey, Safe Healthy Playing Fields
Beyond Plastics affiliate.
We're asking you to deny the permit
for a plastic Moby mat at the beach,
a small narrow beach with a flat, gentle slope
and no drop off to the water's edge.
The slide please.
The beach has four level entrances to the beach,
has beach wheelchair availability,
and is requested on average once every two weeks.
No requests have been made for a mobility mat
per the lifeguard where you would call to reserve
the wheelchairs, slide.
The proposed 114 foot length and six foot wide
rollout plastic mat would weigh 312 pounds
per the manufacturer's website.
not quickly or easily rolled up for storage ahead of a storm
or sea level rise.
Research shows that it would be expected to shed
between two and 6.4 billion microplastics
within the first two months alone
from typical environmental exposure.
Use of wheelchairs on these mats
would also increase the shedding
due to weight and friction.
Slide.
The grant is an illogical choice due to plastics,
strong connection to climate change
and is inconsistent with the commission's
and coast keeper's objectives
to keep the coast free of microplastics and pollution,
protect natural resources, and wild and aquatic life.
The mat will extend into the waterline
with sea level ride tide changes
and Super El Nino events.
Whether nylon or polyester,
these mats are still petrochemical plastics,
contradictory to the objective
to stop oil drilling and fracking.
They will leach toxic chemicals,
heat the environment, pose a risk for thermal burns
and begin to degrade more quickly
due to heat, humidity, and salt.
Slide.
Nature-based solutions are available
and use of nature-based solutions
are called out by numerous state agencies,
water-based research organizations,
and even the commission.
Slide.
The same company featured by the Coastkeepers website
also has natural coconut fiber mats available.
Slide.
Because there is a grant to be used,
does not make it a wise choice,
nor necessary choice for this location or product.
Thank you.
And it looks like we just got a sign up from Joanne Greenway
who we're not seeing on the Zoom yet.
I will note that we do have Rita,
or yeah, Rita Abelar from OC Parks on Zoom
and available for questions about this.
Still waiting for Joanne Greenway for a second.
All right, I'm not seeing her, so we have no more speakers.
Great. Thank you very much with that. I will return to the commission comments.
Oh, commissioner comic.
I just wanted to make a quick comment about the mobi mats. Um,
I was one of the proudest things that we did when I was on city council in
Huntington beach was to start this in orange county. Uh,
we put the first mobi mat in, uh, and then we put the second one in, uh,
and then our county supervisor who, uh,
eventually shifted in his now data point county supervisor Katrina Foley, uh,
help spread them through Orange County.
One of the big things I didn't see,
that was kind of mentioned,
is that this isn't necessarily only for folks in wheelchairs
or only for folks that aren't sure of foot,
but it helps get folks down to the water just to see it.
My father's 82, council member in Seal Beach.
Very helpful for him to be able to get down to the water,
to be able to see what we're trying to protect here.
Additionally for families that are taking their wagons down, trying to get them down to the water line,
trying to drag children and everything else through is very difficult to do and these Mobi mats are, I think,
are a good balance of trying to get folks to access the coast.
So, while obviously we want to be concerned about microplastics in the environment and whatnot,
But I think that these are useful and valuable resources
for us to have.
Thank you.
Commissioner Escalante.
I keep messing with the mic.
Give me one second.
I'm going to put it back.
OK, thank you.
Just because I'm always raging against plastic pollution,
I want to clarify my general position on these.
Of course, any kind of human use is going to have an impact no matter what our research
is, right?
And our job is to find a way to balance all of those forces.
And I do think that this is a very valuable resource for people, a community.
You know, yesterday we were talking about, you know, ways of accessing, and especially
for more vulnerable or mobility-limited people.
And I do, especially, you know, I know in Southern California, actually these things
are used a lot, and it comes at a cost, of course, we can't have sort of the perfect
material.
I do, you know, hope that those in charge of maintaining these assets will make sure
that, you know, once they start breaking down, which start breaking up, you know, the debris
so that it doesn't become a bigger cumulative problem.
But I think overall it's a good strategy to increase access for those who can't enjoy
it anymore.
So that's where I'm at with those.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to our speakers.
I certainly appreciate the concerns regarding these Moby mats.
We have three of them in our city.
And like my colleague, we are very proud of the access that they have provided to folks
mobility challenges. They do provide a stable pathway across soft sand for
people using wheelchairs, walkers, and other mobility devices as well as
seniors and families with strollers. Unlike concrete, mobi mats are
removable and adaptable. Ours have to be swept almost a daily basis. Our public
works folks are out there on a daily basis so as they are sweeping they are
also inspecting. So any hint of breakdown is immediately remedied and taken into account.
But I also understand that any polyester product exposed to sun, salt water and sand is going
to break down. But that's where responsible maintenance comes into play. And one of the
things we're looking at in our city is something they have in Santa Monica where they have
old railroad ties that are permanent.
Our mobie mats are actually removed in the winter
because of the storm surge.
So there are things that cities are looking at
to offer a better alternative, but in the meantime,
I think this is an option that we should embrace.
And again, the key is proper maintenance
because as the photos we saw, that should never happen.
any responsible municipality should identify and correct
that immediately.
So I appreciate the concerns.
The concerns are certainly valid and shared by all of us.
But in this case, I think it's a smart way
that should provide access for those who are challenged.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
OK.
Any other comments, or I'll entertain a motion?
Mr. Schwing, do we need to make a motion on that?
So the question before you today is
whether four or more commissioners object to any of the administrative
permits calendar. Yeah. Commissioner Wilson was correct. Do four more
commissioners object to any item in the administrative calendar seeing no
objection. The commission concurs. Okay. Now we will move to those items removed
from the regular calendar to consent please. Thank you. So there are two items
being recommended item 12 a that's the city of San Diego's LCP amendment on the
Barrio Logan Community Plan and item 14a the CDP application 626 192 from the
Oceanside Harbor docks replacement project I do want to note on item 12 a
the Barrio Logan Community Plan you may recall the city of San Diego and
members of the Barrio Logan community had expressed concern about a time
extension that was granted at the July hearing for action on that item staff
explained at that time that there were other City LCP amendments such as the
De Anza natural plan for Mission Bay that required action ahead of that
particular amendment but we did commit to bring this amendment back in front of
the Commission as soon as this month and that commitment will be fulfilled by the
Commission taking action on that amendment today. So with that staff's
recommending these items get moved to the consent calendar and approved per
the staff recommendations. Great thank you very much are there any ex partes
okay are there any public comments we have people available for questions for
both 12a and 14a we have no speakers lined up okay thank you I'll return to
the Commission comments questions or a motion please
Commissioner Moreno thank you I'm very pleased to see item 12a before this body
after July's hearing when commissioners were presented with a request to waive
the time limit for the amendment.
In July, the doesn't begin as community land trust based in Barrio Logan and the City of
San Diego's Planning Department submitted letters opposing the request for time extensions
and urging prompt attention.
I do want this body to be cognizant that there is a long history of planning challenges and
past decisions that have strained trust between Barrio Logan residents, the city, and even
and other public agencies like the Coastal Commission.
Barrio Logan is a historically Latino community
and a culturally significant neighborhood
in the city of San Diego.
It's vibrant murals, rich culinary tradition
and long history of community resilience
all contributes to the identity that defines the area today.
Chicano Park is the heart of Barrio Logan
and was designated as a national historic landmark in 2016.
A key part of that history of resilience is rooted in the effects of systematic redlining
and discriminatory zoning practices which shaped how the land in the neighbourhood was
used and how the community developed over time.
The Barrio Logan Community Plan was adopted in 1978 and for 43 years the plan stayed the
same.
In 2013 the Barrio Logan Community Plan was adopted but in 2014 it was repealed by referendum
due to concerns that the updated community plan,
land use, and zoning would impact the shipbuilding industry
and maritime-related businesses.
In 2022, the Barrio Logan Community Plan
was finally updated and adopted.
It took a really long time,
and it required significant work and collaboration
from the community and the city
to get this across the finish line.
Earlier this year, city staff moved quickly
to correct small errors that were identified
after the community plan was updated.
So today's motion to accept staff's recommendation
in essence ensures that areas intended to be parks
and community space, such as the Boston Avenue corridor
and Chicano Park are properly designated and protected.
I think it's really important for this body and staff
to be cognizant of the history in some of our communities.
And that is my point of bringing this forward today
so that the body understands what we were up against
in essence, right?
It was a very small change and that to put it in layman's
term freaked out the community for this body to stop it.
So I just want to be cognizant of what we're doing
and also be very respectful of communities
that do not trust bodies like the Coastal Commission
that I think we want to get to trust us, right?
So with that, obviously I'm very happy
that this item is here before us
and I'm happy to make a motion
to move the consent agenda forward.
Thank you.
Second.
Thank you, that's a motion by Commissioner Moreno,
second by Commissioner O'Malley. May we have a roll call vote please? Yes.
Commissioner O'Malley? Yes. O'Malley, yes. Commissioner Escalante? Yes. Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart? Yes. Hart, yes. Commissioner Jackson? Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Kelly, yes. Commissioner Lee? Yes. Lee, yes.
Commissioner Oglesby? Aye. Oglesby, yes. Commissioner Kelmic? Aye. Kelmic, yes.
Commissioner not off I not off yes Commissioner Moreno Moreno yes
Moreno yes Commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes chair Harmon yes Harmon yes
the vote is unanimous great thank you very much the motion carries okay now we
will continue on we're ready brings us to item 7 the enforcement report so I'll
begin here we'll now consider agenda items agenda item numbers 7.1 consent
CSUN desist order number CCC-26-CD-04.
I'm sorry to interrupt you.
No, please.
Chair, I do think we're going to do,
before we get to those items, we're
going to do a quick enforcement report.
OK.
And then we will get to them.
Then we'll move to it.
Great.
If that's OK.
Works for me.
Sorry about that.
We need to do a quick enforcement report
before we move into the next item.
So good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
And the next item is hopefully a very quick enforcement report before moving on to the
orders.
This is a report on the status of a case in which we have recorded a notice of violation,
which I'll refer to as ANOVA.
As you may know, under Section 308-12 of the Coastal Act, after providing proper notice
under the Coastal Act in our regulations, the Commission's Executive Director may have
of a NOVA recorded on the title of property
where unpermitted development has occurred.
The recordation of NOVAs is an important tool
to ensure that buyers of property with violations
are on notice and attempts to avoid
any preventable problems that might thereby arise.
While California real estate law requires
that sellers notify buyers of any violations,
and while coast lack violations run with the land
regardless of notification,
buyers still often argue that they were unaware of those violations.
Thus, the recordation of notices of violations help ensure that notice is
provided.
A NOVA is sometimes the result of formal hearings before the commission and
is sometimes the result of a negotiated resolution.
In either case, we periodically review NOVA's for case progress to see if the
violation is still existent and to check on the progress of case resolution as is
provided by the statute and our regulations.
In this case, a nova was recorded on a property
in the Meadows Court subdivision in Malibu.
The violations included blocking an important public hiking
and equestrian easement and failing
to construct a public trail within the easement
as required by a prior CDP.
Enforcement staff negotiated a resolution in July 2025.
The commission issued consent orders
to resolve the violations.
These orders require the removal of unpermitted development,
the construction of the public trail,
and payment of penalties, among other things.
We've been working with the property owner
on the trails plan and are hopeful
that we'll be able to approve it soon
so that respondent can commence construction
of the public trail on the property.
The violations have not yet been fully resolved
and therefore the NOVA is still necessary.
So unless there are any questions about the NOVA
the NOVA process. I'm happy to move on to the next item. Okay now's my moment.
Thank you very much. All right with that we'll now consider agenda item numbers
7.1 consent cease and desist order number CCC-26-CD-04, 7.2 consent
number CCC-26-RO-02 and 7.3 consent administrative penalty numbers CCC-26-AP-03
and CCC-26-AP-3-03 as described in the agenda. Regarding properties located at
31430 and 31438 Broad Beach Road in Malibu, California. With the alleged
Would the alleged violators and or their representatives please identify themselves for the record?
Thank you, sir
You could just turn on that mic. It's the button right on the perfect. Thank you
Madam Chair and commissioners Ken Ehrlich of Elkins called on behalf of the alleged violator
I'll call them the respondent to XMD partners. Thank you very much to our staff
Can you please identify what items are already part of the record and how much time would you like for your presentation in the bottle?
Yes, so the record consists of the contents of the staff report and the supporting documents the public documents and the violation file
the addendum which was posted yesterday and it includes
Correspondence received after the staff report was posted
including letters of support from the Surfighter Foundation the state lands Commission and Kiki fang
and a letter from a member of the public and a letter from a neighboring property and
Also staff's brief responses there too and today's hearing and we'd like 25 minutes
25 okay. Thank you. There should not have been any ex parte communications, but do any commissioners have any such communications to report?
Okay, seeing none I'm going to now review the rules for this proceeding
Staff is asked for up to 25 minutes for its presentation, so I'll give the alleged violator the same amount of time
and they may also request to reserve some of that time for any final statements or
responses to public comments and
will allow three minutes for any other party who'd like to speak as an interested member of the public.
Anyone who speaks at this hearing may propose questions either orally or in writing that they would like commissioners to ask of any other
party but it is not appropriate to suggest that questions be asked to
yourself. Commissioners may but are not required to ask the proposed questions.
With that we're now going to begin the public hearing with our staff's
presentation. Mr. McClendon. Thank you. So staff is pleased to announce that two
XMD partners LLC which we'll refer to as respondent as well has worked with staff
to reach an amicable resolution of this case by entering into the proposed
consent cease-desist order, consent restoration order, and consent
administrative penalties, which we'll refer to collectively as the consent
orders. This matter involves an unpermitted revetment and unpermitted
private stairway, both of which were placed within public access easements,
and the unpermitted extraction of sand from the beach, as well as extraction of
underwater boulders and cobbles from sensitive rocky intertidal habitat.
Staff worked closely, quickly and collaboratively with Respondent and we
greatly appreciate their cooperation and participation in crafting this proposed
resolution. We are now pleased to detail a proposed agreement for your
consideration, one that would provide for removal of the unpermitted development,
restoration of the habitat impacted, as well as resolution of the penalties
under the Coastal Act by dedicating an entire valuable beachfront property in eastern Malibu
to the public.
An incredibly unique and rare opportunity that we'll describe in more detail later in
the presentation.
So staff recommends that the Commission issue the proposed consent orders to resolve this
matter and today's presentation will be given by Rob Modelmog, an attorney in the headquarters
enforcement unit.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and members of the commission.
This slide shows a photo taken from the properties at issue.
In this photo, you can see some of the rocky intertidal habitat, which is exposed during
a very low tide.
As we'll discuss in detail, this unique habitat is part of a marine protected area and includes
sea stars, kelp, and fish, and is connected to a larger rock reef ecosystem here.
We'll start by showing the location of the violations and the properties at issue.
side please. The unpermitted development occurred on Broad Beach which is on the
left side of the map and is located within the city of Malibu. On the map you
can also see Big Rock Beach in eastern Malibu in the center which is where the
proposed property dedication is. Next slide please. This slide shows a more
close-up map of the region. As you can see Broad Beach is northwest of Zuma Beach
and Point Dume. Broad Beach is well known for not being very broad anymore since a
very long revetment was built across the eastern part of the beach. The violations
at issue did not take place there though. Instead they occurred at the very
northwest end of Broad Beach. Nearly choose a point. Next slide please. On this
slide you can see the two properties owned by Respondent with their parcel
lines outlined in yellow. On the left is 31438 Broad Beach Road which is
undeveloped. However you can see construction cranes and excavators on
on the undeveloped property, which
has been used as a staging area, while respondent
undertakes repair work on the wood-sea wall at 31430 Broad
Beach Road, which is just to the right
and is already developed.
As you can see, the developed property is larger
and stretches across three lots.
All of the beach in the foreground
is covered by lateral public access easements required
by commissioned CDPs.
We'll discuss all these things in more detail soon.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see an aerial view of the properties,
again outlined in yellow.
You can also see that a lot of the rocky intertidal area
is now under water.
It's often covered by the ocean.
However, in order to see it better,
our staff visited at very low tides,
which you'll notice in this presentation.
Today we'll first detail the permit history
and then get into the violations
which took place at the areas of the yellow stars.
The unpermitted revetment is located
on the undeveloped property at the yellow star at the left,
and it was pushed seaward into the public access easement
for over a year and a half.
The star in the center shows the unpermitted private stairway
that was built hanging off of the seawall at 31430,
which has since been removed.
The unpermitted excavation of sand
took place throughout the beach,
but the star on the right shows
where the unpermitted excavation of boulders
in the ocean took place.
Also, to give you a sense of place,
the white arrow at the bottom
is pointing towards a large rock
that we'll see in the next slide, next slide please.
Now we'll show a couple more views from the beach,
this time during a very low tide.
On the left, you can see the large rock
that was far out in the ocean in the last photo.
It's still partially underwater,
but it's now a lot closer to the low tide shoreline.
You can also see the view from the properties looking west
towards Lechuza Point on the right.
People come here to Sunbathe,
walk along the tide pools, surf, and scuba dive.
Next slide please.
This photo shows the view looking west
towards the properties at issue
where the yellow star is.
You can see how during much of the year,
the shoreline in this area
consists of rocky intertidal habitat.
This photo was taken at the same low tide
as the last photo.
Next slide please.
Now we'll discuss the permit history
of these two properties.
On this slide you can see a California Coastal Records
Project aerial photo of the properties from 1987,
just after the commission approved a subdivision of them.
By the time of the CDP,
the house at 31430 Broad Beach Road was already built,
but was surrounded by the open space
that you can see here.
However, the 1985 Commission CDP split the undeveloped land
around it into many different parcels
that would soon be developed.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, the white stars show the general location
of commission required lateral public access easements
on the beach.
The commission approved the CDP for the subdivision,
but was aware that this would spur development
of the new parcels.
To ensure that public access would remain protected,
The commission required the recordation
of lateral public access easements
at both the developed and undeveloped property,
as you can see.
The easements extend 25 feet inland
from the mean high tide line.
Next slide, please.
In 1993, the commission approved a CDP
for the seawall in front of the developed property,
which you can see in this image from the 90s.
The commission found that because seawalls shrink beaches,
this wall would negatively impact public access here.
Therefore, to mitigate for future lost beach access,
the commission required a second public access easement.
You can also see in this image
that the wall looks rather short.
That's because there was a lot of sand on this beach
when it was first built.
However, the commission's predictions
about the seawall's negative impacts would soon come true.
Next slide, please.
In this photo taken much later,
you can see that the wall looks tall
because there's so much less sand.
In addition, the beach is steep
and the only dry sand left is right up against the wall.
The second public access easement required by the commission
extended from the mean height line all the way to the wall
on the developed property.
In this image, you can also see that people
have put beach towels on the sand on the left,
very close to the seawall.
This second easement ensured that the public
could now access any part of the narrow remaining beach here
at any time.
Next slide, please.
And now we'll discuss the initial violations.
This California Coastal Records Project image
was taken in 2002,
which was before Respondent owned either property.
In the photo, you can see that a prior owner
and unpermitted revetment circled on the left on the undeveloped property.
The prior owner obtained no CDP for the unpermitted revetment, and so no mitigation was done for
any of its negative impacts, and no additional public access easement was recorded on the
undeveloped property.
In addition, the circle in the center shows an unpermitted private stairway built by a
prior owner of the developed property.
The unpermitted private stairway was built within the public access easements there.
The same year this photo was taken, the State Lands Commission accepted the two lateral
public access easements required by the 1985 subdivision CDP and so the public then had
a property interest there.
Next slide please.
In this aerial image, you can see the unpermitted revetment circled in yellow.
You can also see yellow lines on the left and right that show how at the time, the seawalls
on both sides were much closer to the ocean than the revetment.
Because this unpermitted revetment was farther inland than the adjacent walls, it had less
of a negative impact on the beach than the walls did.
The black arrow is pointing to a sunbather with their towel and chair who is enjoying
the dry sand pocket beach further inland.
Below the black arrow you can see that seaward of the walls there is only wet sand.
This image therefore also illustrates the broader concept of how where there are no
sea walls, the public can continue to enjoy wide beaches.
Next slide please.
On this slide you can see a photo of the unpermitted private stairway.
A prior owner built this stairway within the commission required public access easements
at the developed property.
As you saw in the last slide, this beach is often very narrow and so the public needs
all the beach space here that they can get.
So this physical encroachment did serve to block public access.
In 2007, Respondent bought this property but did not remove this unpermitted private stairway.
Next slide please.
And now we're going to talk about the importance of the offshore habitat.
On this side you can see a map of two marine protected areas and the relevant MPA is the
blue one on the left.
The waters offshore are part of the Point Doom State Marine Conservation Area which
was created in 2012.
Within this MPA it's unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living, geological or
cultural marine resource.
In addition the coastal act and the city's local coastal program both already protected
marine resources as well.
Next slide please.
The map on this slide is very busy because it's full of various different sensitive habitats
that exists offshore of the properties.
In 2014, the commission formally recognized the importance of the rocky intertidal habitat
area here during an unrelated CDP action for the well-known revetment at the other end
of Broad Beach.
This map is part of the record from that CDP action.
In this unrelated CDP, the commission required that permittee to avoid impacting the intertidal
habitat here.
However, we added the yellow star at the top
to show how the unpermitted excavation occurred
in one of these mapped sensitive habitats,
specifically the habitat called the boulder field.
Next slide, please.
This photo shows an underwater sea star
that was photographed near the site of the violations
as part of the unrelated 2014 CDP.
Commissioned Senior Ecologist, Dr. Johna Engle,
wrote a memo describing the area issue.
She explained that it's inhabited by sea stars,
kelp, algae, and fish, as well as many different types of invertebrates.
Next slide please.
In this image you can see fish swimming among the rock reef just offshore of the unpermitted
excavation area.
It's worth noting that as you saw on the ocean habitat map a couple slides ago, all of these
areas are connected as part of one big ecosystem and they're all protected within the point
doom state marine conservation area.
Next slide please.
And now we'll discuss the more recent violations.
In 2017, respondent bought the undeveloped property on the left and obtained a CDP to
build a house on it.
The CDP also authorized respondent to remove the unpermitted revetment and replace it with
a seawall.
However, respondent did not build the house or remove the unpermitted revetment and instead
obtained a number of permit extensions.
Respondent then obtained emergency CDPs from the city of Malibu to turn the undeveloped
property into a staging area for seawall repairs next door on the developed property, the emergency
CDPs specifically prohibited any development from occurring within state tie lands. But as you're
about to see, the emergency CDPs were not complied with. Next slide, please. Now we're going to show
some slides about a lot of unpermitted development that occurred within a very short window of time
within a few days of July 2nd, 2024. On this slide, you can see that the unpermitted
preventment, which was once so far back behind the sea walls, that people could use the remaining
dry sand beach to sunbathe, was now pushed seaward of the walls and into the public excess
easement.
In this photo, sand and soil are on top of it, but you can see the boulders underneath
on the sides.
This action was taken so that large construction equipment would have an easier ramp to drive
down to the beach.
However, respondents' emergency CDPs did not authorize use of this unpermitted revetment.
Next slide please.
In this photo you can see the unpermitted revetment circled at the bottom left.
It was pushed so far towards the ocean that when this photo was taken it would be hard
to walk around it without getting wet.
Therefore this revetment now served to obstruct the public access easement.
Next slide please.
On this slide you can also see that respondent engaged in some sort of grading work on the
sand.
This was likely done in order to facilitate use of the unpermitted revetment as a ramp.
Next slide please.
As part of the repair work to the seawall, Respondent did remove the unpermitted private
stairway.
This photo shows the former location where the stairs had been bolted onto the wood.
Next slide please.
However, Respondent did more than just alter existing unpermitted development.
Respondent's excavator and front loader took sand from the beach for uses fill behind the
seawall.
This front loader you see here extracted wet sand and then drove it over to the wall for
uses fill.
Next slide please.
In addition, Respondent also used an excavator to extract sand from the beach for uses fill.
To give you a better sense of it, we'll show you a short video now.
If you could play video number one please.
Thank you.
In this video you can see how the excavator is digging into the beach and filling its
bucket full of the wet sand and then it deposits this beach sand behind the seawall for uses
fill for the repaired area. Thank you. We can go to the back to the next slide. Thank you.
In addition, Respondent also used an excavator to extract boulders and cobbles from the sensitive
intertidal boulder field habitat and pile them up on the beach for use as more fill behind the
seawall. The excavation is within state tie lands in the marine protected area as well as the area
The commission acted as well as the area the commission acted to protect in 2014
and so we're ready for the second video. This is the last one. Thank you. In this
video you can see how respondent is extracting the boulders and cobble from
the ocean and then piling them in a big pile onto the beach. Thank you. Yeah you
You can go back to the slide, thanks so much.
Thank you.
And yeah, the pile of cobble and boulders
that you can see in this image will similarly be used
as fill behind the wall later.
Next slide, please.
In this photo, you can see the hole that was created
in the intertidal boulder field by the excavation,
which is outlined in yellow.
There are no boulders sticking above the water
in the area where Respondent was digging them up.
In addition, you will notice that just below the excavator,
There's no longer a pile of boulders and cobbles
because they've now been placed behind the seawall.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see another photo
taken just offshore of the violations
that shows a protected Garibaldi,
which is the state fish of California.
Now we will discuss the aftermath of these violations.
The unpermitted development blocked public access
and therefore disproportionately impacted
environmental justice communities.
For people who cannot afford to buy or rent
the extremely expensive oceanfront houses in this area,
visiting the lateral public access easements
provides an affordable recreational activity.
However, the unpermitted private stairway
and the unpermitted revetment
encroached within these public access easements
negatively impacting access there.
Next slide please.
Shortly after the violations involving the excavators
and front loaders took place,
the city issued a stop work order and the respondent did stop.
The violations were then reported to commission staff
who began investigating.
In this image you can see commission enforcement staff
a site visit. On September 5th, 2024, commission staff sent a notice of violation to respond it.
Next slide, please. Later in 2024, commission staff took this photo of the exposed hole in the
intertidal boulder field. In the foreground, sand can be seen where boulders once provided habitat
for intertidal species. Note that the sand is wet because this photo was, again, taken at very low
tide. In the center, water can be seen filling the hole. This photo shows how the impacts of
of the violation have been long-lasting.
Next slide, please.
In 2025, Commission enforcement staff visited again
and got better photos of the hole, again at low tide.
Here, it's easier to see how there are no boulders left
where the excavation occurred, only sand.
In 2025, Commission staff also began negotiating
with respondent towards these proposed consent orders.
Next slide, please.
Here's one more photo of the hole in the boulder field,
this one taken in 2026, again at low tide.
Although Commissioned Staff was initially hopeful
that the area would naturally restore itself,
it appears virtually unchanged since 2024.
Therefore, Commissioned Staff believes
that without restoration, it would likely take many years
and perhaps many decades for the large boulders around it
to slowly migrate into the hole
and for the habitat to be restored.
Moreover, any boulders that migrated
into the excavation area would be to the detriment
of the habitat surrounding it,
which would then have less boulders.
As will be discussed later, Respondent has now agreed to restore this lost habitat.
Next slide, please.
Respondent did move the unpermitted revetment further inland and out of the public access
easement in 2026, which helped to reduce its impacts, although it remains unpermitted.
As will also be discussed later, Respondent has agreed to remove the unpermitted revetment
entirely.
Next slide, please.
For context, it's worth noting that there are two nearby vertical public access ways
that can be used to get to this beach.
This photo shows the closest one to the properties at issue, which is about 300 yards away.
We are now going to discuss the basis for issuance of these orders, the work constituted
development under the Coastal Act, but no CDP was obtained, thus there is a basis to
issue a cease and assist order here.
Next slide please.
In addition, the unpermitted development was undertaken without a CDP.
No CDP could be obtained for it because it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act and the
LCP, and it also continues to damage coastal resources.
Therefore, there is a basis for a restoration order here to require restoration of the areas
of unpermitted development.
Next slide, please.
On this slide, you can see a photo taken offshore of the properties that shows a seal swimming
above pieces of kelp.
A person who is in violation of the Public Access Provisions of the Coastal Act is subject
to an administrative civil penalty under Section 30821 that may be imposed by the Commission
after a public hearing like this one today.
In addition, a person who is in violation of any other provision of the Coastal Act
other than those related to public access, such as the habitat, marine resources and
other resource protection provisions of the act, is similarly subject to an administrative
civil penalty under Section 30821.3.
These consent orders address both sections, which is why there are two separate motions
for the penalties.
Next slide, please.
In assessing administrative penalties, the Commission uses the required five factors
that are detailed in section 30820C of the Coastal Act, which include the gravity of
the violation, susceptibility to restoration, sensitivity of the resource, cost of the state,
and any economic profits, among others.
This penalty analysis is detailed in the staff report separately for both the public access
and non-public access violations between pages 24 and 29.
Next slide, please.
This photo is taken from in front of the vertical public access way, looking down coast, away
from the properties, towards Point Doom.
As we'll discuss in detail in a moment, Respondents now agree to resolve this matter by restoring
the unpermitted excavation area in the inner tidal boulder field, agreeing to not interfere
with public access within the easements, removing the unpermitted revetment, and dedicating
the beachfront parcel in eastern Malibu to the public.
We believe that the beachfront property dedication presents an exciting and rare opportunity
for new public access in that part of the coast, and that the value to the public is
worth well over $2 million.
Next slide, please.
Respawna is required to restore the excavation area in the Intertidal Boulder field seen
here earlier this year.
Commission staff believes that the boulders and rocks, while providing sensitive habitat,
are not rare in the region and could be easily found on land.
Therefore, rather than wait many years or decades for boulders from surrounding areas
is to fill the hole in the habitat to restore itself.
Respondent is required to identify the same type
and size of boulders and cobble
from an inland quarry or other area
and place them here that you can see here in the hole.
Commissioned staff believes that this is the best outcome
for the sensitive habitat here.
Next slide, please.
In addition, respondents required to remove
the unpermitted private stairway,
which has already been done.
So you can see in this photo,
Respondent is also required to remove
on permitted revetment, next slide please.
In this photo you can see the view from the property
that Respana has agreed to purchase and dedicate.
The property is at Big Rock Beach which is in eastern Malibu
and has very few public access ways.
The property was listed at $2 million but if the public were
to buy it there would be additional costs
for staff time spent on planning, appraisal and negotiations.
Therefore, commission staff believes that the actual value
to the public is well over $2 million.
Next slide, please.
Here's a view of part of the property
from Pacific Coast Highway.
It has enough area on the shoulder
for several cars to park.
Any public parking here would be a welcome addition
since very little of it currently exists
on the ocean side of PCH.
In addition, protection of this property
will mean that the public will have views of the sea here
and an area that historically
has had very few ocean views from the highway.
As you can see, it does look different now
as this entire area burned in the recent fires.
Many of the lots have been for sale,
but will be redeveloped with houses once again soon.
Next slide, please.
This photo was taken from the beach itself.
The entirety of Eastern Malibu
between Topanga Beach and Malibu Pier
has relatively few public access ways,
even though it is within an hour's driving distance
of millions of people.
Therefore, any additional public land there
is very valuable for residents of LA County,
as well as local residents of Malibu as well.
Next slide please.
Here's the last photo of the proposed dedication property.
It's worth noting that people often tell us
that the public should buy more properties
in Eastern Malibu given the high demand
for public access there.
However, it's challenging to do so for a variety of reasons.
And so public acquisitions along the beachfront
have remained relatively rare.
Thus, we believe that the proposed resolution
presents an exciting and unique opportunity
to greatly enhance public access
as part of the resolution of this matter.
We wanna thank Respondent for their dedication
to resolving this matter amicably
and for their commitment
to providing a great benefit for the public.
We also wanna thank our district enforcement staff,
Cameron Lee and Carlo Rivas,
for doing lots of site visits
and taking many of the great photos you've seen today,
as well as Gabriela Goff,
a planner in our south central coast office,
protect the amazing underwater photos that you saw.
We recommend that the commission approve
the proposed consent cease and desist order,
proposed consent restoration order,
and proposed consent administrative penalties
as set forth in the staff report.
The motions can be found beginning on page nine
of the report.
That concludes my presentation
and we're available for questions.
Great, thank you very much.
Now I'll invite the respondent up to address the commission.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commissioners, it's a pleasure to be here today
with a resolution that hopefully all can support.
I'm gonna take only a few minutes of my allotted time
and would love to reserve the rest
to respond to any questions or comments from commissioners.
As noted before, my name is Ken Ehrlich,
I'm longtime coastal council for respondent.
And I wanted to make, just to place this into context,
without necessarily defending the actions which occurred,
some of which are fairly powerful and video.
The respondent itself, when permitting a restoration
of the seawall in question at 31430,
interviewed multiple contractors very familiar with work
in coastal environment in Southern California.
They hired, interestingly enough,
the most expensive union shop with the most experience
in coastal waters in Malibu to do this work.
It was with great shock when around 4th of July weekend
of 2024 when we saw and heard of this video
and learned what had gone on.
The respondent itself of course, this is a contractor.
The respondent itself is nowhere to be seen
and not at the site frankly when this all occurred.
The contractor was never authorized
to go into the coastal zone, to go into the coastal waters,
to go into public property, to do anything.
And it was made clear in the conditions of the ECTP
which the contractor had.
Again, this is not a defense.
This is simply set in context for what was going on, who was in the cab of that excavator
that you saw, and what went on.
In addition, when these two, when the two properties at issue were purchased, 31430
was purchased in or around 2007, 31438, I believe in around 2017, the staff report has
these dates accurate, I think that's accurate.
All the due diligence that could have been done was done.
There was nothing recorded about the actual, the boulder rocks at 31438.
And in fact, the respondent thought that the stairs were in fact permitted at 31430.
And this was the subject of probably the most discussion between coastal staff in our office
because we as well thought the beach access stairs were in fact permitted regardless.
Those beach access stairs have been removed.
We've re-engineered a, we think a fairly novel internal stair situation that would allow
property owner and their guests to legally get down to the beach without going into the
lateral access area that Mr. Mottlemog described.
We in fact requested Coastal Commission to assert jurisdiction over the permitting of
these internal stairs as part of this resolution, which the Coastal Commission politely declined
in deference to the city of Malibu.
We're permitting those now.
With all that said, in addition, we had, again, no notice of the sand scooping of the excavator
being on public lands or in public property.
We're here to make this right.
We could have, and in fact, we're pursuing a monetary penalty as part of this resolution
that would have been far less than the cost of the donor lot.
not what Respondent wanted to do. In direct direction from the client, the client wanted
a better resolution than that. And we believe we've achieved it by donating property that's
significantly wide to provide for lateral vertical public access and public use of the
property at Big Rock Beach. We would like the public to use it, we'd like the public
to access it and want it to be a public resource moving on to the future. We're committed to
restoration process as well. We have the contractor lined up a well regarded
coastal consultant and professional coastal resources firm to do the
restoration. We're committed to doing the restoration of the land at 31430
where the excavation occurred as well as removing the revetment rocks at
31438 in accordance with the deadlines proposed by the resolution. I
appreciate the Commission's consideration of this matter. I want to
thank staff, both the lawyers as well as the non-lawyer staff of the Coastal
Commission for the cooperation in this matter. It meant a lot to us to have open
lines of communication in order to resolve it. Thank you for being here
today. I'm happy to answer any questions or comments. Thank you very much sir. You
have 20 minutes and 30 seconds remaining. Should you wish to use that? Just write
this down. Okay, we'll now take public comment on this issue. I'll turn to you
Chris and Galen. All right. We have a total of five speakers sign up for this
item. We'll start in the room. We have Ry Murphy followed by Mitch Silverstein.
Good morning. I only have 17 points. I'm gonna move very quickly here. I represent
the the owner of the property just adjacent to the the undeveloped parcel.
Our interest here is really limited. We support the Commission's efforts to
address the violations and our concerns really only about the revetment. As the
staff report shows, it's a very steep grade on the undeveloped slope, I think
2.5 to 1, and the proposed orders include a process and timeline for
removing the revetment but they don't address its replacement. The most it does
refer in the final section, it's 6.3.8.4, to a possible extension the respondent
can request to accommodate, quote, planned construction at the undeveloped parcel.
Now post removal work construction will likely be necessary again, but the plan
under which it will be done is subject to litigation right now. That work is
included in the 2016 CDP that expands the current house to a 7200 square foot
plus amenities project. And my clients are challenging the validity of that
because essentially it on the basis that it's very old. There's a lot
more to that but I'm not going to get into that. The LA Superior Court has a
a hearing, a writ hearing in February that will resolve the validity of that CDP, and
the outcome of that is directly relevant to the kind of effectiveness, the enforceability
of these orders.
So again, I'm not going to get too much into litigation, but it's a very old permit.
It expired three times, was renewed.
was a bunch of work done right before the last extension or the expiration of
the last extension and the city of Malibu green lighted construction we
think that's a violation so but what we're asking to be clear there's no
request that the Commission do anything with respect to the litigation none at
all what we want to make sure is that the obligations under these orders can
be implemented. And to that end we suggest that something be added to make
it clear that if the 2016 CDP is found invalid that the new owners that the
owners be obligated to obtain a new CDP for further corrective work at the
revetment site. Thank you. Thank you Mitch Silverstein followed by threesome
speakers, Darren Graves, Dean Winter, and then Fred Gaines. Mitch Silverstein.
Good morning or afternoon commissioners. Mitch Silverstein with Surf Rider
Foundation. I'll be brief. Surf Rider supports the proposed resolution that's
in front of you today and asks for you to support it.
Surf Rider, we've been saying for decades that the effect that seawalls built to
protect private properties have is to steal the public sandy beaches. So it
It really adds insult to injury to see that the excavator was literally stealing sand
from the public beaches and putting it behind the seawall.
That said, we do want to thank first and foremost commission staff and the enforcement team
for getting this all on record, and also thank the alleged violator for working with staff
to come up with this proposed resolution in lieu of money, who knows where that will go,
where that will be used, this purchasing of a beachfront property, this really extraordinary.
With respect to the tragedies of the fires that occurred there, that used to just be
wall-to-wall houses and public access has been a major issue for decades, you know,
since before the Coastal Act, all kinds, you know, all kinds of issues excluding people
from those beaches.
So to see that proposed and knowing that, yeah, you know, everyone can see the beach
now and the homes are gone but a lot of them are going to be rebuilt and those beaches
are going to be lost again and public access is going to be lost again.
So to have this property to be purchased
and deeded over to public is really extraordinary
and is a big deal to our LA chapter and LA members.
So we're really supportive of this
and really thankful for the commission's work on this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Darren Graves, Dean Wenner, and then Fred Gaines.
Darren Graves.
Good morning, honorable commissioners.
Thank you for your time.
My name is Darren Graves
and I'm a resident of Big Rock Beach.
I want to clarify some details
the proposed gift property in question it is 70 feet of a triplex it is a
community that is trying to rebuild from the Palisades fire it is
approximately 310 linear feet from the moon shadows access point and 2,000
linear feet from the Big Rock tidepools staircase thus contrary to the agenda
report Big Rock Beach is not an area that is not accessible by the public it
is actually highly accessible to the public already I also want you to
understand that this land swap is really giving a debt burden to the state of
California. I say that because the property in question is not developable
as it is. It is a steep bluff that is 20 feet from PCH to the sandy surface. It is
covered in a thin layer of shot creek and has subgrade septic systems which
have been presumably damaged or destroyed by the 2,600 degree fire that
burned on top of the property for up to 10 days.
I would say that this property is actually
a great proposal for brownfield redevelopment,
which is highly costly,
but is definitely not something that is suitable
for public access.
I wouldn't want to walk on it.
I have no idea what is leeching up
through the broken asphalt and shotcrete,
and I don't think anybody does.
So rather than, you know, accepting this savings
which the respondent is giving you,
I think the Coastal Commission should levy
the maximum penalties upon the respondent,
which I think is probably upwards of $8 million.
He looks like a hero because he's buying property
out from underneath the rebuilding efforts at a discount.
So he's saving presumably $6 million
and he's giving this debt burden to the state of California.
Who's gonna pay for the $10 million staircase project
that you're proposing?
My taxes, your taxes.
I'd like to remind you that the Coastal Commission
is supposed to protect both private property
and public access.
And this project that now is going to presumably take shape
will definitely not help private property.
I say that because as a resident of Big Rock Beach,
I've spent 10 years cleaning up the litter
and refuse left by the public.
I spent a year picking up the debris from the fire
that was in the tide lands that USACE didn't pick up.
And I will be forced to continue to do so
because there is no place to put trash on this property.
There are only four parking places.
So if you're inviting the public to come down to the beach
at this proposed staircase,
you're gonna create a traffic problem and a parking problem
and you're gonna add a huge risk to the public safety
rather than a boon to public access.
Thank you.
Thank you next Dean Wenner.
Dean Wenner, I see that you're unmuted.
Fred Gaines, hold on a second.
Dean Wenner, I see that you're unmuted.
You should be able to go ahead.
All right, we're not hearing anything from Dean.
Fred Gaines, go ahead, we'll come back to Dean.
Thank you, good afternoon, honorable commissioners.
My name is Fred Gaines with the law firm
of Rand Pastor Nelson.
I am the litigation counsel for 2XMD
in the matter brought by Los Trancos Management Services
that was mentioned by the earlier speaker.
The only reason that I sent you the letter
and that I'm here is to correct misrepresentations
that were made and to urge the commission
not to get involved in the litigation matter
as it's been invited to do so by the speaker for the neighbor.
This neighbor has been for many, many years
attempting to stop the construction of the house that
has been permitted on the empty lot next door to them.
That is ongoing.
They've had three different lawsuits.
They have one currently pending now where they went in
and tried to get a temporary restraining order.
I provided you the order from the court
finding that there was no merit to the claims.
And I just ask that you refrain from making any findings
related to any of the issues in the litigation
which are relevant to the matter in front of you today.
The staff in the addendum has correctly made clear
that the issues here take no position
on the issues of the litigation.
That is a correct position.
We ask that you uphold that
and that you support the staff recommendation.
That's before you.
If there are questions about the litigation,
I'm available to answer them.
Thank you very much, appreciate the time.
Thank you.
And trying Dean Winter again,
we see that your camera's on.
You should be able to unmute now.
Yes, hello, I'm sorry.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Excellent.
So good afternoon now.
My name is Dean Winter.
I'm an owner in the Palisades Fire Reburn area
and an owner on Big Rock Beach
in the process of rebuilding my home
and helping others in the area.
I'm speaking today to urge the commission
reject the staff recommendation as presented. While the settlement is framed as a victory for
public access, it's an egregious regulatory loophole. It allows the violator to satisfy
a $20 million plus statutory penalty by purchasing fire-damaged,
earned-out residential property for just $2 million and handing it to the state.
This sets a dangerous precedent on four distinct grounds.
First, it permanently destroys mandated housing stock.
The terms of this donation permanently erased this lot
from residential use.
This directly contradicts strict mandates
from HUD and the city of Malibu,
which explicitly bar fire-recovering families
from downsizing or reducing unit density
because every house is legally deemed irreplaceable.
Second, it permanently wipes south property tax revenue.
Erasing this parcel from the tax rolls
deprives local municipal and school districts
of vital funding, shifting the economic burden directly
onto surviving homeowners.
Third, it suppresses the real estate market
for actual fire survivors,
allowing the low dollar distressed purchase
to settle a state fine artificially anchors
surrounding land values downward.
This directly harms struggling survivors
trying to assess their equity,
all while individual survivors are still being assessed
at higher values and forced to pay hefty property taxes while receiving zero benefits.
Finally, the claim that access is scarce here is flatly false.
The state does not need to erase a residential lot for access.
Long neglected, gated off public easements sit directly on the borders of the Moon Shadows
parcel.
The down coast moon shadows easement and the up coast gated gate sat locked, chained and
abandoned for years if not decades.
Because they were unsafe due to maintenance neglect, not a lack of dedicated space.
The Coastal Commission is a regulatory and planning agency, not a land management entity
holding fee title to physical land.
Worse, structuring this as a land donation allows the offender to potentially qualify
for a massive federal and state tax deduction, turning an environmental violation into a
lucrative tax shelter.
Do not allow a violator to buy their way out of a $20 million plus fine at a 90% discount
using disaster real estate.
Please reject this recommendation and demand a recommendation that more appropriately addresses
the matter via the collection of financial penalties to be directed to proper environmental
mitigation plans.
Thank you for your talk.
thank you no more speakers okay thank you very much I will return to the
respondent they have 20 minutes and 30 seconds if you would like to respond sir
madam chair commissioners hopefully my response will be even more brief than my
initial comments two points to cover very quickly this is a legitimate
bona fide purchase by the respondent for the donation to that extent we receive
disclosures from the seller. Those disclosures which will go to the
Coastal Commission include certification that the septic system has been closed.
We have documentation of that in accordance with the debris removal that
occurred at the site after the Palisades fire. So any allegations of the septic
system constituting some sort of public health or safety issue is unfounded
according to the documentation we have. In addition to that I learned this
morning from Mr. Motelmog himself and he can attest to this more firsthand than I
can that the city of Malibu is well aware and has had a conversation with
him about the resolution and are not commenting so the city of Malibu seems
perfectly fine and understands the consequences of this and at least their
silence in my view my optimistic view can be categorized as tacit support for
it if not overt support and just didn't want to comment other than that I'm
happy to respond to any other questions or comments from the commissioners thank
you thank you very much sir okay I'll turn to our staff mr. model mug mr.
McClendon thank you I think we are going to respond to a few points that were
made I'll start off and then and then hand the mic off I think first just to
repeat ourselves that we feel like this is the right resolution we went through
all the factors under the Coastal Act and came up with this resolution. The
property that would be dedicated to the public is again incredibly unique and
rare and I think you've you've heard a little bit about why it's so hard and
challenging for the public to purchase these properties is because you know
there may be some pushback from the residents there
that may or may not want the public there.
We feel like every public in any public access is important.
And even if there may be one nearby,
it spreads out the access.
So you don't have a situation where you have the,
like one of the commenters that there might be traffic
or something like that, it spreads the access out.
So that was one point.
You know, the other is the idea that it's dangerous
and the access isn't there now.
We agree their access isn't there now.
It's not owned by the public.
This is going to be a process.
This is the first step in providing a new public access way
where there's never been one before.
This was a walled off area
where one couldn't even see the ocean very much.
And so we understand that we will be working
with the accepting entity, whoever that may be,
whether it's parks or the county or someone like MRCA,
to do that long-term process and planning
to and provide the funding for the development
of this hopefully new public access way,
this public view area,
in an area where access just wasn't there before.
So now I'll hand it over to Alex and Rob.
Thanks, Aaron.
I want to address a couple of points.
First of all, Mr. Murphy spoke for the neighbor
and he said that the work that will be required
after removal of the revetment is pursuant
to a plan that's currently subject to litigation.
I just wanna point out that that permit authorizes
one possible solution, but as we indicated in the addendum,
if that existing permit is found to have expired
for some reason, there's still plenty of time
to develop alternatives to ensure the integrity
of the neighboring property and the house.
The respondent could seek a new permit
similar to the original one
if the original one is found to be expired.
Mr. Murphy's clients can also apply for a permit to protect their house.
There are a number of possible solutions here, and
we're obviously going to take all that into account in our process when we're
viewing the removal plan that the respondent is required to produce.
So I would agree with Mr. Gaines actually who also spoke about the litigation,
that we shouldn't be wading into that dispute by trying to come up with potential
solutions for every speculative contingency that
may develop in that litigation.
And then I also want to make one other comment related
to the comment that Aaron just made about there
being multiple access ways here.
In addition to Aaron's point, even if there are other access
ways nearby, there's a big difference between an access
way and a full parcel.
And I think it's worth putting this
in some historical context.
Prior to the horrible Palisades fires,
This was arguably one of the most densely developed areas,
seaward of PCH in Malibu,
and presumably maybe again after it's redeveloped
unless something's done to prevent that.
I was fortunate enough to hear Ellen Stern Harris speak
before she passed away in 2006.
She was largely regarded as the mother of Prop 20,
the predecessor to the Coastal Act,
and she said that a big trigger for her
in launching the Prop 20 campaign
was that she was driving this very stretch of PCH
with her daughter.
And she mentioned something about the beach.
And her daughter turned to her and said, there's a beach here?
There were 50 feet from the water.
And she had no idea that there was a beach,
because it was a solid wall of development
for a long stretch here.
And I just can't overemphasize the significance
of getting a parcel along this stretch into public hands.
I'll turn it over to Rob.
I think I think we're ready for questions.
Apologies.
Thank you very much.
With that, I'll now close the public hearing
and bring it back to the commission
for their deliberations.
Questions for staff or the respondent.
I'll begin with Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to staff for all its hard work.
I certainly appreciate anyone's willingness
to donate coastal property for public benefit.
But before we call this a gift, I
want to understand exactly what the public is receiving
and really what obligations come with it.
So questions about what lies beneath this property.
We know there's a close, I think we were told
there's a closed septic.
But what else is there?
And who's going to be responsible for the leach fields,
utilities, contaminated soil?
What's there?
And who's cleaning it up?
Yeah, so, frankly, actually if you could show one of the,
maybe the last slide, or second or third to last slide.
Frankly, what's there is a revetment,
and it is our understanding that there is some sort
of septic system underneath.
It's, we believe that even with some sort of,
maybe additional costs, in addition to building the stairway,
that many local public agencies will be very interested
in this property, even though it might be slightly more
to develop it with a public stairway,
given what Alex was just saying,
of just the historic real lack of access here,
that it really is an important area.
So, I guess to be clear,
we're not sure what lies beneath.
Oh, oh no, I think it is,
You can, I think, be assured that there is some sort of septic something there,
and there is a revetment, yes.
Right.
But we don't know what else, I mean, I guess, how deep has the study been to
determine basically what the cost of remediation for that property would be?
Because this is the same situation that lies up and down the coast where homes
were destroyed, sadly, by the fires, where they, you know, I've heard estimates of
one to two million dollars of remediation
before anything could be done.
So I just wanna make sure that, you know,
and could that be or why wasn't that, you know,
is that something that could be borne by
the giver of the gift?
So there's no structures on the property.
It's true that underground there may be something.
I think that I'm not quite sure how much remediation
would be needed at all, really,
given that there's likely to be some sort of seawall
or revetment there,
protecting anything underground in the future.
I think that an accepting entity
as part of the planning process
would be the one, right, to figure that out
and decide going forward.
I think without, like you said, without studies,
it's hard to say whether much work would even be needed.
And I just wanted to add to that.
We have reached out to some of our agency partners who've already expressed a willingness
to accept the property.
I think, and again putting it more in perspective, we're looking at this sort of for the long
term.
As these properties begin to redevelop, even if it takes a long period of time to figure
out the access improvements in the planning process that will be done but in the meantime
there will be a view of the ocean that was never there before and I think we value that.
There will certainly be some type of protection there that will stay because of its proximity
to PCH. It does seem like, and I think Mr. Ehrlich said this before, where they did some
due diligence on the property already, and I don't know if you want to speak directly
with him because we haven't seen that information yet, but it didn't appear like there was anything
substantial, any substantial hurdles that we couldn't overcome in the future in terms
of developing this property for the public.
And I certainly appreciate that, I certainly appreciate the views, I certainly appreciate
those that are looking to rebuild after the devastating fires, but we also know, as we've
witnessed over the last few weeks, what's going on in Malibu and up and down the California
coast and rebuilding in some of those areas is going to be virtually impossible.
So my concern is that this is not simply a transfer of private liability to the taxpayers
under the guise of a gift.
I'm not trying to dispute the well intention of the gift giver, but you know, what are
we getting and does the potential fine outweigh what we're receiving here?
this outweigh the potential fine that could have been levied? I guess is also a thought.
So this property was listed at two million dollars before respondent ever reached out
to the property owner right so you know that was the market rate and frankly you know we
don't have Jeremy our coastal engineer here but frankly anything is developable with enough
money and all these lots are developable and everyone knows it and that's why they're buying
them all. They put piles further down in the ground and its proximity to Los Angeles means
that it's valuable real estate even if you have to spend a lot of money on seawalls.
I think though that what we were really excited about is that as we mentioned, it's been many
decades of people asking why the public doesn't do these types of things and all these things
right, that you're bringing up, these are reasons why, right, like there's always, there's
always reasons, there's always issues with the property or something and so what we were
so excited about was that it finally is happening.
And just to follow up quickly and not to get into any of the confidential negotiations
that we had, but once this did become an opportunity, the respondent was looking at
quite a few properties to purchase for the, for the, to address the penalties, and presented
those to us, and many of them had those constraints that you're referring to.
This is one that we saw that had a lower profile to the beach, so it wasn't as high as some
of the other ones in the area, and actually had some sandy beach area at periods of time.
Many of the houses, many of the properties here, the water goes underneath the homes.
In this particular one, it did seem to provide a little bit more of a sandy beach experience,
And that was another reason why this particular property was was selected and again, I don't
know if if Mr. Ehrlich knows anything else about some of the contingencies that you're
talking about but yeah I'll just leave it at that.
And again I don't want to I guess look a gift horse in its mouth but again I am just concerned
about what lies beneath, what the remediation is, and if that should be a cost that's borne
by the giver of the gift or at least shared or some sort of reciprocal, some agreement
where it's not on the taxpayer under the guise of a gift that probably will be written off.
That's my concern.
That's all.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Commissioner Kalmyk.
Thank you, Chair.
I had somewhat similar questions and through the chair.
I don't think we're looking at building housing on this.
So any remediation for that,
it's the general like don't eat the dirt type of remediation
that I don't know what type of structure that the state
or a receiving party would want to do on this.
So, I mean, most of those had housing on them before
and I'm guessing contamination would be anything
that leached out of the house due to the fire.
So if, but again, if we're not building, contemplating building residential,
I don't know if that has like an impact overall on like if we get stuck holding
the skate or whomever gets left holding the bag for, you know, contaminated
property, it's, I don't think the content, like what the source of contamination
would potentially be, but I, I do risk a hundred percent respect.
Like we don't want to get left holding the bag, but I did want to
flag that it's unlikely that there will be housing, uh, which leads me to the
two other questions and I think commissioner Jackson touched on this,
But I wanted to kind of drill more.
One of the speakers talked about that there
was a statutory fine of like $8 to $10 million
that this is somewhat avoiding.
Could staff address that number and or if there
is a quote unquote statutory fine that's not being imposed?
So under the Coastal Act, the penalties are $11,250 a day
maximum.
We evaluate it, and this is addressed in the staff report.
We go through the five factors under 308.2C.
And in that evaluation, we came up with this number.
And so we feel strongly that this number is the penalty
amount that should be applicable to this particular situation.
And again, that's detailed in the findings of the staff report.
I would just add it's not it's not a science right so there's there's not we
have discretion and there's a process we go through in determining what the
appropriate penalty would be and I think again what you heard Aaron and the team
here say is that that the the value of this property is appropriate given the
circumstances and the analysis that we did based on related to this violation
and what the appropriate penalty would be. So staff doesn't feel that really
living money on the table by taking property in lieu of cash.
That's correct.
OK.
And then another speaker brought up
with potentially moving housing from the coastal zone,
if staff could kind of square that circle with regard
to a parcel that would no longer be applicable for housing
and where that falls within maybe the city of Malibu's
issue versus the coastal conditions mission.
That's a hard question to answer.
I think we've all, you know, after the Palisades fire,
There's been obviously a huge rebuilding effort.
You've seen some of the parcels along this area.
They're difficult, if not impossible in some cases,
to rebuild on, but they are buildable.
They're considered buildable lots.
So I think it's true to say this would be removing one
potentially buildable residential lot.
But again, there's so many factors that go into that,
whether somebody would purchase it and then
choose to build there.
And you know that that's all speculative in that sense, but it's true that it is a residentially zoned lot
And we that bike the Commission taking a section it would convert that to a public
access focus lot
And I would just add
Alex make touch on this too, but under the city's LCP
Public access is an allowable use in any zoned property including residential
Okay, thank you so much. Thank you, Jeff
Commissioner Wilson are there other properties that were the focus of
this
effort that we're on sort of on a short list in terms of
under consideration
Respondent once we were offered this opportunity they began looking at
Potential purchases and so they presented those to us through our negotiations
And so we did evaluate those as they were presented to us and as I mentioned before
during that evaluation we took into
you know
We looked at different factors that would
provide for the best public recreational and access opportunities and
The property that's that they're offering through this proposed resolution is the one that sort of best fit
The those factors that we're looking into
Was there the concept of looking at more than one it?
in terms of this compensatory
Yeah, so respondent
you know, we talked in confidential negotiations with respondent about several different ones and
as Aaron mentioned earlier some of the lots in
Like further eastern Malibu are actually it's a it's a bigger drop to the beach
And so it would be more difficult for the public to reach the sand if that makes sense and some of them
Frankly, the the seawalls were were messed up in the in the fires
and so Caltrans is now worried that pch is it's falling into the ocean and in some of these lots and so
There are definitely worse ones than others in terms of all of this
And one of the things I wanted to mention is that, you know,
several of the speakers were saying, oh, well,
there's actually public access ways near this.
When we talked with local agency partners, they actually thought
that that was a benefit of this particular lot,
that it would be near other areas
where the public can park and walk through.
And so, you could walk down one stair
and go up another one, right?
They actually thought that that was an amenity here,
not a drawback, if that makes sense.
And beyond just public access, I guess what I'm asking is you mentioned, you know,
potential view, view shed options, or I mean opportunities, but now I mean you're talking
about potential public infrastructure protection opportunities in terms of what,
if PCH is protected or not, and I'm wondering if Caltrans has been alerted to this effort
And if they have any partnership opportunities for for the collection of some of these
Properties for the purposes of maintaining their assets as well as potentially opening up the view shed
That's an interesting idea and I think it's worth exploring with Caltrans. I'm not sure that we've had that discussion with them yet
Commissioner Nada
Yeah, I just I want to say I'm only familiar with one other time that this has been done in Malibu
I believe with the Geffen property, I believe it was actually his attorney at the time was
Rick Zabur who arranged for a purchase of another lot in Malibu
rather than have a vertical access next to his own property. So
this is really I appreciate the
the value of this and it's it's hard to find these opportunities. I'm hopeful that there will be more opportunities given the
so we're seeing a lot of
disruption.
That's a devastating condition
of many of these lots.
So we'll see how that plays out
going forward and, you know,
it's good that we have a
cooperative local government
there that will help us identify
opportunities as well.
So I'm ready to make a motion
when the commission is ready
for that.
Thank you.
Commissioner Oglesby.
I just wanted to highlight the fact that staff went through this and you're actually adding a spot.
And so when we talk about it, this won't come up again, right?
That solid wall of homes, and I think Commissioner Jackson said it well.
Unfortunately, you know, through the fires, and we feel for the families.
But unfortunately, that happened.
But if you don't take this opportunity now, it won't be there for the next 50 years.
So that's a point we can't just walk by because it's so close to other access points and things
of that nature. I think eventually five years from now, ten years from now, when those other
homes are built, people will appreciate that open space even though it may go by quickly
in your car but they would appreciate that. Thank you Chair. Thank you. Seeing no additional
comments I'll just say I agree with Commissioner Oglesby and with our staff who I know has worked
very hard and the respondent I want to thank you for coming to the table and for everyone working
in good faith to get to this result. I think it's a good result and I appreciate the clear
effort and focus that went into getting us to this point today.
So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Commissioner Knottoff.
There are four motions.
OK.
I'm going to start with I move that the commission issue
consent cease and desist order number CCC-26-CD-04 to 2XMD
partners, LLC, pursuant to the staff recommendation
and request a yes vote.
Second.
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner not off a second by Commissioner Escalante. They're asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll call please.
Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante. Yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart. Yes. Commissioner Jackson. Jackson. Yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Lee. Yes. Commissioner Oglesby. Aye. Oglesby. Yes. Commissioner Kalmick. Aye. Kalmick. Yes. Commissioner Nodhoff. Aye.
Knott Hough, yes, Commissioner Moreno.
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes, Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes, Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes, Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon, yes, the vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
The motion carries.
Commissioner Nada.
I move that the commission issue consent restoration order number
CC-26-R0-02 to 2XMD Partners, LLC pursuant
to the staff recommendation and request a yes vote.
Second.
Thank you.
Motion by Commissioner Notoff, second by Commissioner Escalante.
May we have a roll call vote, please.
Commissioner Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Lee. Yes. Commissioner Lopez. Oh,
wait no. Olesby. Sorry. Aye. Olesby. Yes. Commissioner Kalmick. Aye. Kalmick. Yes. Commissioner
Notthoff. Aye. Notthoff. Yes. Commissioner Moreno. Moreno. Yes. Moreno. Yes. Commissioner
Wilson. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley. Yes. Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Chair Harmon.
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
Okay, number three.
I move that the commission find that as a result
of the actions and failures to act described
in the associated findings, two XMD partners, LLC,
is in violation of various provisions of the Coastal Act
protecting public access.
And that the commission impose consent administrative
civil penalty number CCC-26-AP-03,
pursuant to the staff recommendation,
and request a yes vote.
I'll second that.
Thank you.
It's a motion by Commissioner Notoff.
I seconded.
May we have a roll call vote, please?
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lee.
Yes.
Lee, yes.
Commissioner Oglesby.
Aye.
All those with me, yes.
Commissioner Kalmyk?
Aye.
Kalmyk, yes.
Commissioner Notoff?
Aye.
Notoff, yes.
Commissioner Moreno?
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Commissioner Hart?
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you.
Okay, and then finally, I move that the Commission find
that as a result of the actions and failures to act
described in the associated findings,
two XMD partners, LLC, is in violation
of various provisions of the Coastal Act,
including, but not necessarily limited to,
provisions protecting marine resources,
biological productivity,
and environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
And that the Commission impose consent
administrative civil penalty number CCC-26-AP3-03 pursuant
to the staff recommendation and request a yes vote.
Second.
Thank you.
That's a motion by Commissioner Notoff,
a second by Commissioner Wilson.
May we have a roll call vote, please.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lee.
Yes.
Lee, yes.
Commissioner Oglesby.
Aye.
Oglesby, yes.
Commissioner Kelmick.
I'll make yes commissioner not off. I not off. Yes, commissioner. Moreno, Moreno. Yes,
yes, commissioner Wilson. Yes, Wilson. Yes, commissioner O'Malley. Yes, O'Malley. Yes,
commissioner Escalante. Yes, Escalante. Yes, Commissioner Hart. Yes, Hart. Yes,
commissioner Jackson Jackson. Yes, chair Harmon. Yes, Harmon. Yes, the vote is
unanimous okay thank you very much thank you to staff and to the respondent
director Hucklebridge I'll turn to you do we need to break now or shall we
continue on I think we should push on we don't have a specific lunch plan so I
think best let's just do it moving thanks so that brings us to item eight
please all right thank you that does take us to item eight which is the
deputy directors report for South Coast district Orange County port contains one
waiver for residential project in Seal Beach one CDB time extension for
residents in San Clemente and staff's also reporting three emergency actions
the first was at 35127 Beach Road in Dana Point for the replacement of sand
cubes installed under a prior emergency permit in order to protect a residence
threatened by erosion there. The second is reporting on an
emergency permit waiver requested by OCTA to place rock
to protect the railroad tracks in South San Clemente in the
vicinity of Cypress Shore. And the third was to remove a
portion of a private bluff stairway that had collapsed on
the beach at 31561 Table Rock Drive in Laguna Beach. This is
just a report out. There's no action for the commission to
take on the emergency matters.
But I do want to take a moment to talk about the emergency
actions that OCTA has taken over the last month.
We've had regular communications with OCTA
about ongoing hazards along the railroad
in Southerly part of San Clemente,
more specifically in the vicinity of San Clemente State
Beach, Cypress Shores, and Cotton's Point.
The existing rock protection along the rail corridor in this area and elsewhere is not
comprised of a modern engineered design.
It is instead mostly rock loosely placed along the seaward slope of the elevated prism that
the rail sits on.
So in some cases when construction access is available, the rail authority is able to
be more careful about rock placement.
But often the rock is placed through side dumping off the rail.
The absence of an engineered revetment design means frequent repair is required because
the loosely placed rock can easily be pulled off the slope by wave action or settle when
the fronting beach is scoured.
We've been advised that the rail operator keeps watch of the tracks in this location
at least three times a week, and even more often when high tides and waves are expected
to interact with the tracks.
Sometimes these inspections occur ahead of every train passing through the corridor.
When inspections reveal a deficiency in the rock protection that needs to be addressed
to ensure life's safety of passengers, they move to immediately place more rock in those
areas to minimize and avoid rail closure periods.
These emergency repairs are necessary to keep the rail line operational.
However, despite these efforts over the last month, the rail line was shut down earlier
this week.
Almost all of the emergency work over the past month has occurred without commission
review.
This process of inspection followed by immediate repairs needs to be reconciled with our permitting
requirements.
We are working with OCTA and Metrolink to establish a process that allows their emergency
repair activities to be reviewed ahead of being carried out.
At the same time, commission staff are working with the rail to bring the actions previously
carried out into the pending regular CDP applications.
Staff is looking at the November-December hearings to bring those applications forward.
And further, we're looking to get a program in place that allows for these ongoing urgent
repairs to occur in a manner that has the least impact on coastal resources, but also
provides mitigation to address the loss of beach and public recreation.
One of the principal strategies we've been working with OCTA on is including sand replenishment
as a component of their projects, both to provide additional protection to the rail
and to address the loss of beach resulting from armoring and other rail protection.
For the long-term, it's clear that the rail line is in a highly vulnerable location and
needs to be relocated away from the coastline in this area as soon as that is possible.
We continue to advocate for the need to commence the planning for that long-term now.
So with that, I'll conclude.
We're asking whether three or more commissioners object to the waiver or the CDP time extension
in the report.
Thank you very much. Any expertise, any public comments? We have two speakers. We'll start
with Ken Salter and then Susie Whitelaw. Ken Salter, you should be able to unmute and begin.
Okay, can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Excellent. Good morning, commissioners.
Emergency rip rap may provide immediate defense for the rail corridor, but it inflicts an
immediate crisis on our public beaches. Hard armoring without sand is not protection, it
is beach loss. Simply put, emergency armoring demands emergency nourishment. I was recently
notified about an extension to the Okta work that is about to begin, that it will reach
up to a quarter mile of preventment near San Clemente State Beach following the recent
storm events. The commission has granted authorization for sand replenishment, but
I understood, correct me if I'm wrong, that this timeline reportedly has deferred the
actual sand delivery until the year 2028. So a multi-year gap between dumping boulders
and placing sand is not acceptable. The coastal process does not pause for two years while
the public's beaches scoured away. I urge the commission to halt or rescind emergency
armoring permits unless they mandate nearly simultaneous sand replenishment.
If the threat to the tracks is an emergency, the mitigation protecting our shoreline must
be treated with the exact same urgency.
And that's all I have.
Thank you.
Next, Susie Whitelaw.
Give us a moment as we bring up your presentation.
Thanks.
Hello.
Hello, I'm Dr. Susie Whitelaw with Save Our Beach of San
Clemente and if what you saw at Broad Beach horrified you, this
should blow your mind. Next slide please. We want to voice
our opposition. Could you click again to make the video to
probably a half dozen permits and or waivers that have been
issued over the last two months for OCTA. This is one carload of
rock being side dumped. That was Tuesday. Today I got a picture of a 30 cars, 30 car loads of rip
wrap that are lined up on the shoreline ready to be side dumped onto the tracks. They've asked for
four days to do this work. They can side dump those 30 cars in one day. This could be 120 of those car
loads of rock dumped on not Cypress Shores Beach. They have misidentified where they're dumping this
rock. 100% of what you see there is the San Clemente State Beach, the public beach. Next
please. That's what that previously beautiful beach looks like from the ground. Next please.
This also has the left side as a video if that one will play hopefully. What we're showing here
isn't even all of the riprap that they've placed, all of this is what they've placed over the last
five years and all of that was placed on the Cypress Shores Beach. We can't show you all of
it because the drone doesn't have that much range. It goes for a mile. What they've asked for permission
this week is to do a quarter mile of San Clemente State Beach. If you look at the right-hand picture
They started with 500 feet between the blue and red bars, triple that, and look at the beach
between those bars on the lower slide and beyond that, triple that distance.
That's the truth, that they are side dumping those 120 carloads of rock on,
asking you to put a stop to this today, please. Thank you. We have one more speaker that we
we weren't able to find, Joe Wilson. Joe, if you are on Zoom, please raise your hand.
Joe Wilson. And I will also note that we had three people available for questions. Jason
Lee and Ruby Sanchez from OCTA and April Wineke from Wineke Consulting.
Okay, thank you. I'm seeing no hand for Joe, so no more speakers.
Thank you, Chris. Okay, returning to the Commission, do three or more Commissioners object to any
item in the Deputy Director's report? Oh, I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
Just a question with regard to the speaker who asked about sand and equal amount of sand
replacement to add to the rocks.
Is that something that's helped me understand that?
So we did issue an emergency permit for sand placement, I think it was last year?
Last year.
And OCTA is currently pursuing sand placement in a couple of different places along their
track.
And we agree there should be equal, if not greater, urgency to the sand component of
the project than the armoring component of the project.
However, it is also true that placing sand on the beach requires multiple steps, including
Finding sand sources, testing it,
making sure it's appropriate,
going through approvals at the Army Corps of Engineers
and other agencies.
We have been very clear we will move very fast
on any sand component of a project,
but there are other hurdles to jump through.
And we have been trying hard to move it
quickly, as quickly as possible,
but it's moving slower than we'd like.
So are we comfortable with OCTA's momentum in moving forward?
Or are they doing nothing?
I mean, is it just?
They are pursuing sand placement and have been doing so.
I think the question on timing is a difficult one to answer.
I think there are paths that could move it quicker,
and we're trying to push those along.
That's the best I can do, I can't.
No, I appreciate that.
I just think, I mean, you mentioned it
and the speaker mentioned it.
There should be an equal amount of urgency
associated with the sand replacement.
Right.
Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
I'm not gonna eject here, but I just wanted to say,
I was encouraged when we gave the sand permit
and I'd like to see more of it.
And also, I just want to say how great it is to hear from staff that the ultimate solution
here is to move these tracks, and that if there's a way for us to help OCTA get their
act together in the planning, that would be great, because it was refreshing to hear that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to the items in the Deputy Director's report?
no objection the commission concurs thank you and now to item 9a please thank you and that is
appeal number 85 dpt 2615 and emily cline gibson with our long beach office will be giving the
staff presentation on that matter so emily as soon as you're ready please begin and we do have a staff
powerpoint so please bring that up thanks thank you um good afternoon commissioners item 9a is a
substantial issue hearing of an appeal of a local CDP approved by the city of Dana Point
for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new
single-family residence at 33951 Nauticus Isle. The applicants are Tiffany and Barton Bassett
and the appellant is Lori Smith. Next slide please. The project site is located within
the Nagel Shores gated community between the sea and coast highway. The eastern half of the site
is generally flat and contains an existing 1,850 square foot one-story single-family home.
The western half of the site is undeveloped and located within an easement for slope control.
Public access to Strands Beach is located south of the site
outside of the perimeter fencing that encloses the Nagel Shores community.
Next slide please. The city approved project includes the demolition of the existing single
family residence and construction of a new 2,686-square-foot one-story single-family
residence with a 518-square-foot attached two-car garage, a new outdoor spa, and associated
landscaping and hardscaping. The new structure would be located within the flat eastern portion
of the property and no development is proposed along the western slope. The primary grounds
for the appeal raised by the appellant are that geotechnical hazards for the proposed development,
including landslide, earthquake, and bluff stability hazards,
were improperly reviewed by the city. The appellant also asserts that preparation
of a geotechnical report addressing these hazards was improperly
deferred until after discretionary approval.
Additional contentions raised by the appellant include concerns that the
project was improperly found exempt from CEQA,
would impact coastal views, and would contribute to cumulative overdevelopment.
The appellant also contends that the city improperly applied setback and lot
coverage standards, tying these concerns back to geotechnical safety, and asserts that the
project was misclassified as a remodel rather than redevelopment which would allow the project
to rely on shoreline protection devices. Since the Coastal Commission is not the lead agency
responsible for certifying CEQA compliance for this project, this contention does not
raise grounds for appeal. Next slide, please. Regarding geotechnical safety, the appellant
contends that the subject property is located on a coastal bluff and that the geotechnical
report that was submitted with the application does not adequately address bluff stability.
The appellant cites a condition in the city's resolution that requires a geotechnical report
to be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit, contending that the deferral is
inconsistent with the certified LCP. The appellant asserts that the site is located within an
earthquake-induced landslide zone and is in a historic landslide complex, both of which the
appellant contends were not analyzed by the city during their review, nor were they considered in
in the geotechnical report.
The Commission's engineering geologists
reviewed the site location geotechnical report
and other materials referenced by the appellant
regarding geologic and bluff stability hazards for the area.
The engineering geologists determined
that the bluff system in the area
has been significantly altered over time
by the historic landslide and by grading,
and that the subject property is not a bluff top lot.
The Commission's engineering geologists also finds
that the subject property is set back adequately
from the landslide complex,
and that the geotechnical report
provides a satisfactory analysis and concludes
that the proposed development does not pose a risk
to the stability and safety of the slope
for the subject site and adjacent properties.
Next slide, please.
The appellant contends that the city did not demonstrate
the proposal would protect coastal views
or maintain community character.
The Nagel Shores community consists of single-family homes
and the size of the proposed development
is consistent with the size of nearby homes.
Additionally, the proposed development will remain
the same single-story height as the existing home.
The site is not visible from the beach or coast highway, but it is visible from the
Strands Beach public access path to the south.
Given the subject's property's location inland and elevated from the path, the proposed
project would not at firstly impact existing public coastal views.
Next slide, please.
Regarding development standards, the appellant contends that the city analyze the project
as a remodel rather than new construction, thereby exempting the proposed development
from current bluff setback requirements and allowing it to rely on future shoreline protection
devices. The appellant also asserts that the lot coverage calculations incorrectly included
the western slope as part of the total lot area, despite it being unbuildable, and that
the project would have exceeded the maximum allowed lot coverage had this area been excluded
from the calculations. There is no evidence that the subject site is supported structurally
by the nearby revetment, and the proposed project does not include shoreline protection.
Additionally, the city's staff report and resolution clearly describe the project as
new development. The certified LCP states that lot coverage is calculated against the entirety
of the lot and that setbacks for new structures can be established consistent with the setback
distances of all other existing development on the block. The Commission's engineering
geologist found the lot not to be a blufftop lot and staff find that the city properly applied all
development standards located in the certified LCP to the project. The project plans also clearly
show that new development is proposed within the sloped portion of the property. Next slide please.
In closing staff believe that the city provided adequate legal support for its decision to approve the subject project and concurs with the city's findings that the proposed project does not present any inconsistencies with the certified LCP with respect to geotechnical safety, coastal views, community character, cumulative impacts, or development standards.
Staff therefore recommend that the Commission find no substantial issue regarding 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 original filing of appeal and the addendum provides responses to the correspondence as they relate to site stability of the subject property.
Certified LCP requires submittal of a site specific geotechnical report providing current geologic information and recommendations and the applicant's report fulfills these requirements.
The Commission finds that the City's analysis and geotechnical report was supported by sufficient evidence and that the appropriate sources of information provided were sufficient to evaluate the project's consistency with the certified LCP.
Staff continue to recommend that the Commission find no substantial issue. This concludes the staff presentation. Staff's available for any questions. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. I'll ask my colleagues. Are there any ex partes to report?
Okay, seeing none. We'll open the public hearing and I will turn it over to you, Chris.
All right, we have Lori Smith, the Appellant, as well as the Appellant's representative, Doug Carstens, on Zoom.
Lori Smith. Lori Smith, there you go.
Good afternoon, commissioners. I am Lori Smith, the Appellant.
I live at 23821 Salvador Bay in the Nagettle Shores community.
It's a homeowners association in the city of Dana Point, and it's within the coastal zone and has a revetment where my community meets the sand.
One document that is not in the Commission staff report, though my Council submitted it as
Enclosure 2 in our September 4th letter or staff report or letter, the Supplementary Declaration
for Track 7573 recorded in July of 1972. It places this lot, lot 9, within the slope control area and
it imposes a safety and stability obligation running across lots 1 through 13. I obtained
these certified copies from the city the county reporter. The recorded slope control area exhibit
A at pages 299 through 301 of book 102.50 is the exhibit that defines the slope control area itself
and a note on its face here I show you records the seepage, the sub drains, the outlets were known
conditions when this track was graded, and it directs that the outlets be located inspected
and maybe check for plugging or silting and the source of any seepage be identified if it is not
the sub drains. I see seepage on the slope every time I walk past it. The seepage is there even
in dry weather months and neither the applicant's consultant nor the city nor your own staff
acknowledges this recorded instrument anywhere. This is it. This is the recorded county instrument.
I obtained myself for your consideration and this is the 7th of 13 lots on Nautica's Isle
to be redeveloped. This is the street below me. So the applicant's own geotechnical report describes
this slope as graded two horizontal to one vertical. That's a 50% gradient twice the 25%
threshold at which Dana Point IP Section 9.05.108 requires a detailed geotechnical report. So the
homes were red tagged in Dana Point this week. Not on this slope, but this is the wrong week to
approve a project on a 50% gradient without the investigation the LCP requires. I live on the
street directly above and behind this project. That's why I'm raising these concerns and appealing
this permit. The seepage is there today. Any of the Coastal Commissures would be welcome to come
and see it. I'm asking for you to vote no on the motion that your staff had done. Thank you.
I appreciate your time. Thank you. Doug Carstens. Good afternoon, honorable commissioners. Can you
hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. I'm Doug Carstens. I'm here on behalf of the appellant
Ellory Smith. We submitted a letter on Friday, September 4th, and we join in fully support the
letter also submitted by Dr. Benjamin Benimov of the GEO law. We ask that you vote no on the motion
and find substantial evidence today. This parcel lies within, it's within a California Geological
survey earthquake-induced landslide zone of required investigation. The zone report for this
parcel states that all or a portion of it lies within a landslide zone. That map and that
verification is part of your staff report. It's part of our letter that we submitted to you.
Staff's answer and the city's answer is that no building is proposed on the sloped portion of the
project site, but the seismic hazards mapping act is triggered by the project on the site,
not by the footprint of the building pad. A residence at the crest of a 45-foot slope is
at risk because the slope may fail, not because the building pad is steep. The investigation
performed by the applicant's consultant cannot answer that question about slope stability or
or provide a factor of safety.
The seven foot boring, boring's three of them
of exploration on a 45 foot slope
barely scratched the surface.
No factor of safety is calculated or disclosed.
The applicant's investigation is quote,
preliminary by its own terms
and limited to the building pad.
I would ask you to notice
what two of the reports conclusions rest on.
The commission's own 2019 memorandum
the city. The city is not a
place is not a kiss. I'll within
the landslide limits. It is an
exhibit in your staff reports.
What attempts to counter it in
the staff report is an
undocumented conversation. The
same is true of the discussion
with the city's geologists
supporting the deferred study
finding that is condition 18
imposed by the city condition
18 provides for subsequent
adequate, then that shows further geotechnical study should be done now
before the Coastal Development Permit approval while it is still reviewable by
the public in a public process. A substantial issue finding would allow
the necessary investigation to be done. We ask for a no vote. I thank you for
your time and consideration. I'd be available for questions as is Dr.
Benamoff about his very detailed and very expert letter.
Thank you for your time this afternoon.
Thank you.
I will also note that we do have Benjamin Benamoff on Zoom
and noted as available for questions on our end as well.
And then Tiffany Bassett, the applicant,
is on Zoom and available for questions.
We have no other speakers.
OK, great.
Thank you very much.
I will close the public hearing and return to our staff.
Mr. Schwing, if you have anything to add?
Other than to underscore that staff was satisfied with the record that the city
developed in their action on this matter, I do want to note that of course we did
fully respond to all these assertions in the staff report and in the addendum. And
we do have our staff geologists available for any questions if there are any.
Thank you very much. I'll return to the Commission. Questions, comments or a
motion? I'll make a motion. I move the Commission determine that appeal number
A-5-DPT-26-0015 raises no substantial issue with respect to
the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under section 30603 of the
Coastal Act. I recommend a yes vote. Second. Thank you. That's a motion by
Commissioner Wilson, a second by Commissioner Escalante. They're asking
for a yes vote may we have a roll call please yes commissioner Lee yes Lee yes
Commissioner Oglesby aye Oglesby yes Commissioner Kalmick aye Kalmick yes
Commissioner not off no not off no Commissioner Moreno Moreno yes Moreno yes
Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson. Yes. Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley. Yes.
Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante. Yes. Commissioner Hart. Yes. Hart. Yes.
Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson. Yes. Commissioner Kelly. I think step to... Yes. Okay.
Kelly. Yes. Chair Harmon. Yes. Harmon. Yes. The vote is 11 yes. 1 no. Thank you. No
substantial issue has been found. Mr. Schwinks, back to you. Thank you. Before we
move on to the next item, perhaps it was tough to tell, but this was Emily's
first presentation to the Commission, so I just wanted to point that out, and thank
you, Emily. You did great. So let's move on to item 11. That's the Deputy Director's
Report for San Diego Coast District. I'll start by reporting the City of San
San Diego completed the adoption of their LCPMN with suggested modifications related
to their 2024 land development code update.
The executive directors determined that the city's action is adequate.
Next we're reporting two waivers for projects in Encinitas and San Diego and one CDP on
the installation of solar panels on a residence in Solano Beach.
There's no known opposition on these items and we're asking whether three or more commissioners
Object to the waivers or the amendment in the report. Thank you. Thank you any expertise
Any public comments and no speakers just those available for questions. Great. Thank you
Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report seeing no objections the Commission concurs
item 13a, please
All right. Thank you. So item 13a is a Commission appeal of city events Anita's permit to construct a new
138 square foot two-story single-family residents with a basement ADU and attached garage and
bluff reconstruction on a coastal bluff top lot
The pallets alleged the approved development raises a number of LCP consistency issues
For one the approved project is inconsistent with the LCP because it includes a basement and the LCP requires new
Bluff top development to be removable and encourages the retention of coastal bluffs in their natural state
basements permanently alter Bluff
Landforms and the city's approval does not address the future removal of the basement
Nor are there special conditions that would require its removal in the future should it become endangered or exposed through erosion
The appellant's also alleged the approved project is inconsistent with LCP policies
with regards to geologic stability and bluff setback requirements because the approved
setback is based on a bluff edge that appears inconsistent with the LCP and
The geotechnical report lacks necessary data to support its stability
Report also relies on outdated bluff retreat rates and does not analyze sea level rise consistent with the Commission's current standards
In addition the project approved by the city includes retention of a private beach stairway, which is inconsistent with lcp policies that require
phasing out
Existing private stairways as coastal Bluff top lots redevelop
Similarly the city's approval did not analyze the need for or feasibility of removal of an existing
Lower seawall despite the fact that the LCP includes policies that prohibit
Shoreline protection for new development
That's also unclear if existing upper bluff structures will be removed to the maximum extent feasible
which also
Presents an inconsistency with the LCP
prior to publication the staff report
The applicant submitted a response letter rebutting the issues raised in the appeal and submitted an additional letter
after the publication of the staff report requesting a response to the
points made in their first letter and a vote of no substantial issue. Staffs
reviewed their arguments and addressed the assertions in the report and the
staff report addendum. In short the concerns raised in the appeal remain
unresolved and staff has confirmed the aforementioned LCP consistency issues.
And the addendum staff has also addressed the procedural assertions claiming the applicant's due process was denied.
However, due process is the right to be heard and the applicant is being heard via its ongoing conversation with staff.
It's written comments before and after publication of the staff report and by their presence at the hearing.
So, in addition, staff received two comments, letters after publication of the staff report
in support of the staff recommendation, one from Surf Rider and another from a member
of the public.
So, with that, since staff is recommending a finding of substantial issue, unless three
or more commissioners wish to hold a hearing on that question, substantial issue will be
found and we'll bring this back at a later date at a de novo hearing.
Thank you.
I'll ask if there are any ex partes
Okay, do three or more commissioners wish to have a hearing on substantial issue
Seeing none substantial issue has been found and we will look for that de novo hearing at a future date. Thank you
now
Is that the end of our calendar for today? Amazing. Miss Warren. Are we doing closed session? Yes, I'm estimating about half an hour
We will close the public session for today. Thank you
When are we meeting for closed session?
Sorry, you have a link. It's going to be in what, 5, 10 minutes as soon as we're set up.
We're going to have, I know what the half hour refer to.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm anticipating the closed session will last half an hour.
Okay, perfect. So we have a link and I'll look up. Thank you.