okay good morning everyone full house today we're gonna get started everyone
could please quiet down thank you very much I'll call this meeting to order and
if we could begin with a roll call please commissioner in the back guys if
you could quiet down that would be great thank you a commissioner Hart
Commissioner Jackson President Commissioner Kelly present Commissioner
Lopez present Commissioner comic here Commissioner Smith present
Commissioner Wilson a key Commissioner Brownfield here
Commissioner Williams here chair Harmon here I think are we expecting the others
arrive or at some point I think so okay but we do have a quorum great thank you
very much all right now we'll move to the virtual meeting procedures please
give us a second all right good morning this coastal commission meeting is
occurring both in person and through zoom this meeting is also being webcast
and can be viewed online at cal-span org if you have internet access and which
to watch 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 paperless submittal are available on the Commission
staff table just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission's agenda
webpage which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone. Members of
the public speaking during general public comment may be given up to two
minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. Request to speak during the
general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. on each day of
the meeting. In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of
public participation, you may speak on a specific topic one time only each month.
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comment are typically
allowed 2-3 minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept or 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's
staff at 562-477-9089.
Again, that number is 562-477-9089.
Staff will provide you with a telephone call-in number and instructions for how to participate
and provide testimony by phone.
We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer.
When it is your time to address the commission, the organizer will invite you to turn on your
video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute yourself on the phone.
Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing procedures.
Thank you very much, Chris.
OK, and now we'll go to Ms. Vonn for agenda changes, please.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and Vice Chair Hart and Commissioners.
I will now go over the agenda changes for today.
Item 8B, City of San Diego LCP Amendment for 2026
Land Development Code Update, Time Extension Only,
is moved to consent.
Item 8C, City of Chula Vista LCP Amendment
for War Rule Specific Plan Time Extension only
is moved to consent.
A new item that we're adding this morning is item 10A,
CDP application for Del Mar Beach Club in Solana Beach
is moved to consent.
Item 10B, a CDP application for Toll West LLC
in Encinitas and Carlsbad is moved to consent.
Item 10C, CDP application for St. Mallow HOA
at all oceanside is postponed.
Item 10D, CDP application for UCSD Scripps
Coastal Reserve Manage Access in San Diego is withdrawn.
Item 10E, CDP application for Pebble Brook Hotel
and Trust Mission Bay Rosie LLC is moved to consent.
Item 12A, County of Santa Barbara LCP amendment
for outdoor lighting and signs is moved to consent.
Item 12B, County of Santa Barbara LCP amendment
for streamlining and housing accommodations
is moved to consent.
Item 12C, county of Santa Barbara LCP amendment
for general ordinance amendment package is moved to consent.
Item 12D, city of Santa Barbara LCP amendment
for airport zoning is moved to consent.
Item 13A is postponed in the agenda memo.
It's labeled item 13C, that's an error.
It's item 13A, a CDP application
for Caltrans-Gaviota Wildlife Crossing and Highway 101 repairs
is moved to consent.
Item 16A application for City of Long Beach changes to parking rates is postponed.
And finally item 16B application for City of Long Beach seawall repairs is postponed.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Item 13A which was labeled 13C in the agenda changes memo was postponed, not moved to consent.
And that concludes the agenda changes for today's agenda.
So that brings us to item 4, general public comment.
with that I will turn the mic back over to you Madam Chair. Great thank you very
much and before I turn to Chris and Simone for public comment we are so
grateful you are all here and are going to be sharing your testimony with us
today we are going to take public comment at the full time period for one
hour and after one hour we'll be switching to one minute per speaker so
just please keep that in mind when you make your comments and so that everyone
has a chance to speak, please be as succinct as possible.
We're really looking forward to hearing from all of you.
Thank you, Chris.
All right, for members of the public,
I'll be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers.
I invite you to speak when it is your turn.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom,
we will be bringing you in as panelists.
As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload,
and this may take a moment.
To speed up this process,
we will bring several people in at a time,
but please remain muted and keep your video off
until we ask you to speak.
after your time is up, you'll be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room,
I'll call your names in the order
that they appear in a 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 your hand function
that will help us find you in the attendee list on Zoom.
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
are able to do so, please raise your hand now. When it is your time to speak we'll invite you to
unmute and turn on your camera. You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six. We do
have a large number of speakers sign up for this item. It looks like we have 47 speakers. We'll
start with those in the room with Dennis Stojewa followed by Charlie Bowen and Bob Ashton. Dennis?
And then go ahead and turn the mic.
Please press the button on the mic, sir.
There you go.
Hi.
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome.
Great to see everybody.
Great to see everybody here this morning.
And I live at Lakeshore Gardens, and we're
a mobile home community right across from the Ralph Shopping
Center.
Anyway, I am here just to say that I have done tennis,
and I know how important movement is.
And I'm just hoping that it becomes a park,
because a park will be just much more gracious.
So everybody.
Sir, this is an item on our agenda today.
Now is the opportunity for general public comment,
items that are not on our agenda but within our purview.
Okay, well, anyway, thank you for being here
and yes, for a park at Ponto.
Charlie Bowen, Bob Ashton, and then James David Burke.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name's Charlie Bowen, Communications Director
for Save Oceanside sand.
As you meet here in Oceanside, I want
to focus on one word critical to the future of our beaches,
retention.
Construction of the Camp Pendleton Delmar boat basin
in 1942 disrupted natural sediment transport
and became the primary driver of Oceanside's beach erosion.
But replacing that lost sand is only part of the solution.
Oceanside is a highly urbanized and engineered coastline
exposed to powerful ocean energy year round.
Without retention, we will continue
replacing scarce, expensive sand over and over again.
That's why reBeach is so important.
ReBeach combines nourishment
with innovative retention features
designed to slow sand movement
and help maintain a more resilient beach.
Retention means making better use of the sand we place,
potentially reducing future nourishment costs
and environmental disruption.
There is another challenge though.
In San Clemente, we've seen how quickly rock
can be placed to protect infrastructure
while getting sand on the beach takes considerably longer.
We seem to have our priorities upside down.
Nature-based solutions like nourishment
deserve a faster, more efficient path to implementation.
Your 2026 nature-based adaptation strategies guidance
recognizes the need for innovative context-appropriate
coastal adaptation.
ReBeach puts that philosophy into practice.
It's a science-based, extensively modeled pilot
with adaptive management at its core.
When it performs, as intended,
Oceanside gets a more sustainable beach
and California gains knowledge
other eroding coastal communities can learn from and adapt.
We cannot recreate the coastline of 1942,
but we can adapt intelligently
to the coastline we have today.
ReBeach gives Oceanside and California
the opportunity to do exactly that.
Thank you for your time this morning.
Thank you.
Bob Ashton, James David Burke, and then Gia Bullrigg.
Just hit the button here, or am I good to go?
All right, good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
I'm Bob Ashton, the CEO of Save Oceanside San.
We advocate for beaches that are restored, retained,
and renewed for our community.
First, thank you for supporting the REBEACH pilot project
with the Baseline Monitoring Grant.
That investment shows a true shared commitment
to data-driven science-backed solutions.
Here in California and beyond,
we're living a coastal crisis.
Severe erosion threatens our public beaches,
our coastal infrastructure, and equitable public access.
Traditional sand nourishment alone is no longer enough.
Without retention, our winter swells simply wash
our sand away into the littoral cell.
We have been reactive for far too long.
As you know, Oceanside developed ReBeach
as an innovative nature-based pilot
combining artificial headlands and offshore reef
to retain sand where it's needed most.
With baseline monitoring underway,
we need to move with speed through the EIR process,
approvals and funding to implementation.
First, I urge the Commission to streamline permitting
review timeline so we can keep this urgent work moving forward quickly.
Second, I ask for your leadership in advocating for state-level capital
funding, specifically through California Coastal Conservancy grants and climate
resilience funds, to bring REBEACH through construction. Finally, and most
importantly, I asked the Commission to formally adopt REBEACH as a statewide
coastal resilience and retention pilot project. California urgently needs an
innovative, modern, and scalable blueprint for beach restoration. What we prove with
REBEACH will establish a replicable framework for communities across the state facing the
exact same rapid sand loss.
Under emerging conditions, business as usual, timelines and funding delays will cost us
our shoreline.
Let's partner together to move a proactive approach, expedite approvals, fund and build
REBEACH to protect California's coast for generations to come.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, James David Burke, GEO Bullrigg, and then Jason Malik.
Good morning, I'm Jim Burke.
My family and I have lived at 7328 Pinnacle Drive
within the San Pacific O'Housing Development
contiguous to land under discussion since 2000,
more than 26 years, 12 years prior to that in Encinitas.
I'm a retired Lieutenant Colonel Marine Corps,
infantry officer of Vietnam Desert Storm in Iraq.
I am Pro Ponto Park, here today in support of the 454.
Excuse me sir, this is general public comment.
So if you have a comment on an item
that's not on our agenda today,
please go ahead and make it.
If you're here to speak about the park,
please wait until that item.
For everyone who signed up to speak,
this is only for items that are not on our agenda today.
Thank you.
Okay, sorry, I was called up.
I was called up, do you want me to adjourn?
Or what do you want me to do?
Are you speaking on the park item?
I'm speaking on O'Connell Park.
Okay, yes, please wait until that item comes up.
And if you're signed up to speak,
you might wanna confirm that you've signed up
for the correct item.
Director Hucklebridge.
item 8a we're on item four right now so we'll do general public comment and then
we'll call your name again when we get to 8a. Thank you. Thank you. Gia Bullrig,
Jason Malek, and then Adam Levens. Hi my name is Gia Bullrig and thank you for
this chance to speak. I'm part of the Cove Keepers Alliance. Our mission is to
protect wildlife, preserve public access, and promote coexistence. I'm a swimming
snorkeler and an underwater photographer who spends time at the cove daily for my
health, body and mind. I absolutely love the sea lions and my video footage is
proof. This iconic place gives people the opportunity to observe the sea lions and
learn how to respect wildlife in its natural environment. My proposed approach
is first, enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. We need to have this
addressed by the city. Violators who are endangering or harassing sea lions need
to be punished with fines and or imprisonment. Second, placing a park
ranger on the lower stairs where the ranger would could educate visitors, answer questions,
establish clear boundaries and provide a visible deterrent to inappropriate behavior, I have
witnessed it all. The most effective positioning is best lower on the stairs, close proximity
to the sea lions. Third, providing visitor education before people reach the cove, including
airport bus, hotel desks and kiosk messaging, so visitors understand how to share this environment,
responsibly before they arrive. I've met with senior director of marketing
partnerships at San Diego Tourism Authority. I believe they can help us
provide this essential service. Fourth is giving us a nighttime protection by a
security guard patrolling the La Jolla Point in the cove during these hours,
these after hours activity would be a game changer. Money needs to be
It doesn't matter where it comes from, but we need your help.
I believe you have the mechanisms to find the money and to make this happen or know
who can.
And I've actually witnessed awful behavior and have had to call the authorities.
So thank you for your time for the Commission's work to protect California's coastal resources,
public access and its wildlife.
Thank you.
Hello, thank you members of the coastal community and commission. My name is Jason Malick. I'm a California stakeholder and an ocean goer here in the city of Oceanside.
I have corresponded with the Coastal Commission on past occasions concerning the riprap revetment seawall
that is encroached into state and city and trusted spaces, which should be a protected part of the public right away.
Private property owners and agents have overbuilt beyond the bounds of permissions and allowable conditions
and have intentionally extended hazardous
and obstructive boulders and inhospitable
armoring materials along our coastline,
effectively privatizing our coastal lands
and endangering and restricting access
to our protected coastal waters.
Despite documented inquiries and objections,
oceanfront private property interests
have repeatedly expanded the privately beneficial
and publicly erosive revetment sea walls
beyond private property boundary lines
and past protected waterline thresholds
into our shared public space.
As you can see and should be aware,
these treacherous and unforgiving rock regretments
create extremely dangerous access conditions
for anyone who attempts to utilize
and enjoy their coastal rights,
and they continually strip time and space
that should be accessible for every member of the public.
State and local administrators and regulators,
including those tasked through this coastal commission,
have neglected to prevent this private property encroachment
and thereby failed to preserve and protect entrusted lands
which cannot legally be taken from the public
and should be permanently prevented
from being adversely possessed.
I implore this commission to publicly identify,
address, and remediate inaccuracies,
encroachments, and violations pertaining
to our littoral access created
by these non-conforming revetments,
and I urge you to protect and preserve
the rights of the people of this state
by preventing and penalizing privatization
of our collective public resources.
Thank you.
Protect Ponto, too.
Thank you.
Adam Leverans, Haley Hall, and Lydia Bartel.
Good morning, I have, if you could call up my slide deck,
to as I get started.
I feel like I'm paying today for my gratitude yesterday
for the small venue.
But it's great to see this many people here and engaged.
July 4th, 2025 in Newport.
Other slide, Jake, please, Chris.
Was kind of chaotic.
I think there were 60 some odd arrests.
And after about a year of mayor and council threatening
people that they're really gonna crack down,
July 4th, 2026 was way crazier.
And this is a political flyer that I just got last night.
And what concerns me is the out of towns thugs statement.
As you've heard from me on a number of different issues,
Newport is trying to transition the city
to be more exclusive and for locals only.
and to allow the city to play politics
with coastal access is a problem.
We need somebody to be the grownups in the room
and that's you folks.
As you heard from me and Dr. Samantha McDonald
at your meetings last month,
the city has created a curfew that requires
unaccompanied children to be off the beach
by 6 p.m. on Memorial Day, the 4th of July, and Labor Day.
Remember being a kid, I remember climbing a tree,
I'm pre-video game, but that's ridiculous.
And think of the people who come to Newport
to visit for tourism purposes.
It's couched as a matter of public safety.
I agree there's public safety concerns.
I'm not an anarchist, nor is anyone who opposes this curfew,
but to force kids inside at the beach
hours before the sun goes down in the summer
makes absolutely no sense.
And I think that they can't do this.
The local coastal program implementation plan
says a number of things.
Beach hours shall be from 6 to 10.
That's for everyone, not to exclude certain groups.
Any change in the beach regulations
or hours set forth in subsection E1 of this section,
again, the LCP, resulting in a closure to public use
or any portion of the beach inland of the mean high tide line
shall require an amendment to this implementation plan
approved by the Coastal Commission.
I've spoken with the police chief.
He says he's met with Coastal.
I don't know who he's met with.
But we need grownups in the room on this.
Thank you.
Next, Haley Hall, Lydia Bartel, and Shane Gilder.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Commission.
My name is Haley Hall.
I'm a marine biology master's student
at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla,
but I'm speaking strictly on my own behalf today.
I want to echo statements from your last meeting
regarding La Jolla Cove.
I agree that the best immediate solution
is a partial closure of the cove
during sea lion pumping season
where the east staircase remains open
exclusively for water access
for swimmers, snorkelers, and divers.
As someone who swims and dives at the cove,
I believe that we can protect both sea lions and people
while still preserving recreational water access.
I've seen firsthand that rangers at the top of the stairs with megaphones can only accomplish
so much, and many visitors continue encroaching on the sea lion's space on the sand.
Because the city has not been able to implement the protocols it decided on in June, stronger
action from the Commission seems necessary.
Since direct protection of sea lions falls under the Federal Marine Mammal Protection
Act, City Rangers are left without authority to issue harassment citations.
I urge the Coastal Commission to push the city to establish local municipal ordinances
such as explicit beach boundary closures that give rangers the authority to write citations
for boundary violations.
Ultimately, a partial closure using the water access only strategy proposed by the La Jolla
Parks and Beaches Board is the most balanced and protective tool that we have right now.
Thank you for your time and commitment to balancing public access with wildlife protection.
Thank you.
Lydia Bartel, Shane Gilder, and Laura Hunter.
Good morning chair Harmon, commissioners and staff.
I'm Lydia Bartel here today as a member of the Mission Bay lessee's association to welcome
you to the San Diego region and to share some very positive information about our incredible
Mission Bay.
Today Mission Bay Park in the city of San Diego is more than 4,200 acres of water and
land recreation welcoming more than 15 million visitors per year to enjoy all
it has to offer recreation relaxation access to nature and active sports
again that's coastal access for 15 million people from locals who consider
this their neighborhood and regional playground to visitors from throughout
California and the rest of the world as stewards of Mission Bay Park many of us
businesses and visitor accommodations, invest our own resources to clean the
Bay and the coastline, provide maintenance to the park, and market to
our visitors. Learning about coastal environment and the nature that thrives
here is part of ensuring stewardship of our coastal resources long into the
future as memories made on Mission Bay lead to caring for and prioritizing this
incredible place. Thank you. Thank you, Shane Gilder, Laura Hunter, Dan McKiernan.
Hello, my name is Shane Gilder. I'm here to speak about the La Jolla Cove and
access to La Jolla Cove. I've been a visitor at La Jolla Cove for the past 30
plus years, at least twice a day, if not in the Cove, at the Cove. I understand
from some articles that I've read about the Coastal Commission's intentions
to close access to the beach.
This is a very complex circumstance.
And I would request that the Commission seriously consider a scientific,
a proper scientific study to be done before closing, before deciding to close the beach
because I don't believe closing access to the beach
is necessarily the best solution.
I think that science should be implemented in the decisions
and not anecdotal information and the emotional blackmail
of a group of influences that create irrational, emotional reactions for their own personal
financial gain.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Laura Hunter and I'm kind of here as a ghost of commission meetings past.
The last time I was here is in 2010.
I was the lead organizer for the historic vote
on the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan,
a 500-acre coastal plan adopted unanimously
by all of you with a zero public opposition.
Think about that.
This only happened after years of negotiation,
workshops, dialogue, and engagement.
Its success hinged at its root
on a solid land use planning principle.
Concentrate the density on the Bayfront in the Harbor district and de-densify sweet water in Otay districts
This was a major compromise, but a package deal
So I'm here today to raise a bright red flag for the commission on this project called Pangea. This proposal
Fundamentally violates the planning principles which the master plan is based on it cannot be supported
Pangea is an affront to the painstaking and thoughtful plan crafted by the all of the interests community
Economic labor water quality environmental justice conservation and lots of hard staff work
I was also here in 2003 when the commission sent a letter to the port and city
given early guidance
With your objections to piecemeal planning and your advice to plan it holistically
The rest is history, and it's a good history. We should not be upending the Chula Vista Bayfront master plan
Pangea is a non-starter for the Bayfront and I urge you to let all parties know that now before
Time and energy and money is wasted and frankly if they need a place to put it and you want it in South Bay
I have a great idea
Bulldoze the Otay Mesa detention center and put it there that would be a great win-win. Thank you
Next, Dan McKernan, Alexandra Martin, and Charles Realy.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and members of the California Coastal Commission.
I am Dan McKernan, a member of the South Bay Wildlife Advisory Group called the WAG.
Representing the Environmental Health Coalition, EHC,
we have been working to clean up and protect San Diego Bay since 1985.
And we are active participants in the development of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan.
WAG members represent a multi-interest working group whose purpose is to make sure development of Bayfront
does not negatively impact our wildlife resources.
At the October 2025 meeting of the WAG, the Port Commission presented the Pangea Project proposal
for the Otay District to the Chula Vista Bayfront.
They indicated that the port entered into a six-month
exclusive negotiating agreement with the Pangea Development Group.
Several members of the WAG, including myself,
expressed significant concerns about impacts to the South Bay environment,
including the Wildlife Refuge and J Street Marsh.
The project in total does not include coastal dependent uses.
Subsequently, milestones in the six-month agreement were not met.
This included a Keystone Letter of Intent with a private party.
An extension of the agreement was requested.
At the June 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Porsche Commissioners,
I, along with other members of the WAG, expressed our opposition to extending the agreement
and reminded the commissioners of the significant impacts Pangea will have on San Diego Bay.
The commissioners voted to grant the development group a two-year extension of the exclusive negotiating agreement.
I'm hopeful that the Coastal Commission can send a message to the Port about the integrity of the master plan
and actively send a measure to protect wildlife
and address sea level rise.
Thank you.
Alexandra Martin, Charles Rily, and Andrew Yuca.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Alexandra Martin, Legal Program Manager
for San Diego Coastkeeper.
I'll be speaking on two distinct issues impacting
the San Diego region.
First, the proposed 124-acre Pangea project in Chula Vista.
We urge you to deny this project when it comes before you.
This isn't about opposing development.
It's about a pattern of recent projects along San Diego Bay
that are steadily eroding public trust principles.
Sea level rise is already shrinking our public tight lands,
which makes protecting what remains more important than ever.
A private multi-billion dollar sports complex
next to sensitive wetlands directly counters to that goal.
The second issue is La Jolla Cove.
The problem in this area is well known
and it is getting worse.
This summer, we saw countless incidents
of sea lion harassment.
40% of pups died this season.
This is a stark contrast from figures
at nearby Boomer Beach, which is closed year-round.
That's why Coastkeeper supports a limited access proposal
that would keep La Jolla Cope open to swimmers,
snorkelers, and divers, while prohibiting other forms
of access and beach recreation during popping season
each year between June and September.
Protecting wildlife and preserving public access
can go together.
We thank the commission for your continued support
on both of these efforts.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, next Charles Rielly, Andrew Yuca,
and then David Dwine.
Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners.
My name is Charles Rielly and I'm the Deputy Director
of the San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club,
speaking on behalf of our 26,000 members and supporters.
I also serve on the Chula Vista Wildlife Advisory Group,
which brings environmental advocates, developers,
the port together around the Trulevista Bayfront Master Plan.
I'm here today to ask the California Coastal Commission to immediately intervene in the
Port of San Diego's Pangaea Development Plan.
We asked this commission to send a letter to the Port of San Diego stating that the
proposed Pangaea project does not comply with the Bayfront Master Plan and should not proceed.
The Trulevista Bayfront Master Plan was agreed upon 16 years ago and its success depended
on a unified approach, concentrate development in the Harbor District and reduce density
in the Otay district to preserve space for nature and public access.
Pangea's proposed uses undermined that balance and extend well beyond the uses that were
agreed upon for this district.
Developers also failed to demonstrate completion of the required milestones.
These gaps raised serious community concerns.
Residents and stakeholders deserve transparent information and meaningful participation before
proposals advance.
The environmental stakes are substantial.
lighting, noise, traffic, intensive uses could harm J Street marsh and habitat near the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
Rising sea levels make these lands increasingly important for wetland migration, restoration, and shoreline resilience.
This project is not coastal dependent. It does not consist of California Public Land Dis doctrine, Public Trust doctrine.
Sierra Club was also not a part of the original settlement, but we intend to defend the Bayfront, our environment, and
the agreement that this Commission approved.
Please intervene now send a letter making clear that Pangaea is inconsistent with the approved Chula Vista Bayfront master plan
This project is a non-starter and call on the port to protect habitat public access and the bayfront vision. Thank you
Thank you
Next actually we have an Andrew you and and then an Andrew Yuka and then Dave twine
Sir before you begin to everyone in the room, please no clapping. You can use your hands to demonstrate support. I appreciate it
Go ahead.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and members of the California Coastal Commission. My name is Andrew Yuen, and I'm here as a citizen.
South San Diego Bay is uniquely rich in wildlife and coastal habitats. This July,
Sean Styles, a local reporter, had a story about the 40,000 elegant turn nests at the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
He said, do the math.
1000 birds on the refuge plus 15 other species that routinely nest at the south end of San Diego Bay and you can
Appreciate the value of the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge as a globally important area for wildlife and for migratory birds
also at the south end of San Diego Bay in cooperation with
channel side water the Coastal Commission approved the
area to be restored as salt marsh habitat as mitigation for the Carlsbad desalination plan.
Channel site is working diligently to restore
125 acres of salt marsh habitat and when that area is
completed and restored back to salt marsh habitat, it will provide significant areas for the endangered light-footed ridge-raised rail.
The City of Chula Vista, the Port of San Diego, the environmental community and the Coastal Commission
demonstrated an
unbelievable level of
environmental sensitivity and cooperation in
developing and permitting the Chula Vista Bayfront project. One of the benefits of that
master plan is the Sweetwater Park. It's a nature park that is enjoyed by many. It provides a 400-foot wide
buffer from the sensitive salt marsh at Sweetwater Marsh, as well as walking trails.
This is a project feature that could easily be emulated throughout South San Diego Bay.
Finally, the opportunity to find areas where salt marshes could migrate inland is a location
at Jay Street.
Please continue your thoughtful planning to allow Jay Street to marsh migrate.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And then we had an Andrew Yuca.
I'm not sure if that was...
Or Andrew Meyer, maybe.
and then David Dwine, Sunny Cha, Ron Askelin,
and then Robin Davidoff.
Thank you.
Small snafu, obviously, Andrew Meyer is next.
Is that right?
Okay, thank you.
My name's Andrew Meyer, it's a good thing I'm here.
I am the Director of Conservation
for the San Diego Bird Alliance.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
I wanted to give a quick update
from the Bird Alliance perspective
on several Coastal Commission issues.
The De Anza Natural Plan
that the Coastal Commission unanimously approved in August
is intending to go before the City Council of San Diego
in November.
We very much support it.
We've been talking to council members.
Thank you very much for the great improvement
and action on that one.
Also, the SeaWorld Master Plan update
to the Mission Bay Park Master Plan
is intended to come to City of San Diego Council next week.
Also, that's something that we've been following
very closely.
Thank you to the great work
that the Coast Commission Biologists have done
on that front.
For following up on the several speakers
that have been showing a combined front
against the impacts that the Pangea proposal
at the Port of San Diego in the Otay District Plan.
I brought some visuals, which never go wrong, right?
And thank you, Charles.
I just wanted to bring a little biological context to this.
We've been talking about the sensitive wetland habitats
and the loss of tidal wetlands around the state.
You all know that very well.
In San Diego Bay, we have the same problem.
This is endangered Ridgway's rail nest
that we found with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologists
in J Street Marsh right at the edge of the Pangea proposal,
right at the edge of the current space
that the port is accepting proposals for
and looking to redevelop.
So this is how beautiful it looks.
This is the endangered species.
It's super, super cute.
I also wanted to hold up this one, Charles.
This is a map of the endangered Ridgway's rail populations
in San Diego Bay and Mission Bay.
This is a federally and state-endangered bird,
and you can see why it is endangered
because these tiny little postage stamps,
these memories of what large tidal wetland complexes
used to be in San Diego and San Diego Bay
are all that's left for it.
So it is a species that needs tidal wetland habitat
and to focus in on this proposal
and this place that we're talking about,
J Street Marsh is this little piece right here
at the edge of the marsh.
Please protect it, thank you very much.
Thank you, David Dwine, Sunny Cha,
Ron Askeland, Robin Davidoff.
Is there a David Doyne?
All right, Sunny Cha, Ron Askeland, and Robin Davidoff.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Sunny Cha,
and I'm with the Sierra Club Seal Society.
We have sent a video, and if you could please play with it.
This month's update at La Jolla Cove,
a again-documented visitor encroachment
on nursing mothers and pups.
People entering the water to swim at snorkel
directly towards pups.
People crossing cones and signs,
approaching animals on the stairs on the beach.
And several incidents required volunteer doses
to repeatedly intervene,
sometimes in the absence of rangers.
Next, you will see a nursing pup and father
with mother barking to protect her pup
and pup eventually leaves.
The repeated pattern of visitors
ignoring physical barriers, signs,
dosing instructions, rangers instructions,
and even defensive behavior from sea lions
demonstrates that passive measures alone are not sufficient.
Consistent ranger presence and active enforcement are necessary to protect wildlife and maintain visitor safety
Particularly during the continued concentration of mothers and pups at the Cove
Video this guy going through the sea lions and I asked him how come he went to the sea lions
He said because the lifeguard told me
You see the city sign that's been approached while life
All right, thank you next Ron Askeland Robin David off and then we'll move to our zoom participants
Can you bring up the PowerPoint slides?
Give us a moment
All right. Good morning. I'm dr. Ronald Askeland conservation chair of the San Diego Sierra Club chapter
I'm very happy to be here in person today if I go to the next slide
The long-term management plan for seal and pumping season was agreed to with
the city in June of 2026 with the goal to protect sealant pups and reduce the
disturbance and abandonment. There was agreed upon protocol, rangers at the
coven on the beach, some success. They're at the top with a bullhorn. Cones and tape
on the beach to protect pups, no cones and tape on the beach, pushback from the
lifeguards. A-frame signs on the beach is a visual cue. The signs are on the
stairs, people don't really pay much attention. Cones on stairs when safe
passage is impossible, parcel success. Here again we're getting pushback from
the lifeguards, the visitors don't quite understand what's going on. We have
partial implementation of a plan which leads to overcrowding on the beach,
sea lion pulps and adult sea lions are disturbed, and it's a very big public
safety issue. Next slide please. The city has failed to implement its plan. The
The city appears to have taken the position that they've tried and yet little progress
has been made since June.
Enforcement to protect the wildlife is difficult because park rangers can't issue citations.
Lifeguards are undermining ranger efforts and the plan to keep people and wildlife safe.
Thank you.
Same presentation.
Next slide, please.
I'm Robin Davidoff, Sierra Club Seal Society Chair.
In special condition number 3A III on page 33 of the CDP 6-22-0113, the Point La Jolla
Sea Lion Monitoring Plan, it specifies that the assigned ranger, lifeguard or city trained
volunteer will record and monitor information needed to minimize harassment of sea lions.
Implicit in this requirement is coordination between the city's lifeguards and park rangers
to implement special condition number 3 required by the CDP.
Next slide please.
Unfortunately, the lack of consistent coordination between Rangers and lifeguards is contributing
to public safety problems and confusion at the cove.
We're seeing too many people concentrated on the beach and the stairs, creating a safety
hazard when people have to react to moving sea lions.
Visitors are sometimes receiving different instructions from lifeguards and Rangers as
to the beach rules.
And when signs and cones are not clearly explained and consistently enforced, visitors may not
understand what they're asked to do.
Next slide, please.
Therefore asking the Commission to request the city to implement five steps.
First, manage the cove through coordinated implementation of the monitoring plan by requiring
lifeguards and rangers to work together.
Second, station rangers regularly on the beach, not on the bluff above.
Third, use cones and tape to create clearly defined buffer zones around sea lion pups,
adult sea lions, and injured animals.
Fourth, establish clear protocols for overcrowding so that the public safety can be addressed
before conditions become dangerous.
And fifth, close the western stairs when sea lions are on
or below them and safe passage is not possible
and redirect visitors to the lifeguard stairs
on the eastern side.
These measures are not about keeping people away from the cove.
They are about making the rules clear,
applying them consistently, protecting visitors
and minimizing harassment of wildlife.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're going to move to our Zoom speakers now.
We have about 23 speakers signed up.
I will note that we did look at the topics
that they were signed up to speak on and moved anyone who indicated Ponto Park.
We moved them to item 8A.
And a reminder for all those on Zoom, keep your video off and your microphone off until
it is your turn to speak.
We're moving a few in at a time to speed things up.
First up will be Carrie Weaver followed by Jeremy Sheffield and then David Rosenstein.
Carrie Weaver, you're being moved in as a panelist right now.
Okay.
All right.
Go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Okay. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Carrie Weaver. I lost my home in the January 2025 Palisades Fire.
I want to thank you for your time and continued support as our community works to protect the natural grass playing fields you see in the slide at the Palisades Recreation Park. Next slide please.
Despite more than 1200 petition signatures opposing artificial turf recreation parks approved a project characterized as wildfire restoration.
Invoking emergency orders affecting CEQA and Coastal Act requirements. Next slide. This is the approved board 26 to 15.
Next slide please. We question whether this project qualifies for emergency exemptions. Next slide.
Our assessment identified substantial fire damage
only to a small section of one of the four dugouts.
Next slide please.
The natural grass playing field itself
was not destroyed or damaged by the wildfire,
as you can see in this slide.
Next slide please.
In fact, in March, 2025, a park advisory board member
assessed the field and said the grass is in good shape.
This is what you see in the minutes here.
Next slide, please.
Mayor Bass directed city planning and building and safety
to establish joint guidelines determining which projects
qualify for emergency suspensions of CEQA
and Coastal Act requirements.
Next slide.
Yeah, building and safety labels this
as a 2025 wildfire repair
while describing a 3.9 acre renovation
with artificial turf, upgrading lighting,
bleachers and fencing.
Uh, next slide. Um, this is the, uh, DBS, um, permit number for that, for, for that
actual, um, issue. Next slide. Uh, yesterday, Andrew Willis confirmed that commission staff
intend to raise artificial turf concerns with the city. We lost our homes to the fire and
we hope that you will help protect what remains.
Thank you. Uh, next, uh, we aren't able to find Jeremy or David anymore, so we're going
move on with Terry Saucier and then Pastor Yoshi Kuramoto and Jim Kohn. Terry Saucier.
Up the installation of the artificial turf field at Pacific Palisades Park baseball field,
which Kerry just mentioned. As mentioned September 17th, the Rec and Parks Commissioners approved
this project and voted to suspend CEQA review, misinterpreting the Governor's Wildfire
Executive Order. Replacing grass with plastic is not rebuilding. Additionally, this commission
regularly has a policy of no artificial turf in the coastal emission zone. This field also
sits in a known landslide area in a very high fire zone, sorry, less than a half a mile above
the ocean and adjacent to Patero Canyon, which you saw briefly for a moment, which is an important
riparian habitat. This installation would add more than 120,000 square feet of plastic.
Last November through March alone, it would have produced more than a million gallons of runoff
carrying microplastics and chemicals down the canyon towards the ocean into stabilizing vulnerable
slopes. A standard 8,000 square foot plastic field along sheds 2,000 to 3,000 pounds of blades a year
and this field is larger. This product's no-filling design is sold as safer, however it uses 16 times
more than microplastic blades. Studies in multiple countries find artificial turf blades account for
12 to 15 percent of microplastics in our waterways. As we know, the 2023 this commission told UC Santa
Barbara it cannot use artificial turf and must use grass because of many concerns that we've
already spoke about. The same reason applies here. I urge you to notify LA
City Planning officials or Mecklen Park's project is not exempt from the
Coastal Act and the main artificial turf is prohibited. Require natural grass
as you did for UCSB. Third, building enforcement program to find and stop
artificial turf installations in the coastal zone, levy penalties, and require
removals. Thank you for protecting this park, the canyon, and our coast. Thank you.
Thank you. We aren't able to find Pastor Yoshi Kuramoto anymore so we're moving
Moving on to Jim Kahn, Rick Garvey and Mark Schneeman.
Jim Kahn, Jim, if you can accept being promoted to panelist
or if this is a different Jim, Jim, are you able to unmute?
Yeah, good morning, this is Jim.
Go ahead, go ahead.
Sorry, can you repeat your question?
This is your time for general public comment, you may make your statement now.
Oh, sorry, I'm gonna save my comments for the Ponto Park.
Over.
Okay, thank you.
We'll move your name over to that item.
Next is Rick Garvey, Mark Schneeman, and then Nancy Okada.
Rick give us a second as you're being moved in as panelists.
Hi.
Good morning.
Thank you so much.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Great.
Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners.
My name is Rick Garvey.
I'm a 30-year Venice resident, and I want to speak today about something larger than
any single development. It's the importance of protecting the lost Venice Canal's historic district
and protecting Venice as a special coastal community. The Venice Land Use Plan defines
a special coastal community as an important coastal visitor destination characterized by
a distinctive cultural, historical or architectural heritage. This heritage contributes to the visual
attractiveness of the coast and the lost Venice Canal's historic district is quite literally part
of that heritage. Survey LA identifies this 449 property residential neighborhood as the
footprint of Abbot Kenny's original Venice Canal district. Its unusual street pattern still reflects
the original canals. Its modest lots, one and two story homes, irregular blocks, and historic
development pattern remain visible today. Survey LA calls it a unique example of early 20th century
residential development oriented around the original canals with a period of
significance from 1904 to 1929. Remarkably, although the canals were
filled and paved back in 1929, Survey LA finds that the neighborhood still
retains a distinctive feel that conveys a strong sense of time and place. This
is important because the canals are gone, but the streets, the scale, the homes, the
irregular blocks, and the historic development pattern is what continues to
tell the story of Venice today. The Venice LUP recognizes that importance
and policy 1E1 says its unique social and architectural diversity should be
protected as a special coastal community. Policy IE2 says new development
shall respect the scale and character of Venice, including the scale, massing and
landscape of existing residential neighborhoods. The Coastal Act likewise
calls for protection of special communities that because of their unique
characteristics are popular destinations. Protect. Shall
respect. These aren't just descriptions of what makes
Venice interesting. They are protections for what makes
Venice unique. Please want to be recreated. Please protect it.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next, Mark Schneeman, Nancy Okada, and then Pamela
Hetherington. Mark Schneeman.
Good morning, commissioners. My name is Mark Schneeman. I'm
currently a freshman at Georgetown University. And I
I attended Palisades Charter High School for two and a half years before switching to Santa Monica High School because of the Palisades wildfires.
I grew up playing baseball and soccer on the Palisades Rec Center field and I've lived in Santa Monica Canyon my entire life.
This morning I'd like to address a few critical factors that make synthetic turf a severe long-term liability and a very poor choice for the Palisades Rec Center field.
First of all, replacing living grass with plastic is not just a park decision, it is a direct threat to our coastal waters.
As others have talked about already,
turf sheds microplastics constantly as it degrades,
and studies show that turf runoff accounts
for up to 15% of microplastics in local watersheds,
which sends heavy metals and PFAS, forever chemicals,
straight down to Mesko Creek into Santa Monica Bay.
Second, health risks extend even farther than heat stroke.
Biomechanical research shows a 32 to 69% higher rate
of non-contact athletic injuries on synthetic turf
compared to natural grass, including dramatic spikes
in ACL and ankle tears.
Why would we send our children out to play on them?
And while water conservation is a critical priority
in Southern California, trading water use for 440,000 pounds
of unrecyclable plastic waste,
microplastic runoff into Santa Monica Bay,
and extreme urban heat is not true sustainability.
Modern organic management, drought tolerant turf strains,
or recycled water irrigation would allow us
to conserve water without permanently damaging our soil
and local marine ecosystems.
I urge the council to protect our children
and our watershed by keeping our park naturally green
like it was when I was growing up.
Thank you.
Thanks, Mark.
Next, Nancy Okada, Pamela Hetherington,
and Robin Rudecil.
Nancy Okada?
Good morning, commissioners.
Nancy Okada here.
Thank you for taking my comment.
I'm here to tell you about more rocket launches,
launch plans at Vandenberg.
And I found out about this
in your federal consistency report yesterday,
but was unable to sign up for it
because on the dropdown menu, number 10 was missing.
So I wanted to let you know about this.
I appreciate the federal consistency report
because it gives us a window of the public
into the planned military activities on the coast.
And I'm here to alert you on the negative declaration
that you approved yesterday to Space Force
for the Jumping Chola test program.
The choice of a name is particularly interesting
because Jumping Chola is a cactus.
So your letter to Gretchen Swinehart
is on page 41 of your report.
It agrees that the rocket launches
will have no adverse effect on coastal resources.
And it would have been useful
if you would have included Ms. Swinehart's letter
in your packet.
The project will conduct up to three rocket launches
at test pad two from 2027 to 2030.
It'll use excess ground-based interceptor booster components
previously tested by Vandenberg
at the MDA Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System Program.
Project will occur within an existing test launch site.
Launches will result in elevated sound levels
within the immediate area of the launch pad.
The good news is that due to the launch trajectory
of the missile, the time and time needed for the missile
to accelerate to the speed of sound
and generate a sonic boom,
no sonic booms will occur on Vandenberg
or the Channel Islands, Santa Barbara County
or Ventura County.
And the low number and frequency of the launches will limit the potential adverse effects
of noise disturbance to sensitive species according to the
I think we're taking a look at this item in your packet.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next Pamela Hetherington, Robin Rudecil, Leah Unanton.
Pamela Hetherington.
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay. I'm Pam Hetherington, Executive Director
the Environmental Center of San Diego. I'm here to join my colleagues about their concern
about Pangea and the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. The current Port Master Plan
represents years of negotiation and compromise among many interests and it was ultimately
approved unanimously. That hard-won agreement should not be set aside for a speculative project
that does not conform to the plan. Pangea is not a coastal dependent use and it does not comply with
the current Chula Vista Port Master Plan. Since the original Bayfront discussions in 2010,
the conservation community has grown substantially. Today more than 30 organizations are working
together across San Diego County to protect our natural resources and we are paying attention
to what happens here. I urge the Commission to respect the existing plan and the consensus
behind it rather than reopening that agreement for proposals like Pangea. Thank you for listening
to me and thank you for all you do to protect our coast. Thank you. Next, Robin Rudecil,
Leah Unantin, Lisa Gilfillin. Robin Rudecil. Thank you, Robin. Rudecil, citizens preserving
Venice. There's a systemic problem with how Los Angeles is approving density bonus projects in
the coastal zone. The density bonus law itself, government code 65915 section M, states this
section does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California
Coastal Act. It further requires that density bonus incentives shall be permitted in a manner
that is consistent with this section and the Coastal Act. That provision was hard fought and
one by your staff and the public and it's extremely important. Density bonus law does not override the
Coastal Act nor vice versa. The two laws must be harmonized but that is not what we're seeing in
Venice. LA is acting as though that section of the law does not exist. The City Planning Commission
is the decision maker on density bonus projects. When we raise Coastal Act conflicts caused by
excessive density bonus incentives commissioners consistently say their hands are tied. State density
the city bonus law requires them to approve the project.
But section M says, otherwise,
one of the problems is the CPC commissioners
have no training or experience with the Coastal Act.
Even when members of the public specifically raised section M
planning staff does not explain to the commissioners
their responsibility to harmonize these two state laws.
The result is extraordinary waivers
and no meaningful analysis of impacts on coastal resources.
instead, the city is leaving that analysis for you.
As some of you know, LA has done this before.
That creates adverse cumulative impacts
and forces residents to appeal these projects,
thus shifting an enormous burden
onto Coastal Commission staff.
We ask you to work with Los Angeles
to establish a clear process requiring city planning
and the City Planning Commission, the decision maker,
to apply 65915M at the local level.
Thank you.
Thank You Leah Unanton Lisa gill fill in Cindy Abbott
Hi, good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. Thank you
yes, I'd like to speak on an item that was yesterday item 10 in the
Federal Consistency Division deputy directors report on page 41
this is the US Space Force jumping Chola missile launch test program at Vandenberg and
and I read here that the commission can overturn staff's notice determinations for some categories of items,
so I'd like you to pay attention to this item as the ground-based missile tests in the Jumping Chola Missile Launch Program
is going to add even more environmental impact to the sensitive ecosystems and vulnerable species
at Vandenberg. Looking at these launches in 2027 to 2030, what the future is going to look like if
the military industrial complex has its way. Vandenberg will also be testing the new and huge
sentinel nuclear delivery vehicle missiles, new and improved ice I mean improved for mass death
ICBM sentinel as well as the commercial space race with SpaceX rockets and Jeff Bezos rockets
Um, so please reconsider your.
Uh, negative determination on this.
Um, it, it will have harmful impacts, especially with the cumulative activity that they have
planned for 2027 to 2030.
Um, we, the public had been very concerned about the impact of sensitive species, such
concerned about the impact of sensitive species such as the buckwheat blue butterfly the western spadefoot toad
Of course the snowy plover shore bird, but there's also uh a particular red
Some species that only exist at van edberg
Thank you. Next lisa gilfelen cindy abbot david wolfberg
Good morning chair and commissioners. Welcome to san diego
I feel like I might be the outlier in my comment today, but I'm Lisa. I'm here representing Oceana,
the world's largest international advocacy organization dedicated solely to ocean conservation.
We are deeply concerned about the recent findings involving Sable Offshore's pipeline system in
Santa Barbara County. It's only been six months since oil began flowing again, and inspections
have identified potential corrosion and other anomalies at multiple locations, prompting
excavation work to determine whether additional repairs are necessary. This is not simply a
question of pipeline maintenance, it continues to be a question of public trust, environmental
accountability, and whether California's coastal protections are being respected. Oceana urges the
Commission to remain steadfast in enforcing the Coastal Act, requiring full compliance with its
orders and ensuring that no additional unpermitted work proceeds. More broadly, this situation
demonstrates why California must continue moving away from dangerous offshore oil development,
rather than reviving aging infrastructure that threatens our coastal communities,
our marine ecosystems, and our ocean economy. Thank you for your leadership as always,
and your continued commitment to protecting California's coast.
Thank you. Next, Cindy Abbott, David Wolfberg, and Lila Renaro. Cindy Abbott.
Cindy, you're in as a panelist. You should be able to unmute.
I see you're unmuted. Go ahead.
Good morning commissioners this is Cindy Abbott. I was touched yesterday by the speakers from
Santa Monica during general public comment. Born in Santa Monica I'm now a resident of Pacifica,
two coastal cities like so many that are suffering the negative impact of short-term rentals.
The comments reflected the loss of housing for coastal workers including multi-family buildings
that are being flipped from their intended residential use for commercial gain. After
After public comment, some commissioners spoke to the Commission's stance of addressing
STRs on a community-by-community basis.
To me, this includes working with the community, as local representatives know best how to
address the needs of both visitors and residents.
Unfortunately in August, the City of Pacifica's residents, who had spent years on developing
a fair and balanced ordinance, did not receive the respect of the Commission.
I hope that you do take to heart for future CDPs
related to short-term rentals,
that the voice of the community
should be placed over corporate profiteers.
Coastal homes are not hotels.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, David Wolfberg, Lila Renero, David Wolfberg.
Good morning, commissioners.
I'm here in Pacific Palisades
about George Wolfberg Park at Portrero Canyon,
named for my late father who guided the public process
the park's creation. He also advocated for coastal access and oil-free beaches. He was a surfer and
he petitioned for passage of the Coastal Act and creation of this commission. I share concerns
expressed earlier here about a proposed artificial turf for the Palisades Rec Center whose slopes,
whose fields slope directly into Portrero Canyon. A stream running through the park supports frogs,
dragonflies, and a host of insects. This attracts riparian dependent species, and observations on
e-bird for George Wolfbird Park include willow flycatcher, Virginia rail, and yellow-breasted
chat. I've seen lizards, snakes, rabbits, hawks, owls, and a small blue butterfly. On Monday a
peregrine falcon was sighted. This is a functioning riparian corridor. The creek relies on a complex
pumping system. Synthetic turf could introduce bio-accumulating materials, including flaking
solids and runoff from cleaning agents you heard about earlier, all circulating through the creek
that now supports sensitive, aquatic, and other life. My dad refereed soccer at the Rec Center.
It brings great value to the community. Our family supports a careful review and exploring natural
turf alternatives, including soil building approaches that improve water retention.
I understand the Coastal Conservancy has funded many coastal habitat and park projects and a
funded collaboration here possibly together with UC Santa Barbara could lead to a win-win
for coastal playing fields. I'm grateful for all of your work and that of your staff on this.
Thank you. Thank you. And next is Lila Reniero, then Bill Woodbridge. Lila Reniero?
Lila, you're in as a panelist. You should be able to unmute.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Good morning, commissioners. My name
is Lila Renero, and I'm a Pacific resident. After listening to the mayor and city manager,
I think it was an ocean side, but I might be mixing it up with Santa Monica. I'm sorry about that.
I was struck by how many of the challenges they described are shared by coastal communities
throughout California. They spoke about infrastructure needs, including an aging pier,
and the difficult decisions coastal communities face in managing limited resources and changing
It reinforced for me how important it is for coastal communities to have meaningful local tools to address their own challenges, and I think that is particularly important when it comes to short term rental ordinances.
Communities spend years developing these ordinances through public meetings, public comment, elected representatives and extensive community input.
Local residents understand their neighborhoods, their housing needs, their visitor economy, and the balance their community is trying to achieve.
community needs. And the
local community is trying to
achieve. I hope the Coastal
Commission will recognize that
local governments are partners
in protecting California's
coast, not simply entities
whose work should be rewritten
after the fact. When a city has
gone through a thorough public
process and adopted an SDR
ordinance that reflects the
needs of its community. I hope
the commission will give
meaningful weight to that local
work. And whenever possible,
approve the ordinance as
the community without being unduly influenced by the interest of large short-term rental platforms
or other outside interests. There may not be one approach that works equally well for
every coastal community. Local voices should be heard, local decisions should carry real weight,
and the public process should matter. Thank you for listening, and congratulations on 50 years.
Thank you. Bill Woodbridge. Good morning commissioners. Thank you very much for your
awesome efforts on behalf of our coastline and wildlife. I'm calling about Sable Offshore's
illegal activities in Santa Barbara. The very first test Sable conducted two months after
restarting the pipelines revealed defects that require excavations and potential repairs. This
This is very troubling given the fact that Sable informed the public and agencies that
the pipeline was fully repaired and ready to operate.
That was lie number one.
The extensive work that Sable is conducting in the coastal zone violates this commission's
cease and desist order, as well as a court judgment upholding the cease and desist order.
Once again, Sable is blatantly violating state law and court orders.
Sable also continues to violate the commission's April 2025 orders by not paying the required
penalty and failing to complete the required restoration.
I don't know what you can do about this corporation, but they're just lawless.
They don't care what you say.
They don't care what the law says, they do what they want to do, regardless of what the
court says.
I'm hoping you can find some way to enforce your directives and your fines against this
company.
They're just out of control and we're going to have another spell.
And they're damaging the environment in which that pipeline lays by tearing up sections
without even getting or asking for permits. I hope you can do more, thank you very much for your
efforts. I'm Bill Woodbridge from Santa Barbara. Thank you. Now I'm going to call names that we
weren't able to find in Zoom. We do have a number of people logged in under names that are
unidentifiable. So I'm going to call your name, the names that we weren't able to find. If you
If you hear your name, please raise your hand.
Anna Konorofsk, Anna Konorofsk.
Catherine Werner, Jeremy Sheffield,
Pastor Yoshi Kuramoto, David Rosenstein,
Stephen Bannister, Shivani Hudson,
Brady Bradshaw, Brian Deneuve.
Okay, I see one person under the name Urbaco.
You're going to be allowed to speak.
Can you state your name, please?
Hi, my name is Reverend Jim Kahn.
I'm a retired United Methodist minister,
and I've served as a council member and mayor of Santa Monica.
I'm here this morning as a member of CLU, clergy,
and laity United for Economic Justice.
In ancient times, what we might call biblical times,
sharing your living space with a traveler
was a sign of hospitality.
In many cultures, this is still true,
And actually, it's still true for many coastal Californians.
But more and more, short-term rentals are seen as a business opportunity, not as an
individual, making a few extra dollars, much less offering hospitality.
Instead, short-term rentals have become a market for hedge funds.
Their practice remove rentals from the housing stock.
As a founder of Rent Control in Santa Monica and as a long time renter here, I'm saying
to you, we need your protection from this exploitation of our housing.
And we need you to protect the rights of local communities to regulate short term rentals.
That's how we make sure that those rentals come with hosts, not hedge funds.
Thank you.
Thank you.
of the other names that I called Anna Konoroff's Catherine Warner, Jeremy Sheffield, Pastor
Yoshi Kuramoto, David Rosenstein, Stephen Bannister, Shivani Hudson, Brady Bradshaw,
Brian Deneuve. Again, if you can raise your hand. All right, I'm seeing no hands raised,
Madam Chair. Okay, thank you very much and thank you to the public for your testimony.
I'll return to the Commission, comments, questions. Commissioner Escalante.
All right, then I have a list of thanks everybody for coming coming in person and showing up by zoom your comments are always very valued and highly valued and it's lovely to see Linda Can you speak into the mic sorry, it's great to see you all here in person it's wonderful to see a good turnout.
First on the I'll just go in order of the notes that I took on the Newport Beach curfew
Do they need a CDP for this? How are we gonna?
So we're still in the process of working through that with the city right now
It does seem like it's likely to be a change in public access
So that would be a development that requires a permit, but we're like I said still talking to the city about what that looks like
I agree. It's it's very clearly a public access issue
And somewhat discriminatory so I am very concerned about that
About this the the the Pangea sort of part of the Chula Vista master pan bayfront
I know it's gonna come up and I know that you probably not gonna want to get too much into it, but is there
Anything that you would have to say to die to the public. The the Pangea proposal is at its very early stages
with the port right now
We have quite a lot of work with the port, and right now we're tracking some big projects quite ahead of it.
We've got a Port Master Plan update that's coming up probably in the next couple of months.
And then there's also the Seaport San Diego development, which is tracking sometime after that.
So we haven't engaged with Port on that Pangea proposal yet.
They haven't approached us to talk about it, but we certainly will have that on our list to talk with them about.
And we understand there's substantial public interest in that.
I appreciate that.
I do appreciate the organizations that came out
to bring this to our attention and share your concern.
And I encourage you all to stay on top of that
and continue to remind everybody that these things are coming up
for you.
And this artificial turf thing in LA, why is LA going south?
on us. It's because you left. I know how to leave and then boom.
Very disappointing that this is sort of these horrible solutions to deal with some of these
issues. I mean, aside from the toxicity of these materials, the heat island effect, and
this is toxicity for the children that use it, for the kids that are on top of it and
Healing those fumes touching those materials, but as well for the environment and the in the watershed
so
Where where did we come in with that? I have a huge problem with this issue. Yeah, thank you
your staff shares your same concerns and we share the same concerns that were voiced by the
members of the audience who spoke today now we have been in
Communication with the city of Los Angeles now because the city is so large the way that they implement their coastal permit program is
little bit more varied than other cities. Their coastal permits are issued by
their individual departments and in this case is the Parks and Recreation
Department that we've been working with directly. And we have been working with
them, we contacted them to inform them that we believe a coastal development
permit is required for the conversion of the field that was discussed today, for
the conversion of that field from natural sod to artificial turf. The
The city's, the city parks and recreation department's response is that they believe
that the governor's executive order relating to the Palisades fire exempts these sorts
of activities.
And they believe that this is covered under the redevelopment and rebuild post fire for
that property.
We're continuing our communication.
We don't necessarily agree, but because that's a more complicated issue dealing with the
governor's order, which specifically limits our ability to interpret that order, we'll
continue this discussion with the city and we are sharing the same concerns that we believe
that artificial turf is inappropriate in this case.
Now I would note that one additional interesting factor on this property is that the majority
of this field is outside the coastal zone.
There is only a small portion of the field that is actually within our jurisdiction.
And that area, though, is within the coastal zone.
And so that's the area that we're, of course, focusing on with the city.
But our recommendation to the city has been and continues to be that we recommend natural
sod in this location.
So I'm happy to provide updates on this issue in the future.
But for now, I will let the audience know that we are continuing that discussion with
the city, but the city is approaching implementation of their decision to approve this project.
So they do intend to go forward with it at this time.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate that response and you staying on top of it and, you know, and one of my
first reactions to that executive order was that, unfortunately, the redevelopment of
this area is probably going to be a race to the bottom.
And this is kind of a reflection of that of sort of doing whatever you want without any
any any regards sort of for the broader cumulative impacts as we say for the community.
So appreciate you guys to staying on top of it in the community as well.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Kelly.
I just want to align myself with the comments of Commissioner Escalante.
I had those same concerns specifically about the curfew in Newport and beach access.
As a parent with young kids, I can't imagine living in a coastal community and them not being able to go to the beach on Labor Day and Memorial Day and the 4th of July.
Those are key days when kids need something to do and a place to go and if they are not able to go to the beach nor other young people then they will find other other ways to entertain themselves and I don't think that the city really understands what they're putting on families and parents and especially those who are visiting.
I hope we are able to come to a better level of understanding with what's going on in the community there
And I think with respect to the Pacific Palisades baseball turf project
I am very concerned that we saw this in 2017 after the devastating wildfires in Sonoma County that there were
projects that had been long
Evaluated for for negative environmental impacts and during the time of recovery
we saw those projects try to slide under the radar,
under the guise of recovery from wildfire.
And I believe that's what's happening here.
Clearly, we know the negative impact
of using artificial turf in these settings,
not only for heat, but also for injuries to athletes,
and also for injury to the environment
and the plastics and the forever chemicals.
Even if this company says that they don't have
forever chemicals, they do, it's been evaluated.
And so when you think about the short-term gain
of not having to maintain the lawn every day,
really the long-term impacts are tremendous
and incredibly devastating,
especially given the location of this project.
So thank you for staying on top of it.
I understand the nature of the governor's executive order
and why there was a desire to be able to rebuild homes
and get people back home as quickly as possible.
coming from a community where we have been able to rebuild more homes than
any other wildfire community in that amount of time. I do understand the goal
of expediency but not at the cost of of the community and the environment. And
clearly this is what we're seeing here. So I truly hope that we're able to come
to some sort of better resolution and understanding with what the intention of
the executive order was and what's happening here with with these
developers and you know they could just choose to do the right thing and put in
grass and use the money that they're paying for this plastic which will have
to be replaced in ten years anyways to have maintenance of the grass and have
real grass so that would be wonderful to see I'll leave it that thank you thank
you vice chair Hart first of all on the sea lion issue I mean I continue to
I think that, you know, align myself with the speaker
that mentioned limiting access during puppying season
to people that intend to enter the water,
whether to swim, whether to dive.
So are we making any progress with that sort of an approach?
So I can report out a couple of additional happenings
over the last month.
I had the opportunity to meet,
actually a larger team at the commission met
with the representatives from the mayor's office
and from Council Member Joe LaCava's office
to discuss a number of things.
One was enforcement options for the city.
They were just looking for some input from us
on what creative solutions
for enforcement possibilities from the city.
Part of the challenge here, of course,
is that the city does not have the ability
to implement the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
that is the sole discretion of NOAA.
So there's a threading of the needle that needs to occur
if they're gonna enforce, they can't enforce the MMPA.
Only NOAA can do that.
So we are working on creative options on that front.
We're also working on a joint letter
between the mayor's office, or between the mayor
and the council member and myself to NOAA
to ask them to engage and to enforce their law essentially
to see if we can get them to kind of enter the conversation.
So we have been kind of moving on those fronts.
And then in terms of whether this alternative of closing,
I think that's something that's been discussed,
but I'm not sure that they're moving forward
on that right now, or even not sure of the status of that.
We were really focused on these other items.
I would note there's a representative from the city,
the mayor's office online if you have questions.
But that's a general report out of sort of where we are.
The letter, the joint letter,
I've also heard there is some interest too from,
you know, it is definitely getting a broader view.
So I think there are probably some of our federal
congress folks who are interested in working,
trying to get know where to engage, things of that nature.
So we're working on all those fronts right now.
Thanks so much.
I mean, I really appreciate the energy
that you all are putting into this.
And I just think that that's the most obvious approach
during puppying season because I can't think of what the reason is.
People aren't sunbathing on the beach, they're just going to the beach doing selfies with
the sea lions, getting as close as they can and, you know, endangering themselves and
the sea lions.
So I understand the need to get in the water there, that's really important, but it just
seems like a pretty simple and obvious solution during that particular time.
So thank you so much for all your work on that.
I want to talk for a second about the artificial turf.
As a former park director, we dealt with this issue
in Sonoma County, and I would note
that Los Angeles apparently has been discussing this.
I mean, the city council seems to be more
and more inclined or is increasingly skeptical
in any event of artificial turf.
So I think that focusing on the city council
and the adoption by the city of LA of a policy
with regard to these kind of synthetic materials
is the most important approach, especially.
And of course, thanks very much, Mr. Hudson,
on what you're doing.
And I understand the complication there.
But I would just note that in,
at least based on what I'm finding,
that the City Council did direct in 2024 city staff
to study the health, environmental health,
and caused impacts of synthetic turf
and to develop recommendations for reducing
or ending future installations on city property.
So it seems to me that there's a conflict
or a disconnect between the direction
that the city council is going
into the direction the parks department
is going on this particular field.
I mean, besides all the other problems,
with the heat, you know, you can't,
artificial turf when it's hot
is pretty much impossible to use.
Not to mention, as my colleague stated,
It has to be replaced, it's incredibly expensive.
And here you have apparently a perfectly good
natural grass field that people are using.
So I, you know it's hard for me to understand
why the Parks and Rec Department is
plowing forward in this direction.
I don't really understand what's going on there,
but I think a real focus on the City Council,
in addition from the Commission,
indicating to the City Council our concerns
would be effective, thanks.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Presiado.
I have no interest in becoming a super fan
or developing super fans at Newport Beach,
but I got a lot of emails from the last meeting
regarding my comments, inquiring about mooring.
So this time I'm gonna weigh in.
It seems to me that many of our coastal communities
are always identifying ways to maintain quality of life,
and sometimes those extend themselves
to limiting coastal access.
And I appreciate that we must find ways to balance that,
but it seems to me that particularly on holidays,
what was announced as a Newport Beach policy
may be indicative of this idea that people on holidays
people who are visiting or these requirements seem to just be ways of keeping I think sometimes
people use the character of the community in place and in its place reducing coastal
access so I'm interested in that. I'm also interested in I also made comments along with
the Commissioner O'Malley about, you know, the possibility of closure or partial closure.
But I did so in the context, at least from my part, of a temporary kind of activity to
I think I use the words reboot, so that everyone intended or involved and all the stakeholders
could be engaged.
So I just wanted to reiterate that I am looking to see or no longer see the seals be a contentious
issue because we solved or worked to a better solution.
But I do appreciate that my comments here are not policy and that they are mere suggestions
hoping that arrangements can be made so that we can move forward and to that end I appreciate
your remarks and response to Commissioner, to the Vice Chair's inquiry regarding
development of or steps forward to enforcement. What can be done from an
enforcement point of view to create a little more rigor in the implementation
of the plan that should be working in the benefit of the seals. I have a lot to
say about Pangea, but mostly I'm concerned that the 140,000 residents that live along
the coastline in Chula Vista, including the census tracts that have been impacted by industrial
use for 80 years and continue to suffer the effects of that industrial use, including
with increased asthma rates, increased everything rates, should be considered in their quality
of life. I appreciate very much the environmental community and all 30 of their organizations
that are ready to impose what they believe is needed in West Chula Vista. But I want
to remind people that the 140,000 residents, some of them, well, I have four census tracts
in my community where single mothers with children in households
of $40,000 or less are looking for economic opportunity,
are looking for hope.
And I think it's, I was impacted by the rigor of the comments
and the disconnect with the community
that lives immediately adjacent to the coastal area.
I will confirm to all of you that those areas have been walled off to the public for years
and years because of the industrial use and now very gavelantly I hear walling them
off for other uses is going to be valued.
I would encourage us to wait for a balanced approach that does what all of us want in the coast.
I know the residents I represent are interested in seeing access,
are interested in seeing nature, are interested in seeing value.
What I don't think they're interested in being imposed upon.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
I'll be brief.
I want to say it was nearly a year ago that I was the first to ask for
the closure of the La Jolla piece.
And I think there was some, there was some support then,
but we realized that we wanted to strike balance.
The one piece that stood out to me today was a public commenter
who said we don't have the data.
And so I think as we move forward here in 40%
from another commenter, mortality rate,
we didn't get the mortality rate of the populations outside
of this particular point.
But starting to put together the data on that point,
I think is something we can do sooner rather than later
to help make the case for whatever our approach may be
and have a baseline.
And so I think hearing from both sides today was important for me in that respect.
But I just wanted to call that out as a gap that I agree has not yet been put together.
I hope we can move in that direction on the baseball field issue in the Palisades.
Just want to say, personally support fields of natural grass.
That's just one of those key issues for me.
My brother and I, we've probably replaced 35 fields,
rebuilt 35 fields throughout the state and with tractors and it's fun to do you
get the kids involved and engaged and owning that project and there's after a
game handing a kid a rake and a push broom and sending them back out to
maintain the field respects the place that they play and it teaches them to
care for that space in a unique way you can't do that with a turf field because
there's less maintenance but that passion and connection to the field and
the place that they play you begin to treat it as a sacred place for that
reason and it's the reason he and I continue to do that and I just hope that
folks will see the value in that as well yes there's more work but that work can
be part of the lessons imparted on our youth as we show them the importance of
investing in these spaces we own together thank you madam chair
mr. Wilson first I want to raise up but Commissioner Lopez just said about
spaces in our touching dirt matters and so I really appreciate that. So I just
wanted to just quickly respond in relation to the STR comments and
specifically around people are kind of focusing on our Pacifica decision. I
just want to remind folks that the main part of that that we had to strike or
or what we decided to was the primary residents restriction.
That had a lot to do with both previous litigation
on the subject matter and those sorts of things.
So I wanna be really clear about that.
It is a very restrictive ordinance in essence already
and much more restrictive in many that we've done
for other communities including prohibiting SCRs
multifamily housing ADUs and an ADUs and JADUs owner operators must be natural
peoples and not corporations and there's a whole list of restrictions and as I
said before this Commission reviews more STRs ordinances than any agency on the
planet I'm saying that without confirmation and so I'm just it's just I
imagine that to be true as far as I can tell no one's no one's challenged me on
this yet, so I'm just going to keep going with that. And we're hearing from this idea
that, or we've heard today, that we need to protect more housing, and as anyone who knows
me on this commission, it's been something I've been talking about for a long time, for
all the various reasons. And it's not just housing, people getting evicted because their
units are being transferred, but it also impacts housing value because our residences are
being valued at commercial rates.
And then when people imagine that they can buy a residence but lease it at commercial
rates, the value goes up and then the neighbor or the young family that wants to buy a house,
impacts housing values in ways, affordability in both buying and in
renting. We know that, but also I want to remind folks that some communities are
okay with that and in contrast, when I say communities, I mean the
process by which communities go through planning commissions and city
councils which are mostly, for the most part, property owner dominated. And so
And so the renting class, it doesn't have as much of a voice.
And what I'm getting at is there is diversity
in that across the state.
And so it seemed like there was a lot of focus today
as if we had just listened to communities more,
we would be protecting more housing,
but that's not necessarily true.
And so what I'm getting at is this commission
has had a lot of back and forth and a lot of varying opinions.
But I will say the arc of this commission
over the last eight years, I don't know how long I've
been on here, has really moved in a way that is really
seeing the value of housing in our communities
as a resource that is needed for our workforce
and everybody else that helps make these communities what
are. So I just wanted to put out there that we are in that struggle for sure. We believe
in housing as a as a as a fundamental value for our coastlines and and important to access.
So I just want to just want to clarify that as best I can. And that's all I have to say.
Okay thank you everyone for your comments and thank you again to the
public for your testimony. We will continue on if that's okay and we are
moving to the consent calendar. Thank you the next item. Item five is the
consent calendar for all districts on the agenda today. There is one item on
the consent calendar. Staff would note that we received one objection to this
item after the staff report was published and I will now turn the mic
over to Director, District Director Steve Hudson to address the matter.
All right, thank you Shannon. There is an addendum for the UCSB notice of impending
development for removal of four non-native invasive eucalyptus trees
which are located near the east entrance of the campus and replacement with a new
native oak trees which responds to an email which has been included under the
correspondence tab for this item and that correspondence was received from a
member of the public Susan Kirk's in opposition to the notice of impeding
development. The objections are primarily based on concerns that the project would
result in potential impacts to raptors nesting bird species or monarch
butterflies. As discussed in more detail in the report and the addendum however
removal of the non-native and invasive eucalyptus trees and replacement with
Oaks is necessary to satisfy FAA airport requirements for height of surrounding
vegetation and given the proximity of the trees to the nearby City Airport. In
regard to potential impacts to biological resources, although the trees
themselves are located with an area that is designated as environmentally
sensitive or ESHA, the trees themselves do not qualify as ESHA because they are
non-native invasive Eucalyptus and the University in this case has conducted
surveys by a qualified biologist confirming that the four eucalyptus trees to be removed
do not support either raptor or monarch habitat, and all proposed tree removal activities will
occur outside of bird nesting season to ensure that no potential impacts to birds occur.
The university's certified long-range development plan specifically allows for removal of trees
within ESHA when such removal is mitigated at a 3 to 1 ratio.
In this case, to comply with the requirement of the LRDP, the university is proposing to
plant 12 5-gallon oak trees.
And with these mitigation measures in place, the project complies with all the policies
and provisions of the certified LRDP, which is the standard to review for this item.
The staff continues to recommend this item be approved today as part of the consent calendar.
I would just note that staff is not aware of any other opposition to this item.
The University is in agreement with the staff recommendation and the staff is recommending
the Commission vote and approve the consent calendar.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hudson.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
We have a few speakers.
Wait, no.
This is item 5A.
Yeah.
We have three speakers, Adam Leverins, followed by Christy Bascom and Anne Kintrell.
Good morning again.
I have a slide as well.
And full disclosure, the slide that's coming up is a non-native invasive eucalyptus tree
in Newport Beach that the Coastal Commission allowed the city to remove after a meeting
last December.
And for that particular tree, I had been accustomed to this tree for decades.
It was a big heron rookery, birds about four foot tall.
It was like being on the Serengeti during the nesting season.
I've talked to a lot of people more senior than myself,
memories from childhood of this tree.
And that was a loss.
And I understand why the commission approved that.
And I get that.
I haven't been to the trees on the campus of the UC Santa
Barbara, but a lot of times what I'm trying to do
is just prompt thought and get people thinking about stuff.
And even though these trees there, as here,
were non-native, invasive, maybe not meeting
the environmentally sensitive habitat area standards.
Something that takes this long to grow to this size
becomes in itself important.
And when you look for raptors, maybe there's no nests,
maybe they, again, I haven't seen these trees,
but that sort of a habitat of that size and that height,
Like in Newport now, I regularly see herons sitting on mooring balls overnight to see
a four-foot bird with nowhere to go at night troubles me.
And this isn't on the coast, so I think this is different at the campus.
But I just want to open minds and get people thinking about maybe perspectives they haven't.
You're constrained by your regulations and whatnot.
And again, I understand, I don't expect you to deny this.
But just contemplate how important trees of this size are.
you. Thank you. And control. I see that Christie Baskin is actually just
available for questions. No? And control. Good morning. Anne Cantrell, the Sierra Club Coast
Committee. These trees are being removed because they exceed aviation regulations
by 125 feet. They must be enormous absorbing carbon dioxide and producing
pounds of oxygen a year. Although in the Esha area, because these are non-native eucalyptus,
they're considered expendable. Eucalyptus are preferred trees for wintering monarch butterflies,
and tall trees like this are favorite nesting sites for raptors. Even if neither of these
were found, these trees are surely habitat for other bird and insect species. Hummingbirds and
and warblers especially love Eucalyptus nectar.
Please move this item from consent
and consider other ways of dealing with this problem.
We suggest topping the trees to a safe height
and not removing them until the 12 replacement trees
have achieved a size which can support raptor nesting
and monarch roosting.
During a 50 years lifespan,
one tree will generate $30,000 in oxygen,
recycle $35,000 worth of water
and clean up $60,000 worth of air pollution.
Trees provide shade and reduce noise pollution.
We should value everyone
and do everything in our power to preserve them.
You have this ability today.
Please use it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And again, Christy Bascom, available for questions.
We have no other speakers.
OK, thank you very much.
Commissioner Kelly.
I had a question with respect to the staff report.
In the initial staff report, it says they are 1215 gallon trees,
but now we are saying it's 125 gallon trees.
is that correct that the replacement size is five gallon?
Okay, I may have misspoke.
I'm gonna go with the number that's within the staff report
and just say that we'll use the larger size.
Regardless, we do believe,
we don't have a size requirement in the LRDP,
so we do believe that the university is fully complying
with all the requirements for a replacement tree.
Understood, so it looks like in the addendum,
it says that there is language to be added to the staff report and language to be deleted
as in terms of strikeout and that specifically is the strikeout that we are striking out
15 and putting in five gallon oak trees.
So I think just to, go ahead.
The addendum is the information I was using.
So that updates the information in the staff report.
So the correct number then is the five gallons as we listed in the addendum.
And I think just with respect to the comments from the public as well as just acknowledging
the fact that the trees that are being removed are so large that they are impacting a flight
path, which is clearly a problem, but also identifies the maturity of the existing trees
that are being removed.
We don't have the ability to require the larger gallon size to the point of we'd love to have
mature trees planted or larger trees planted so that they can reach that level of maturity
sooner as opposed to the five gallon trees which I'm assuming maybe incorrectly would
be a smaller tree and so is that a possibility that we can revert back to what was actually
in the original report which was the 15 gallon as opposed to the five gallon, do we have
the ability to do that?
yes I'd like to note three three things there so yes if although this is on
consent so we don't have the ability to make changes today we would have to
bring this back for a later hearing we would not recommend the the change in
the container size for a couple reasons I'd like to point out first I'd just
like to note about the size of these trees I believe they're approximately
about a hundred feet high the fact that they're so far above the airport is due
of topography. There's a slope, this is a steep slope above Galita Slough in the
airport which is at a lower elevation. That grade change is about 60 feet so
the height issue here is largely due to topography. Now these four eucalyptus
trees are large but again we have laid out specific requirements in the LRDP
which foresee exactly these sorts of projects and so we've worked very
closely with the University in this case and to ensure that they comply with all
all the precautions within the LRDP
to ensure that habitat impacts are avoided.
In this case, surveys have been conducted
which shows there are no active nests.
So we do not believe that it's necessary
to provide replacement trees of any mature height
to avoid temporal impacts from loss of nesting habitat.
Although they could use larger sizes,
one of the issues with using larger sizes
with replacement oaks is that we actually have greater,
we've found in the past in restoration projects we've achieved greater success
using smaller container size plantings or even saplings. The larger container
plants often have greater mortality rates associated with them and may be
less successful and so we in this case because we don't believe that there's a
temporal impact associated with the loss of any nesting habitat we're not
recommending that the University use a larger size container planning in this
case great I appreciate the taking this moment to just have that explanation and
a greater understanding of I think the number the most important thing is that
the replacement trees are successful and that over time you know they will be
able to grow so I'm comfortable with what's recommended in the addendum and
happy to move consent when appropriate Commissioner Lopez yeah you'll remember
I remember when I joined the commission, I mentioned that native plants are one of those
weird spaces that I get involved in, and so this is one for me.
I appreciate the comment about the mortality, especially of bigger trees.
That is a big thing in the Salinas Valley when we require the three-to-one replacement
through our oak tree policy, and so we do now allow for smaller.
I would have loved to see a higher number of smaller, one-gallons, right, but a very
large amount, like 30, maybe, in the replacement picture.
I don't want to stand in the way of this one today,
but in the future, the other thing I'd really love to see
is a two-year check-in.
Most die at about 18 months.
So confirmation that there's a survival at 24 months
is really important to me.
And the last piece would be spreading
native milkweed seeds in the area as well,
because they do provide for that additional habitat
for monarchs while the oak trees come into space.
So again, not looking to stand in space on this one,
but in the future, those are elements
I would love to see included.
Thank you.
Commissioner Kelly, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent item 5a
Thank you, that's a motion by Commissioner Kelly a second by Commissioner presciado any objections to unanimous consent
The consent calendar is adopted. Thank you. Now. We'll move on to those items removed from the regular calendar to consent
You item 6 is for applications to be moved from the regular to the consent calendar for all districts on the agenda today
As I mentioned during the agenda changes earlier this morning, there are nine items that staff recommends be moved to the consent calendar
Those include item 8b City of San Diego LCP amendment 2026 land use development code update time extension only
item 8c City of Chula Vista LCP amendment
Roar rule specific plan time extension only a new item that we added today item 10 a
CDP application for Del Mar Beach Club in Solana Beach. Item 10B CDP application for
Toll West LLC and Encinitas and Carlsbad. Item 10E CDP application for Pebble Brook Hotel
and Trust Mission Bay Rosie LLC in San Diego. Item 12A county of Santa Barbara LCP amendment
for outdoor lighting and signs. Item 12B county of Santa Barbara LCP amendment for streamlining
housing for streamlining and housing accommodations. Item 12C, County of Santa
Barbara LCP amendment, general ordinance amendment package. And finally item 12 the
city of Santa Barbara LCP amendment for airport zoning. District Director Schwing
will make some remarks about one item. Staff is not aware of any opposition to
the other items or to any of the items moved to the consent calendar and we're
recommending that the commission vote and approve this item after Mr. Schwing
makes his comments and staff is available for questions. Thank you. I just
wanted to note on item 10a the Delmar Beach Club that the staff report
addendum that modifies the staff recommendation. Staff's been working with
the applicant since publication of the staff report. Initially the
recommendation was to defer payment of a mitigation fee for the seawall until
wall repairs reached the point of redevelopment.
The applicant's now proposing to pay the mitigation fee for the entire wall now instead of in
increments and that will result in the payment of about $1.7 million.
That will be used for sand nourishment and public access improvements in the vicinity
of Solana Beach.
So we're pleased with the change and want to thank the applicant and their representatives
for working with us to that good outcome.
And with that, we recommend these matters get moved to and approved on consent.
Okay.
Thanks very much.
Any ex partes?
Any public comment?
I guess we have a few people.
For item 10A, we have Terry Himes here in person.
Terry.
And then we also have Robert Tretson on Zoom for that item.
Great.
Okay.
I'll be real quick.
Thank you.
My name is Terry Himes.
I'm the president of the Delmore Beach Club.
I'm here today representing 192 families who live in the coast on Solana Beach but more importantly
I'm here representing people not numbers not buildings and not abstract policy issues but
real real people. Many of our residents are retired we have lived in the Delmar Beach
Club for 40 to 50 years and they bought their homes decades ago worked hard raised their family
paid their mortgages and planned to spend their retirement in a place where they worked so hard
So they're not wealthy people and simply walk away from their homes and absorb endless increase in cost.
So many of them in their homes are their largest and sometimes only significant financial asset.
So they're frightened by the uncertainty surrounding the seawall,
and they understand the risk of living next to the ocean, and they know the ocean is powerful.
They know the seawall requires constant maintenance, engineering, permitting, and expense.
And they were never asked to escape any of these responsibilities.
So I would proceed you to approve this permit as soon as you can possibly do.
And they deserve the opportunity to finally put this matter behind them.
So on behalf of the 192 families at the Delmore Beach Club, I respectfully and urgently ask
you to approve the permit.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Robert Trenton.
Thank you, commissioners.
I won't take up any more of your time.
I just want to thank Lindsey Kane
and the balance of your staff.
They put in an enormous amount of work with me on this,
and we're just pleased that we're paying this in advance.
We will have some other maintenance issues come up,
and we've paid for this in advance,
and hopefully with the amount of this sum,
it will be able to be used sooner
for public access creation,
additional public access creation in Solana Beach.
So thank you very much.
Thank you.
Moving to item 10E, which is proposed to be moved to consent.
Diane Wolkke.
We have here in person.
Diane Wolkke.
There you are.
Please turn the mic on.
Good morning again, Diane Wolkke.
Board members, safe, healthy playing fields,
a beyond plastics affiliate.
I have slides.
OK, mine won't open.
Thank you for conditioning the permit
for the San Diego Bay Resort, for not allowing them
to put in composite wood for their replacement dock.
It's important to reduce the microplastics.
But I really want to point out the fact
that they've also got over 17,000 square feet
of plastic turf.
And since it was installed in November of 2020,
it has contributed over 400,800 gallons of toxic runoff
to the bay. Slide please. In case you couldn't see it, in the first image, there it is. It's
being used for a banquet area and for dogs to run on. When I was there the other day,
the temperature was 145 degrees on a 78 degree day. And the water temperature there I believe
was 69 degrees and change. Slide. Thank you for the approval of the, if you could move
the timer if you for the approval of the de Anza natural local coastal program but why
are we continuing to contaminate the bay when we're trying to clean it up?
Slide.
You can see that we have got numerous projects that have been approved by the Coastal Commission
in the Bay Area.
We're assuming that number two, the two synthetic turf playing fields at Mission Bay High School
as well as the used tire crumb running track will not be allowed to be replaced.
We are hopeful that you will encourage the bay club or the resort to get rid of their
synthetic turf and install Bermuda hybrids that are drought and desert tolerant.
But I'm really questioning why we keep adding these PVC tiles.
You have now approved the installation of essentially larger than a football stadium's
worth of this highly toxic product there is one going on now at number four
there's one at number six and there's another one at number one please stop
poisoning our kids in our water thank you the rest of the speakers are signed
up as available for questions I just wanted to double check with staff
because I wasn't able to listen in this as intently this morning but was the
the only item added to the agenda changes 10a.
Or were there additional changes?
Yes.
Okay.
So there are no more speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
I will return to my colleagues.
Questions, comments, a motion?
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, I just wanted to ask,
we have a lighting ordinance on here
and I just wanted to ask staff,
it seems like there's a lot of this
that has conformed with dark skies recommendations.
can you just focus on that for a second and and what changes staff may have
recommended that got us to this place thank you okay so in regard to the the
lighting and sign ordinance by Santa Barbara County the existing ordinance
did include a large number of existing night sky oriented provisions including
static images only, the black background limitations on turning these signs off at night, beginning
at 9 p.m., exceptions for gas stations that those signs still be turned off if they have
a later closing hour at the time the gas station closes, that these signs are not allowed to
face Esha or environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
So there's a lot here that we think is a huge improvement over the existing.
There was one gap that we were concerned about, and that was the warmth or the color of the
light to avoid blue light.
So we do have a number of suggested modifications.
Most of those are clarifications.
Maybe the most significant in regard to the electronic signs was the limitation on the
temperature, limiting those lights to, I want to say 2,700 Kelvin.
2700 Kelvin and let me just double-check that number.
My reading of it is that that is what you have.
Okay.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
EMC lights are limited to a maximum light temperature equivalent to 3000 Kelvins, which
is that warmer light spectrum.
So that was included into the suggested modifications and accepted by the county.
So they are in agreement with all these different restrictions.
With that change, we do believe that this brings it into conformance, although it's
not called night sky compliant.
We believe that it brings it into conformance with the night sky provisions and sensitive
habitat protections.
Great.
I appreciate that.
I support these changes.
I encourage all communities to move in this direction.
It's effective, it's secure.
In terms of people's safety, I want to remind folks that the brighter the lights, the more
darker the shadows and actually makes it harder to see walking in the community.
So as well as these temperature ranges are very important when we talk about not just
humans in our sleep, but all the other creatures that have to live in our environments.
So I really appreciate this, and I'm motioned to approve things move to consent.
Thank you.
I will get back to the motion after we hear from a couple of our colleagues.
Commissioner Prossiato.
I just wanted to point out to staff prior to joining the City Council and subsequently
here I was part of County Water Authority and I remember when we were going through
We draw out regional agencies like Metropolitan Water District and San Diego County.
We spent hundreds of millions of dollars incentivizing turf replacement with plastic, grass kinds
of things.
And I just looked up on the internet, it looks like the last time they did it was September
of last year.
And I would just encourage us to see if among our public agencies we can talk to each other
and maybe abandon turf replacement as one of the water, turf replacement with artificial
turf as one of the strategies, it is a, obviously water availability, particularly drinking
water availability is important, romantically important for all kinds of, but it just seems
to me it invites us to at least communicate with those public agencies when they have
and I know Metropolitan at one point spent 400 million dollars incentivizing turf replacement
and so anyways I just wanted to add that to the comments.
Thank you.
Commissioner Escalante.
I'm speechless.
So what was your, maybe your response to that Mr. Schring about sort of what the public
has shown us, those incredible blocks, and of course now we're dealing with a legacy
of really misinformed, I think, decisions.
I mean, I figured nobody was trying to poison anybody with this, I think people were trying
to make everyone more comfortable or facilitating some access, but there's also some significant
consequences. So what's your reaction to the comments about this particular item?
Well just to be clear that the item that is before you on consent does not
authorize any artificial turf. It is exclusive to the dock and we did
address the water quality issues associated with plastics in that
recommendation. The other sites that were brought up, I know a few of them
have come before the Commission, I mean just off the cuff. A few of them have
come before the Commission and the materials that we authorized were ones
that our water quality unit was in support of and didn't find having a
significant risk of, you know, any toxic runoff from those particular sites but
there may be some sites there that need further investigation but I'm just not
familiar off the top of my head.
So what would you recommend that we, just in sort of as a general maybe advice, policy
advice to applicants in general that include this kind of materials, remind me if there's
like language and act or what is it that we tell them to make sure that they're...
So under the COSAC, we are required to protect the quality of the marine environment, including
water quality.
I just want to focus on what we have today is a dock replacement project where the staff
recommendation was to remove plastic from the proposed project.
And that's really what's in front of you right now.
Got it.
Okay.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I believe there's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Wilson.
Second.
Thank you.
in a second by Commissioner Kelly. Any objections to unanimous consent? Seeing
none, the motion carries. Okay to my colleagues we are just going to
continue on. Please be mindful of quorum if you need to get up for any reason and
we are now on item 7 please. Mr. Schwing. Thank you. So yes item 7 is this Deputy
Director's report for San Diego Coast District. I'll start by
reporting two emergency actions as we reported yesterday around the Labor Day
weekend high tidal conditions combined with storm surge from hurricane weather
in the Pacific led to significant wave over overtopping erosion flooding along
mostly southward facing beaches also in San Diego County during that time period
staff received emergency requests from the city of Encinitas to temporarily
closed the public beach access stairway at Grandview to address safety concerns
to beachgoers following the collapse of a portion of the bluff just north of
the staircase and that stairway does remain closed at this point while the
city assesses the situation and develops a response. The second emergency permit
was in the city of Carlsbad just north of Encinas Creek. Seaward of Carlsbad
Boulevard seeking to construct a hundred and ninety two linear foot addition to
the existing 520 foot long rock revetment that currently protects the
roadway. You may recall discussions on the same revetment several months ago
where the city sought additional time on their existing CDP to implement long
term hazards management plan with the goal of relocating the roadway such that
protections no longer required. Staff will be bringing forward that amendment
to the permit likely before the end of the year and would expect to address the
follow-up requirements for the revetment extension at that point. So this is just
a report out again. There's no action for the Commission to take on the emergency
actions. And next we do have we're reporting four waivers for permits
Projects in Solana Beach, one CDB time extension for project in San Diego.
We're not aware of any opposition on those items and we're asking whether three or more
commissioners object to the waivers or the extension.
Thank you very much.
Are there any expertise?
Any public comments, Simone?
Hi.
Yes, we do.
We have eight speakers.
We have three in person.
Oh, sorry.
Okay, so we'll go with Kathleen Steinberger, Mitch Silverstein, and Ben Rubinson, and they
have a presentation for, are available for questions, sorry.
Good morning, Coastal Commissioners.
My name is Kathleen Steinberger.
I'm a resident of the City of Carlsbad.
I'm also a former chair of our Beach Preservation Commission.
The City of Carlsbad has obtained a new emergency CDP for an additional 192 feet of rock revetment
placed on the beach below the southbound lane of Carlsbad Boulevard.
This outcome was predicted during our public comments at the July 9, 2026 Coastal Commission
hearing.
The current road instability resulting from bluff erosion originates at the northern terminus
of the rock revetment authorized under the 2015-2016 emergency permit.
The revetment accelerated erosion here.
It's called flanking or end effects.
This latest rock revetment will also likely accelerate bluff erosion and create a future
demand for additional emergency riprap.
Next slide, please.
City claims of high project costs have stalled the landward movement of Carlsbad Boulevard
since 2024 while the city applies for grants to fund it.
The city has applied for and been denied six grants to fund this relocation.
Major grant holders such as Ocean Protection Council and the State Coastal Conservancy
favor projects featuring nature-based adaptation, such as dune restoration, riparian habitat
enhancement and living shorelines as opposed to use of hard armoring of infrastructure.
A review of the grant applications found that the applications do not mention the word beach, dunes, or restoration of habitat at the Las Encinas Creek.
By omitting these terms and their project descriptions, Carlsbad has submitted applications that appear to be at odds with the stated purpose of coastal resilience grants as well as the terms of the California Coastal Conservancy Climate Ready Grant awarded to them in 2020.
The city asserts the landward movement of Carlsbad Boulevard as a priority project,
and they have appropriated 2 million in their CIP.
The June 2026 CIP says zero dollars had been spent.
Thank you.
Made Silverstein, Surf Rider, Morning Commissioners.
You can keep the presentation up.
Next slide, please.
Here's a zoom out of the entire mile long stretch where the emergencies exist.
Notice how much space there is for a resilient, restored beach if the southbound lane was
gone and two-way traffic redirected to the northbound lane.
You may remember that we objected to extending armoring here as an immaterial amendment in
July.
Thankfully, many of you agreed with us.
We warned that additional emergency armoring along this stretch would be coming soon and
we were right.
As Kathleen pointed out, it's accelerating the erosion.
There's now over 700 feet of continuous rock along the beach, assembled one emergency at
a time to protect the road.
piecemeal loss of the beach is exactly what the Commission's 2018 CDP was
written to prevent. The 2018 permit let the city temporarily keep the initial
rock in exchange for two commitments first the city agreed to come back with
a regular CDP laying out a long-term plan for this stretch that protects the
beach and public access. The city's own studies say they should move road
traffic landwards so the beach can survive. Second for as long as the city
keeps rocks on the beach it agreed to study the alternatives and mitigate the
damage that armoring does to sand supply and public access. Basically
temporary mitigation while the city transitions to a long-term fix. We
support that. But eight years later, nothing, neither have happened. Instead
they've asked for five more years on the 2018 CDP. And as we see today, an
additional emergency permit has been granted. We understand staff may fold
this new emergency permit into the larger permit headed to the upcoming
material amendment hearing. That makes sense, but there needs to be a
comprehensive approach with real commitments. A firm deadline for the
long-term plan to protect this beach and public access to it and the
mitigation the city already agreed to. We also echo the commissioners who
asked to see the city's cost estimates and plans. Please require that. Next
slide. This beach needs commitment and a plan not an endlessly expanding
emergency rock revetment that guarantees certain death to a mile of
beach. With the right plan this could be the single most resilient beach in the
entire city. Thank you. Ben Rubinson and then after that no more speakers just
available for questions yes he has a next likely hello to Herman and
commissioners my name is Ben Rubinson and Carl's hello chair Harmon and
commissioners my name is Ben Rubinson Carl's bed resident and volunteer
research writer foundation grats on the 50th anniversary of the coastal act by
the way I wanted to add some of my perspective on the Carlsbad emergency
permit and riprap placement on Carlsbad Boulevard. Here are some recent images
of the emergency permit area. You can see the pavement is already close to the
edge after the bluff failure this summer. Next slide please. The rock
preventment may protect the lower part of the bluff in the short term but
erosion from rain and the upcoming El Nino storms may compromise the roadway
as seen only a few hundred yards south in the image on the right. You can see
the exposed undercut roadway at the top of the image on the right. By armoring
Following this stretch of coast, we are setting ourselves up for losing precious beach and
real estate due to the rock placement, losing more beach as the waves hit these rocks and
accelerate erosion and rain may still compromise the road over time.
Beach loss will take place, money will have been spent, and road protection may still
not be achieved.
So as this emergency permit evolves into a longer term plan for that area of coastline,
I have a few asks.
My first ask is to prioritize a definitive timeline for rock removal and a documented
budget commitment from the City for this effort in all long-term plans.
Carlsbad residents will definitely be ready to get our beach back.
My second ask is for your assistance to ensure that the City looks at the bigger picture
here.
This short-term solution is just that, short-term.
It will not be possible to keep this roadway long-term and I hope future discussions between
the Coastal Commission and the City focus on the movement of this stretch of road further
inland as they have investigated in 2024. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. I will
return to the commission. Okay. Vice Chair Hart. Thanks. I mean, I'm sure I share this
with you all that this is this use of emergency permits when it's foreseeable here clearly
foreseeable what's going to happen with this road and what's probably going to happen coming
up and I'm just very concerned based on what we've been seeing in San Clemente.
We're beginning this process of allowing emergency permits and rocks and you can just see exactly
what's going to happen here.
So I really hope that what this last individual mentioned in terms of a time frame for removing
the rocks, a plan for addressing the road, which it sounds like we're going to be at
least partially discussing in our next item, I may be wrong about that but it seems like
it's relevant to this whole item that's coming up.
So from my perspective in an event, I just would love to see a plan here and removal
of the rocks and no more emergency permits for this area.
Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado.
I just wanted to comment that given some of the challenges that we'll all be facing, particularly
at these storm events, create more challenges.
I'll just speak from my perspective,
in another agency I'm in, we're looking at wastewater
and we have incursions from rain into our wastewater system
that cause challenges, and we have,
as an organization, we are subjected to
potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.
What the point I'm trying to make is in the next three or four or five months we may see dramatic impacts on places like this that have been given an emergency permit to try to shore up the resource before it becomes more challenging.
And with all due respect, I think the best science is we're all aware of, that it would
be to replenish and start working on the sand, move the road.
But I don't know that that is going to be solved in the next five months.
And so one of the things that is I'm trying to manage for myself is how do I balance excellent
policy that all of us are aware would be the excellent policy?
No one denies that.
No one denies our awareness that these revetments ultimately are not the solution.
But how do we balance that with the capacity of the city to address this, to keep the road
going as much as it can be?
And also try to recapture the beach resource.
So in that regard, I support staff's continued effort to try to work with these local communities
that quite frankly will be overwhelmed. I don't think, I hope it doesn't happen, but
I don't think this is the last time we're going to be talking about this particular
space and other spaces. If everything proves to be, if all of the reports and all of the,
just this morning I was seeing a news article on the Kelvin wave that is upon us, or four
more waves potentially of the Kelvin wave are coming.
So I'm just trying to figure out what will be our positionality as a commission to acknowledge
the best science that's available to protect the environment in the long run, but to do
the emergency work that needs to be done to keep us moving forward.
And so I just invite us to have that kind of inquiry because it's going to be difficult
to let's say in December, we're here again because we had challenges or in January or
February and we'll need another emergency revetment and I could be upset that we didn't
follow the best science that, you know, the surf writer groups are reminding us to be
thoughtful about, but how do we contend with this as an agency when calamities of this
nature or greater will be upon us?
Commissioner Lopez.
I think, direct, Dr. Hucklebridge wanted to respond there.
Did I?
No.
Okay.
To put it in a different way, this seems like there ought to be a law, right, as we talk
talked about yesterday around getting through the permitting process faster
for improved projects as we talked about CEQA and the challenges on the San
Clemente same thing in my mind there's somebody should create a pathway that
allows for an expeditious movement of some of these key pieces of
infrastructure so maybe we can find some key legislators in the coming session to
start having that conversation and I'll just remind the public I think there's
more frustration ahead on this we're talking about the storms and the impact
it's going to come first. But having been through a lot of disasters and lost a lot
of infrastructure in my communities, what ends up happening is you're not allowed to
improve. You can't say, well, the problem is, in my instance, this sewer plant was in
the floodplain, we want to move it out of the floodplain. The federal government requires
you put it right back in the floodplain. You cannot improve the location. You're expected
to put it right back as it was if you want any funding to come back to support it. So
To that next piece, we need to also be having that conversation with key folks saying as we recognize the impacts and I know with this particular administration, it's probably not the best time for getting it done.
But for starting the conversation, I think it may be the appropriate moment to talk about some of those realities along our coast. Thank you, Commissioner Wilson. Yeah, just to piggyback on that as we had last month we had a.
Centerville Beach and the and the
provision that the
Improvements or the repairs be in the exact same location as opposed to funding the moving of the road to another location
Really complicated things a lot and doesn't make doesn't make the situation better. So I agree with
Commissioner Lopez that
Some at some energy and and discussion with the feds on this is something we should probably consider
Okay. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the Deputy Director's
report? Seeing no objection, the commission concurs. Thank you for that discussion. We
will now move on to item 8A, please. Thank you. And I'll turn the presentation
over to Tony Ross, our lead analyst on the project. We do have a staff PowerPoint to
bring up if we could do that and Tony please start when you're ready good
morning commissioners item 8a is a request by the city of Carlsbad to
update several components of its certified local coastal program slide
two please the amendment before you consists of two major parts the first is
a comprehensive replacement of the city's land use plan which was
originally certified in 1996 the second is a set of project driven revisions to
the Poinsettia Shores master plan, a certified component of the city's
implementation plan, intended to allow development of an approximately 11 acre
site located in the south Ponto area of the city's shoreline. In addition to
these core components, the amendment includes several non substantive
provisions including updates to the city's village Barrio master plan and a
minor land use change for a single parcel currently used for tourist
agricultural purposes. Although the two substantive portions of this amendment
touch on some similar issues such as priority uses and open space they remain
separate matters with the LUP amendment affecting only the land use plan and
the point study of shores revisions affecting only the IP. There are two
addendums for this item which contain additional modifications requested by
the city and supported by staff. One new modification recommended by staff, new
exhibits and comment letters received since the publication of the staff
report. Staff is recommending the Commission deny both the LUP and IP
amendments as submitted and then certify both components with the suggested
modifications contained in the staff report and addendence. I will first
discuss the LUP update and second the IP and Poinsettia Shores revisions.
Slide three please. Overall the City's proposed LUP is a substantial
improvement over the existing certified plan. Staff would like to acknowledge the
city's extensive collaboration throughout this multiyear update.
The city has taken a proactive approach on numerous LCP policy issues, particularly related
to sea level rise planning.
The revised LUP includes strengthened policies on water quality, public access, visual resources,
agricultural protection, and visitor serving uses in the coastal zone.
While staff is recommending many suggested modifications, they are the result of a significant
coordination between city and commission staff and we appreciate the city's
commitment to producing a modernized and comprehensive plan.
Slide four please. There are four suggested modifications in the land use
plan which the city does not support. These relate to the protection of lower
cost overnight accommodations, bird safe design standards, and the definition of
temporary and permanent impacts to sensitive habitats. Slide five please. The
most significant policy disagreement concerns suggested modification three
D-6 which would ensure continued protection of coast of lower-cost overnight accommodations
and require that new visitor-serving developments provide a range of affordability.
The set of suggested modifications reflect the same requirements the Commission has recently
approved for the City of Oceanside and the City of San Diego communities of Barrio Logan,
Botay Mesa-Nester, and Mira Mesa.
In all of these areas, the Commission evaluated how to best ensure that existing lower-cost
overnight accommodations are protected and that future development provides a range of
affordability in order to serve all incomes and determine that policy language should
be added to the plans requiring no net loss of overnight accommodations, that new visitor
serving accommodation developments provide a range of affordability, and that high-cost
accommodation developments provide at least 25 percent of the number of proposed units
as lower cost, or if this is not feasibly provided on-site, require mitigation off-site
by contributing to the construction or funding of a new lower cost accommodation development
equal to 25% of the proposed high cost units. The city has requested that these matters
be deferred to a future implementation plan update. I will be discussing the city's existing
supply of lower cost accommodation in a few minutes, but staff agrees the city has a reasonable
supply of lower cost overnight accommodations at this time. However, this policy is forward
looking and is designed to protect the city's existing stock of accommodations as well as
encouraging and providing for the future expansion of such facilities.
The staff believes inclusion in the LUP at this time is necessary to avoid potential
loss of lower cost postal lodging opportunities.
Despite the city's relatively large supply of visitor accommodations, only a fraction
qualifies lower cost even when including the 220 state park campsites.
these requirements to a future update would delay needed protections for several more
years. And for this reason, commission recommends retaining the suggested modification.
Slide six, please. Carlsbad is the only jurisdiction in San Diego County with a certified natural
community conservation plan as part of its LCP. This plan, also known as the city's habitat
management plan, or HMP, allows certain coastal sage scrub and other sensitive resources in
the exchange for maintaining an interconnected preserve system currently
totaling approximately 6,235 acres. The HMP does not expire until 2053 and the
city is not proposing changes to it as part of this amendment. Accordingly, the
LUP-ESHA policies reflect the long-standing limitations and allowances
established under the certified HMP. Several updated habitat-related policies
have been added that do not conflict with the HMP. These include protections addressing
coastal dunes, fernal pools, monarch butterfly habitat, wildlife movement, seasonal vegetation,
and Calbrac. There are three ecological protection modifications that the City disagrees with.
Side 7 please. Suggested Modifications 6-12 requires the City encourage the use of special
design and window treatments to improve the degree to which developments are bird safe.
These measures are known to reduce bird mortality which is especially important in coastal areas
including wetland areas that provide critical stopover habitat for birds using the Pacific
flyway.
Encouraging bird safe design is supported by Coastal Act sections 302.4.0 and 302.31.
Slide 8 please.
The second two relate to newly added definitions of temporary and permanent impacts.
Urban impacts are defined as those that recover within 12 months and permanent impacts are
those where areas or key ecological functions will be lost due to development or necessitate
more than 12 months for recovery to a pre disturbance condition following the initial
point of disturbance.
Slide 9 please.
And here is the companion definition for permanent impacts.
The city maintains that a 12 month timeframe is too short.
However, this standard has been applied to numerous commission permit actions.
Ecology staff determined that this definition reflects the best available science and is
supported by Coastal Act section 30240.
Therefore staff continues to recommend the inclusion of these modifications.
Slide 10, please.
The remaining suggested modifications to the land use plan include policies spanning a
variety of coastal resources, including coastal changes that protect and preserve cultural
and tribal resources, various sensitive habitat, define and provide policies regarding environmental
justice, and clarifying strength in regulations relating to sea level rise, and the City is
in agreement with all of these suggested modifications.
Slide 11, please.
With regard to hazards and sea level rise policies, the new policies reflect adaptation
planning requirements, require the City to process LCP amendments for any vulnerability
adaptation or site-specific hazards reports,
potentially requires additional setbacks
and design standards for new development
and includes baseline civilize policies
that use the best available science.
Slide 12, please.
Two new key policies relate to the definition
of existing development
and the definition of redevelopment.
Suggested Modification 8-20 defines existing structures
along the city's coast as those constructed
prior to January 1977,
or the effective date of the Coastal Act.
Only existing development is entitled
to shoreline protection.
Policy 8-27 establishes that within
the Commission's appeals jurisdiction,
redevelopment is triggered when proposed work,
including alterations, interior or exterior renovations,
demolition, or replacement,
results in the removal or replacement of 50% or more
of major structural components,
including exterior walls, floors,
roof structure or foundation and increases the buildings gross floor area by 50% or more.
It also applies when cumulative alterations since the original certification of the city's
local coastal program in 1996 or since the earliest documented alteration.
This definition is important because typically existing nonconforming development must be
brought into conformance when the structure is redeveloped.
Over the years the commission has considered several options for determining the date when
changes to existing structures should be included in the analysis of redevelopment.
The effective date of the Coastal Act would be most inclusive and a comment letter from
Surf Rider also suggests that 1977 would be a better date.
However, the city notes that local records of development may not be available before
the city had permitting authority, making accounting difficult and inconsistent.
Using the date of LCP certification, which is 30 years ago, will capture much of the
history of the development in a consistent matter. In addition, the definition provides
that should substantial evidence be provided of work that occurred in a form other than
a coastal development permit, photographs, for example, these would be included in the
cumulative threshold regardless of the date the development occurred. Thus, using the
start date of 1996 would be sufficient to allow the city to bring nonconforming structures
into conformance over time.
Slide 13 please.
Surf Rider has also suggested that language be added to the LUP supporting potential realignment
of Carlsbad Boulevard, as we just discussed, and requiring that public access to easements
be ambulatory.
The portion of Carlsbad Boulevard currently protected by rock revetment was authorized
through the Coastal Commission development permit by the Commission, and retention of
the rock for a limited period is currently undergoing review by the Commission.
While the proposed LUP does not specifically address the relocation of Carlsbad Boulevard,
policies supporting public access and recreation and avoiding hazards are included and the
specific concerns associated with the existing revetment will be addressed through the ongoing
permitting process.
With respect to lateral access easements, suggested modifications already provide for
the inland migration of access ways as necessary to maintain year-round dry sand access, and
We believe that that provision will adequately maintain public access.
Slide 14 please.
Now I'm going to move to the review of the implementation plan portion of the project
or more specifically the Ponto Area F redevelopment.
This is a project driven amendment to facilitate the construction of 120 housing units with
24 affordable units, new retail, commercial structures, open space and recreational trails.
The project site is privately owned, which has been designated in the certified land
use plan for multifamily residential development and general commercial such as hotels, retail
stores and service businesses since 2017.
The standard overview for the IP amendment is consistency with the LEP.
Slide 15 please.
Although the existing LEP identifies the type and level of development intensity on the
site, Poinsettia Shores Master Plan still identifies the Planning Area F as an unplanned
area.
Policy language states, as a part of any future planning effort, the city and developer must
consider and document the need for their provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational
facilities, i.e. public park, on the west side of the railroad.
Therefore, when a development proposal came forward, the city and developer undertook
a study to consider and document the need for the provisions of either lower-cost visitor
accommodations or a public park. Slide 16 please. This study is attached as
Exhibit 3 to the staff report, but in short, the citywide supply of accommodations within
the Coastal Zone consists of approximately 2,500 hotel rooms, and of these approximately
367 rooms and 220 campground sites, or 22%, are considered affordable based on annual
average daily rates defined in the proposed LUP. Although this figure is slightly below
the 25% benchmark typically used when evaluating new projects, the overall supply of affordable
coastal accommodations is fairly extensive and diverse. With regard to the need to set
aside the site for parkland, the city relied on its adopted parkland standards which require
each quadrant of the city to provide specific acreage of parkland proportional to the population.
The areas for parkland are separated into four quadrants and each quadrant being responsible
for a certain acreage of parkland.
Table one provides the requirements for each quadrant.
The city acknowledges that the current inventory of parkland shows a deficit in most quadrants
including the southwestern quadrant which is where planning area F is located.
Slide 17 please.
The city has nearly completed construction of Veterans Park which is a 91 acre facility
that is centrally located and intended to serve all four quadrants. The City
Council approves separating Veterans Park equally among all quadrants and
this is and this more than eliminates the existing deficiencies. As a result
once Veterans Park is fully operational the Southwest quadrant will no longer
exhibit a parkland deficit. Slide 18 please. Everyone please order. However
However, perhaps more directly relevant to the subject amendment beyond the city's quadrant
based park analysis, commission staff evaluated the availability of coastal parks and recreational
resources in close proximity to planning area F. Commission review identified at least five
existing parks within approximately three miles of planning area F including Orpheus
Park, Arcadia Oaks, Berylman Open Space, Hawk View Park, and Capri neighborhood open space.
These facilities are established, publicly accessible, and provide a variety of recreational
opportunities for residents and visitors.
Slide 19 please.
In addition to traditional parks, Planning Area F is located within short walking or
driving distance of substantial coastal recreational resources.
The Batakitos Lagoon North Shore Trail lies less than one mile and provides free parking
and more than two miles of trail along the lagoon edge.
South Ponto Beach, located immediately north and west of the site, offers a wide sandy
beach, volleyball courts, and direct access to the shoreline.
South Carlsbad State Beach campground provides additional recreational space and coastal
access amenities.
And approximately three miles to the south, the San Diego Botanical Gardens offer 37 acres
of publicly accessible gardens with low cost entry fees and discounted rates through regional
programs.
Slide 20, please.
In addition, the development itself will provide approximately 3 acres dedicated to recreational
open space and public access trails.
As noted, the amendment is project driven and designed to facilitate the construction
of 120 housing units with 24 affordable units, new retail commercial space, open space and
recreational trails.
In this exhibit, north is on the left side of the slide and the beach is beyond the bottom.
The site is bifurcated by an existing roadway, Ponto Drive, and the housing will be located
east of Ponto Drive, with all other uses occupying the portion of the site west of Ponto Drive.
The uses west of Ponto Drive have been designed to avoid sensitive habitat identified on the
site, include a single commercial structure on the eastern portion of the site where there
is currently a proposed parking area, and an at-grade visitor retail commercial use
capable of being easily removed on the west.
will also be new access paths open to the public on the south side of the street and
along Avenida Encinas. Future development on the site will be authorized through a coastal
development permit issued by the city. But commissioned staff, the city and the developer
have worked extensively to create development standards for the slot. The development has
been designed to provide small scale retail buildings that will support visitors to the
adjacent South Carlsbad State Beach campground or other visitors with accessory uses that
may be used for food carts, surfboard rentals, as well as pavers, fire pits, and similar
removable structures.
Taken together, the City's Parkland Planning Analysis, the significant recreational resources
in the already available in the vicinity, and the inclusion of new onsite public access
areas demonstrate that reserving Planning Area F exclusively for Parkland is not necessary
to meet either the City's or the Coastal Act's recreational standards.
slide 21, please
Over the past few years the Commission has received a substantial volume of correspondence from members of the public expressing concern about development of planning area F
Many of these communications have been submitted collectively as a petition from a group referring to themselves as people for ponto
Who have advocated for the site to remain vacant and be converted to a coastal park as?
Described the required analysis of parkland and lower-cost accommodations
has now been completed and the record supports the conclusion that residential development is an appropriate and LCP
consistent use of the site
Furthermore planning area F has been identified as a housing site since
2005 and is included in the city's certified housing element as a site capable of accommodating 136 moderate income units
under SB 166 the city cannot reduce the
residential capacity of an identified housing site without simultaneously rezoning another parcel to make up for the lost units
Given the limit availability of suitable sites within the coastal zone and the city's ongoing difficulty meeting housing obligations
Identifying an alternative parcel to replace those units is not likely feasible as a final note
It's important to acknowledge that the site is privately owned and the city has not identified the acquisition of planning area F for park purposes
services as part of its adopted park planning or capital improvement programs.
As a result, reserving the site for parkland will not necessarily result in its development
as such.
Given the state's acute housing shortage, particularly in the coastal zone, retaining
the site in an undeveloped state or reserving it for a park would conflict with the city's
statutory housing obligations and does not represent a feasible alternative within the
city's current planning framework.
22 please. In summary the proposed amendments to this Carlsbad local coastal
program both the comprehensive land use plant update and the project driven
revisions to the Poinsettia Shores master plan reflect extensive
coordination between the City and Commission staff and address a wide
array of coastal resource issues. While several policy disagreements remain,
staff recommended modifications ensure consistency with the Coastal Act by
strengthening protections for lower-cost visitor accommodations, sensitive
habitats, and coastal hazard response. The analysis of Planning Area F demonstrates
that the planned residential and visitor serving development coupled with the
existing and proposed recreational resources is compatible with both the
city's local coastal prime framework and statewide housing and access of
objectives. Taken together, the suggested modifications result in a modernized,
implementable LCP that advantages advances public access, environmental
protection, and community resiliency across Carlsbad shoreline. Staff want to
briefly address a comment that was raised yesterday regarding the
posting of public comments. We take our responsibility to make relevant
public correspondence available to the Commission and the public very
seriously. Staff has received an exceptionally large volume of
correspondence for Mr. Schulte over multiple years.
Consistent with our long-standing practice,
not all historical emails directed to staff
are included in public correspondence packets.
All recent correspondence to the commission related
to this item, including comments on the staff report,
have been uploaded to the public record.
We've continued to receive correspondence
for Mr. Schulte and additional petitions this week.
Additional comments have been submitted as recently
as yesterday and have been posted.
The online record includes hundreds of pages of petitions and representative examples of
petition materials, along with a count of the number of petitions received.
This approach is consistent with standard practice when we receive large volumes of
identical or near-identical submissions.
We believe the record remains as complete and accurate as reasonably possible.
Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the LAM LUP update and then approval of suggested
mods. The appropriate motions and resolutions
can be found on page 10 of the staff report. And this concludes my comments.
Okay. Thank you very much. I'll begin by asking my colleagues if they have any ex partes.
We'll start with Commissioner Preciado. Yes. I attended a Zoom meeting yesterday
at 4.30pm with Victor Avina of Ironwood Public Affairs and Mr. David Gatsky, VP of Development
for HG Fenton Company. I welcome the opportunity to hear about the fair housing or the affordable
housing component. I was given a discussion, I'll just read a discussion, of the plan
area east proposed 120 rental townhomes including 24 deed restricted affordable homes, 23 of
which are 3 and 4 bedrooms. The project representatives describe the reduction of their plan visitor
serving commercial development in the planning area. F west, the preservation of two thirds
of the western parcel for habitat and trails and public access and Mr. Gatsky discussed
the sites bluff top location and the western parcels flexibility for future
coastal retreat the project representative expressed the project's
consistency with the sentiments described in a comment letter received
by state parks the discussion also addressed coastal staffs explanation
that the police hit us shores master plan review focuses on chapter three
policies in the Coastal Act, and so earlier today I submitted the what I
just read to you for the record and I don't know where it is but it's gone to
the executive staff for posting. Thank you. Thank you very much Commissioner
Kelly. On October 1st I received an email from Victor Avina from Ironwood Public
affairs and it had an attachment of a one-page summary of their project which
I just opened for the first time to determine what it was and then on
October 5th I received an email with a link to a short video from Victor
Avena about this particular project and I watched the video and that same video
Has also been sent to staff. Thanks
Commissioner Lopez. Yeah this morning at 830
I sat down with Victor Vina and Riley Webb
Across the street for a cup of coffee at 830 that I paid for myself to have a conversation about the project
They mostly shared they were in support of the project and the bulk of the conversation focused on my own concerns about there
Not being enough affordable housing included in the project. Thank you
Thank you. Okay seeing no other ex partes. We will open the public hearing. Thank you
We have Eric Lardi from the from Carlsbad
And how much time were you requesting?
We were requesting at this point about 15 minutes and then the rest of our time for any rebuttal or questions and we do have a presentation
So while our presentations being loaded up
Thank you very much chair and members of the Commission for hearing our presentation
This has been a long awaited plan our City Council approved this plan for submission to Commission five years ago
Thousands of hours have gone into this plan and there's a lot of good things in it
So it's it's really critical and important that we're really limiting the number of discussion items to four disagreements with us and a number of
Other topics if you could go ahead and just go to slide three on our presentation
So just a summary, there's 185 suggested modifications. We support all but four of those. The modifications not supported are the lower cost
accommodation, the bird safe design policies, and then the permanent and temporary impacts to biological resources.
Next slide, please. This is a comprehensive land use plan update in process for about a decade, and it's not been
comprehensively updated since it was originally initiated in the 80s.
Next slide, please.
This has been a 12-year process. It started around the time the city's general plan update was concluding with state grants awarded in the
Initiation of the LCP update including a sea level rise vulnerability assessment
That concluded in 2021 with approval and submission and we've been in discussions with the Coastal Commission staff since that time
next slide, please
As I said, there's a lot of really good things in this plan it will protect hosts or resources on a number of facets
It's also going to make our plan clearer easier to read for coastal staff easier to read for city staff and easier to read
for our residents and applicants
Next slide, please
One of the main topics you're going to hear about in public comment is talking about the land use
Implementation plan changes for the points a day shores master plan and wanted to speak a little bit about those changes
Planning her f the property that was on the screen in the Punsa idea master Shores master plan has been
residential 23 units per acre and general commercial since 2015 and approved by this Commission in 2016
The master plan was not updated at the time and so the proposal
Actually before the development plan was submitted is to amend the master plan
Implementation plan to be consistent with those general plan and local coastal program land use plan
Signations we've been in discussion with Coastal Commission staff and are in support of the suggested modifications on this site
next slide, please
There's a lot of public comments and we can't respond to all of them and our presentation, but we're happy to answer any questions
A few things we want to just highlight comprehensively at the beginning
There is not a quantified 32 acres of lost parkland in our vulnerability assessment
It identifies lands that are vulnerable to sea level rise hazards. It does not identify specific lands that will be lost
There are LCP update policies that are not in disagreement with staff or the city that would require an adaptation plan to be prepared
Consistent with state law requiring adaptation plans by 2034, which is the deadline established in state law
Next slide please and
There'll also be a lot of conversations about the park standard for the city of Carlsbad
And there's been a lot of discussion going back since when this site was
Redesignated as well as since this plan was approved for submission to the Commission
Since the 80s as part of our growth management plan our park standard as a city has been three acres
Per 1,000 persons by Park District, which is the quadrants. There's four quadrants in the city of equal size
relatively
Since the 80s there's also been a discussion to have a regional park that is now under construction that would be equally distributed amongst those quadrants
The City Council approved the submission of this plan with the proposed land use changes that are before you
After that the City Council also formed a committee a citizens committee to look at growth management
To look at all ten things that are in growth management, but including the park standard that committee met in 2022 in
2023 and while there was lots of discussion of is the three acres per thousand the right park standard is
The regional park appropriately distributed throughout the four quadrants
Ultimately by a vote of the committee the park standard was retained and it was not changed
The City Council then approved the report from the committee to retain that standard and then subsequently later that year in 2023
The City Council approved the parks master plan that it has the parks under construction now
Additionally just because it'll come up in 2025 a court of appeals had a decision on the city's growth management program in the city's favor
That upheld the growth management program related to parks open space and transportation
next slide, please
There also might be some comments about the property commonly referred to as the strawberry field
This is the other land use change that's included
The change here is changing from the travel services designation to the visitor commercial designation
That is the only change
There is no residential that is allowed in the local coastal program on this site
And there's no residential proposed as part of our application now or in the future
This is changing the land use designation to be consistent with our general plan and consistent with our modern terminology
Which supports visitor commercial land uses on this site?
our plans both the general plan and the local coastal program would require a specific plan for development of this site and
Development in this area is still in the deferred certification zone
So any development on this site will need to be considered by a number of planning environmental actions as well as through approval by
this body
next side
Briefly, just we are not proposing any
Residential uses on this site originally the power plant which is on the other side of the i-5 freeway
Was included as part of application that was removed in one of the proposed modifications, and it's not before you today
similarly that site if moved into private hands will be required to go through a number of
Permitting and land use requirements including any coastal development permits issued by this group
Next slide just as a repeat of the four modifications that we are opposed to
Starting with slide 13
Lower cost accommodations. This is one that we've been working with staff on since really last summer when a lot of the conversations happened
Slide 14 early in the review process during our negotiations on the major issues
Staff told us that they would were supportive of taking this item out of the local the plan and having it be part of the implementation
Plan that was in recognition by the Pacific and unique circumstances in the city of Carlsbad a notwithstanding
3000 visitor accommodation units, which is more than any other city than the city of San Diego in the region
Later in the process and as the final staff report was was being posted
We were told that that was no longer the direction being heard and that the policies that are now in the
Suggested mods are before you
If you could just go on to slide 17, please
In our conversations over the last two weeks. We thought there was a chance that in this the
Addendums there would be a change back to that original staff recommendation
One of the challenges talking to staff is that given the time that's taken to get to this point?
We didn't have time to ask for a policy direction from our city council
They asked for a commitment letter from us that we would commit to a program
And we don't have time to go to city council and the time left to review the resubmitted plan
And so we said we couldn't provide that but we would present that to them. So on slide 18
And actually if we just go to slide 19 that'll conclude this topic we respectfully request that the
Commission go back to the original language that was proposed by staff
Which would defer this to the implementation plan so that we could create a Carlsbad specific lower-cost accommodation
Policy that would reflect the fact of our existing nature hotels our existing visitor serving uses
Such as the ones around Legoland
There was a picture of Legoland in the presentation
So I also want to comment that in the Rancho Carlsbad specific plan
and there is also which Lego Land
and the associated hotels are in,
there is also some existing language
related to requiring low-cost visitor accommodation.
Slide 20 is our conversations on bird safe design.
We think that the policy as written is overly restrictive
and not appropriate for all development in Carlsbad.
So on slide 21, we're requesting that it be revised
to evaluate locations and types of buildings
where bird-safe design would be the most appropriate,
and in those locations and types of buildings
encourage the use of design.
We have a large coastal area in the city of Carlsbad,
and the southern portion of our city,
it goes all the way to El Camino Real,
and we think that it would be better
to have something more appropriately targeted
to the types of buildings
that are gonna have bird strike impacts.
And then lastly, the last two items start on slide 22,
talking about the permanent and temporary impacts.
Thank you staff for acknowledging the HCP
and the long work that went into developing
and implementing that.
The concern we have with this is that
it takes more than 12 months for vegetation to regrow
and meet all of the qualified objectives that we have.
On slide 23, it shows what our current implementation is
and we have many examples of this in the city
that an impact can be considered temporary
It can be regrown within five years meeting objective standards in those five years as part of a habitat restoration
Plan that we implement related to the project and so we have two suggested modifications related to this item
If you want to go to slide 26
This is our proposed suggested modification
related to permanent impacts removing the final portion of that sentence and then on slide
67 is our suggested modification request for temporary impacts
speaking to making an objective standard one of the other things about city of Carlsbad is
Since our HP and our growth management. We are nearing a state where we are
Reaching build out in a different stage of development
And so it's becoming harder and harder to find mitigation lands specifically in the coastal zone, which is a requirement
Gonna conclude our presentation in a second one thing. I do want to clarify
Part of the staff presentation there was a comment that the planning area f site is within our housing element
It is not within our housing element inventory if they can underutilize sites
It was removed and the adoption of this housing element
However, there are a multitude of state laws that apply if we were to take the residential designation and down zone it
specifically SB 330
Regardless of housing element status you cannot down-zone any residential site unless you can currently up-zone an additional housing element site
So I just wanted to correct that for the record in case that does come up in public comment
With that we have a whole team here able to answer questions and available for any questions as well
Thank you, and I missed the clock. Could you tell me how many minutes remain?
Thank you very much. So you'll have four minutes for your rebuttal
Okay, thank you very much
Chris to you. All right next we had Kathy Rawlings
Carl's bad unified school district school board area 5. I see that you're joining via phone
You should be able to unmute know Kathy Rawlings
Hi, thank you. Thank you for taking my call. I want to I'm calling in opposition of this proposed plan
There is plenty of space in Carl's badge for housing
Um, there is, uh, the mall that, uh, half of the.
The areas are empty and, um, the cost of community is very, um,
resilience in their, um, and they're wanting to keep their coastline
for the public and for the people.
And so I really think that the coastal commission should think again,
before taking on the community of Carlsbad, we push back on measure a,
and we will continue to push back on this project.
Thank you.
Thank you, and now moving on to our general speakers. We have a total of 93 speakers signed up for this
Please maintain order including
41 in person so we'll start with those in person. I'll start with Mitch Silverstein followed by Jody Jones and then Owen Rassman
Mitch Silverstein
Mitch before you begin can I turn to director?
Just in terms of time management sort of what the expectations? Yes, or public comment. Thank you. Appreciate it
So we are going to take an hour at two minutes per and then we'll be switching to one minute per public commenter
So if you'd please all be as efficient and succinct as possible
We are very grateful. You're here and we want to hear from all of you. Thank you
Thank You chair Mitch Silverstein with sir fighter foundation
Overall, there's a lot of good in this update, especially with staff's modifications, including
adequate hazard policies for individual new development.
The city has deferred sea level rise adaptation overall to a later date due by 2034, despite
having a comprehensive sea level rise assessment from 2017, which more than adequately details
the risks to beaches and infrastructure.
Because of that, there's a couple big missed opportunities in this update that Surfratter
requests changes on.
The first concerns the previous item we just spoke about,
realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard where feasible
in order to preserve beach and coastal access.
The LUP update uses words like consider and evaluate
to contemplate realignment.
That's better than nothing, but it's very non-committal
for what's really the only way to preserve critical beaches
and coastal access in the future.
Secondly and similarly, the LUP fails to establish
any policies to preserve the city's single largest stock
of low cost visitor services and accommodations.
the state beach campground with 222 sites.
Again, just some non-committal language.
Previous language for the campground in the LUP
actually existed, it said that they would expand
or retreat inland, that's now been struck.
There's no policy to prevent sea level rise
from swallowing this entire bluff top campground
and no requirements to replace low cost accommodations
lost due to hazards.
This relates to the Ponto area
because that's really the only undeveloped coastal space
that could accommodate this type of use.
Staff was able to protect a small buffer of that land
from development, but it's simply not enough
for any meaningful relocation.
Lastly, the update allows the city to export
lost low-cost overnight accommodations from development.
It allows them to export it elsewhere in San Diego County.
In an affluent coastal city, this mechanism allows
low-cost access to be exported to less desirable areas
while Carl's bad shoreline becomes more exclusive.
This is inequitable and should be struck as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I got ahead of myself.
We did have one of the developers signed up,
but they were buried further down the list.
We're gonna have them speak now.
Dave Gatsky, and we do have your presentation.
Then how much time have you requested?
I had the question.
Two minutes.
Two minutes, okay.
This is the public hearing on an LCP item.
So I, do you have the presentation?
Okay.
I'm Dave Gatsky, the Vice President of Development
for the H.G. Fenton Company.
We're the applicant for PI Townhomes,
the proposed project within planning area F.
The staff recommendation before you today
represents careful consideration
of thousands of pages of public comment,
input from multiple city public hearings,
and thoughtful collaboration between coastal staff,
city staff, the public, and the applicant.
I wanna thank coastal and city staff
for all of their hard work.
I respectfully ask the commissioners today
to approve the adoption of the revised implementation plan
with the nine suggested modifications.
Next slide, please.
Excuse me.
Planning area F consists of two project components.
F West is at approximately 3.8 acre parcel
that will be separated into three planning areas
and provide native habitat preservation and enhancement,
development of public trails,
visitors serving commercial uses,
and most importantly is designed for future adaptability.
F East is proposed for 120 residential units
plus related private recreation amenities.
Commissioned staff writes in the report
residential units do not raise coastal concerns. Importantly, 24 of the homes will be deed
restricted for lower income residents and 23 of those homes will be three and four bedrooms,
an incredibly rare unit size for affordable rental housing, especially within the coastal zone.
Next slide. This slide summarizes the extensive public process that has happened around adopting
Carl's Bats Land-Use Plan, Mr. Lardee spoke to that and the extensive public process of
the Growth Management Plan. I want you to note that the City of Carl's Bats Growth
Management Plan preserves nearly 40 percent of the City open space, including 35 acres
adjacent to Batakitos Lagoon within the Point City Assures Master Plan, over 20 percent
of the Point City Assures Master Plan area, that had previously been dedicated to the
State of California. And at the completion of the under-construction Veterans Memorial
park the city will exceed its required parkland levels by approximately 50
acres. Our project has had multiple publicly noticed meetings since 2024
with voluntary notices sent over to 2,600 residents and owners. Thank you.
Thank you and thanks Tony for flagging that. We'll continue with Jody Jones, Owen
Rasman and Jan Neff Sinclair. Again not as tall. Thank you all very much. My name
My name is Jody Jones, appreciate the opportunity to speak.
And thank you to this crowd, how amazing are y'all?
Whoo!
Sorry, sorry, stay in order.
This is an extremely important topic
about an extremely important part of land,
as you've already seen.
And responding to staff's report,
the coast and beach are not parks,
and they're falling into the ocean, they're full of rocks.
The parks you mentioned that are our community park
are across the highway
and at least a mile and a half to three miles.
Who is gonna let their children cross the highway
on their bike and go that far.
A coastal park is what's needed and I know that
because I've been a member of People for Ponto
for a very long time.
That box right there is only a small representation
of all of the petitions that we have collected
and yes, we've moved them online, thank God,
because those are heavy to load around.
I know that there are many people here today, awesome.
There's also a lot of people here that couldn't be here today
to develop but I know that those voices are all asking you
to develop Ponto right, which of course
does not mean apartments.
It's nothing right about taking the last remaining open space
and creating concrete buildings on it.
Develop Ponto Right means preserving our open space
and protecting it with a park for years to come.
And it's not just the people at Ponto that think that.
From all over Carlsbad, from all over California and beyond.
Everybody I talk to wants Ponto Park.
I know because I've talked to them.
I've seen them on social media.
I've listened to what they've had to say
at coastal council meetings.
and my inbox gets flooded with every single one of them.
And I don't know about y'all, but I actually do read them,
even if they are just the same thing over and over again.
Yes, I have read almost 20,000 petitions
and hundreds of personal emails
that have all been sent to the city,
the Coastal Commission, and like I said yesterday,
I appreciate you getting that information to them.
We also have many organizations,
Batakeetos Lagoon, Surf Rider, Citizens for North County,
Park Hyatt, Cape Ray, Trust for Public Land,
Preserve Calavera, Sierra Club, North County Advocates,
San Pacifica Board of Community Organization,
North County League of Women Voters,
and my favorite, Tony Hawk.
Everybody wants Ponto Park.
These are just a few from back in 2018.
Stop with the over development.
I ask that you do not take,
ask that you take planning area F
and keep it non-residential reserve.
And I would stay, but I have a flight to Peru, so thank you.
Thank you, Owen Rossman, Jan Neff Sinclair, and Laurie Brown.
Well, that was a very hard act to follow, or it is.
Good morning, everybody.
Good afternoon now.
My name is Owen Rossman.
I've lived in Southern California
almost my entire life, over 40 years.
I've watched our beaches, especially at Pono,
dramatically change what was once a beautiful sandy beach all
the way to the water.
Now you can't get your feet wet without walking over several
meters of cobblestones.
Once, where once you could have a beach, where once you could
have a beach chair and throw football, now even on a low tide it's rock all the way to
the waterline.
Sea level rise, coastal erosion and larger swells associated with El Nino are making that
problem increasingly worse and we're only at the beginning of this year's El Nino.
It's a problem with few solutions, unlike the issue at Pono, proposed rental units that
would take more of our beautiful coast away from us.
For this problem, there's an easy solution and it's one within your ability.
We can choose to keep the land use at Pauna the same, not develop one of the last remaining
pieces of open coastal space in Southern California, and send the zoning issue back to the city
of Carlsbad for further comment and discussion, and to do what this commission told them to
do in the past, consider planning area F for a park.
Once we change the zoning and build on this land, we can never get that open space back.
So please make the easy choice today, preserve this property as open space, and give future
generations a coastline that is still worth protecting thank you very much
thank you Jan Neff Sinclair Laurie Brown and then Deborah Foley if any of you
have heard your name okay Jan's not here is Laurie Brown here Laurie Brown I'm
not seeing anyone approach Deborah Foley we don't we don't see time yeah this is
on right thank you hi my name is Debbie Foley and I've been a resident of Carlsbad
for 45 years. In the past five years, our village has been cluttered with unregulated
and unwanted development under the guise of affordable housing. I strongly oppose any
residential and commercial development on the land in question for many reasons. One,
this development can wipe out critical, irreplaceable subpopulations of native plant species, such
as the California Boxthorn and the Woolley Sea Blight.
Two, severe lack of South Carlsbad coastal parks.
Currently South Carlsbad has no public parks.
Three, the traffic that would be caused by this development would be ungodly.
I regularly ride my bike on PHC from Tamarac to La Costa, and I've already noticed increased
traffic triple fold.
Also, this dense housing and retail space, which we don't need, results in the laws of
our community character and open space.
This is the last vacant coastal land.
You have the power to keep planning area F a non-residential reserve.
Please deny any land use changes and keep Ponto open for public and coastal recreation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next to Anniston Nelson, Melanie Elaine Cooper, and then Lance Schulte.
Hi, my name is Anniston Nelson.
I'm eight years old and I wrote you a poem.
Parks are for kids, we need to run and be free,
so don't ruin our beach land, just leave it be.
Thank you, and please build a park.
Thank you, thank you, Aniston.
Next is Melanie Elaine Cooper, Lance Schulte,
and then Valerie Cowan.
Good morning, commissioners.
Thanks for having us here today.
My name's Melanie Elaine Cooper.
I've lived in Carlsbad for 26 years,
and currently I'm one mile from planning area F.
I'm also from Pacific Palisades,
vote for grass. So I agree that there are no parks west of the I-5 freeway and the Veterans
Park that's currently in place is not a sufficient solution for this. There are no parks west
of the five freeway for a period of six miles between Cannon and Moonlight Beach. That's
a really long way. I wouldn't want that little girl to have to ride across the freeway to
go to the park like she does now. There's really nothing there for them. This, as others
have said, it's the last remaining beach adjacent park for public recreation. The proposed
structure is so tall that it would be a heartbreaking, irreversible boss to the public. It would
look similar to like if you just walk out the door and go down to the beach here at
ocean side where you see the huge hotels that have blocked its a curtain, it would create
a curtain.
Coastal Act session 30223 says the upland areas needed to support coastal recreation shall
be reserved for that use where it's feasible.
Section 30222 gives visitors serving recreation priority over private residential development
private land. A public coastal park provides this coastal accents to
thousands of inland families. The staff notes that the land is privately owned
and no purchase is funded but the Coastal Act governs the land use not
ownership. Today this land is designated non-residential reserve and the LCP
considered the need for a public park. Thank you ma'am. Thank you. Next, Lance
Schulte, Valerie Cowan and then Craig Russell. Lance Schulte. I believe I have a
presentation that's being loaded up and also some handouts for you that I'll
speak to when the presentation comes up. One of them is what Jody said is citizen
comments directed to the coastal commission from quite some time ago that
were not given to you. These were some of the 20,000 plus petitions from citizens
that you were not provided and they're very specific. They talk about what the
needs are as you'll hear. The other thing I'm sending you is a one-page
cheat sheet. It shows what the plan for Ponto was a long time ago, what it
is now, what we suggested it to be, and also we identified the costs of each of
those options. You got to take a look at that. It's very interesting because the
cost of these to California taxpayers is huge if you don't do Ponto Park. The
other thing is a souvenir because you can show your children or your
grandchildren what you did today. So on the slide here we have six miles of
coastal line that has no coastal park west of the railroad track which is
required under the this LCP area. There's 64,000 people just in South
Carlsbad which is about a third of this exhibit that have no coastal park to go
to and a lot of those coastal park areas are actually disappearing in the sea.
Next slide please. Next slide please. So this is from the city's park master plan.
The little blue dots show the center of parks for community smaller community
parks and the circles show the city's established service area for each of
those parks. I call this my five-year-old can understand this exhibit. Look at
where all the parks are located.
Look at where Ponto is in the lower right left hand corner.
A child would understand that this is unfair.
And one of the things that makes it particularly unfair is the fact
that we did an analysis using U.S. Census data that shows
that Ponto currently, currently did develop.
Oh my God, that's it?
Thank you, sir.
It goes quickly.
I was hired by Carl's – Valerie Cowan, Craig Rossell, and then Jane Naskowitz.
Hello everyone, can you hear me?
Okay.
My name is Valerie Cowan, and I have been a Carlsbad resident for over 30 years.
I'm a retired Carlsbad teacher, my daughter went to Carlsbad High, and my grandchildren
now go to Carlsbad schools.
I'm here to ask that you consider keeping Area F a non-residential reserve.
Imagine this, you've seen pictures, you know what area we're talking about.
Imagine the southern gateway to Carlsbad covered in native vegetation, green grass, shade trees,
walking trails and picnic areas.
Imagine a park that welcomes residents and visitors to our beautiful city.
Imagine a park that meets the needs of everyone, now and for future generations.
a city that actually cares about saving the last remaining coastal open space in Carlsbad.
What an amazing legacy this would be, and would set Carlsbad apart from other coastal
cities that focus on overdevelopment.
Now imagine this precious piece of land covered in high density apartments, asphalt, parking
lots and retail stores.
Visualize these two scenarios.
do the right thing for our citizens the environment and our future keep area F
as non-residential reserve. Thank you. Thank you Craig Rossell, Jane Nazkowitz
and then Dolores Lodle.
Keith Rossell. Staff failure to include information about the citizen
petitions is a travesty. It should have been part of what you're all
considering. There is unbelievable public support for a park in the location you're
considering. I went door-to-door with a flyer of my own. I met 150 people and
many of them said thank you, I appreciate it, and they sent in their
petitions and there's no, I live a block from the Batikitos Lagoon. I've been
married 52 years. I've got six kids, six beautiful married-in kids, 14 grandkids,
And when they come over to our house for dinner
Afterwards we go out into the street to throw the frisbee, play ball, ride our scooters, bikes
That's where that's what our park because there's nothing around our neighborhood
I'm a former member of the board of directors for Batakitos Lagoon Foundation
I helped get 7.2 acres of raw land from the Hotel from the Ayers Hotel
Corporation on the east end of Batakitos Lagoon
Because it was undevelopable and it's going to be used for public trails
I'm familiar with the trails plan here in this town
And I think parks and recreation should have been included in whatever analysis was done for this
Yes, so much to tell you
That a quadrant divide up for the veteran park. That's a nasty trick
That doesn't affect anybody's ability to enjoy the southwest end of Carlsbad close to the beach
That was a trick and I resent that I don't think that I don't think the city or
Staff are taking into account the legitimate needs of the people of this town
Thank you, thank you Jane Naskowitz Dolores Lodle and then Christopher Rude
Hi, I'm imploring you to please keep planning area F as non-residential reserve. We need a park
we've been asking for a park for decades. It's really, really important. There are
no parks in South Carlsbad, none, and there's no way that I'm going to go all
the way to Veterans Park, especially being a female. I'm not going to go
traveling around by myself, but I would go to a coastal park in a heartbeat, and
I would meet lots of people out there, and we would see people picnicking and
watching sunsets, and we need a park. We desperately need a park there. I've lived
in the village, I've lived in Encinitas Coastal, I have lived in South Ponto. There are no
parks there, not like there are in the other parts of the city. We need a park, please.
It's so important. It's important. The families would enjoy it, the kids would enjoy it, visitors
would enjoy it. This is our last chance to preserve it. So please, whatever you do, deny
any land use changes and keep Ponto open for public coastal recreation. Thank you so much.
Thank you. And I see now that Dolores Lodle left and has joined us on Zoom actually. We'll get to
Dolores when we take our Zoom speakers. We'll move on to Christopher Roode followed by Dale
Orgus and then Dennis Spiegelman. Good afternoon commissioners, thanks for being here. I'll take
30 seconds, raised two children adjacent to area F and taught both of them to ride bikes
in area F on a dirt lot. And hope to consider that when you think about where we were. I
know it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for someone that lives that close to the ocean,
but parks are imperative to raising our families. So please consider that. And just having moved
back from New England, I can't thank you enough to protect our coast land. We don't have that
New England in places where you can't get to the places that you want to get
to and that part of the coast is so accessible so please consider that thank
you. Thank You. Dale Ordus followed by Dennis Beagleman and then Patty Hughes.
I'm a resident of South Carlsbad where we don't have a park. I've been in this
residents for 26 years and the kids are playing in the streets what they need is
a park to play in and recreate and therefore I urge you to deny the LC
amendment. I think you did the right thing. Let's have a park in the Ponto
area so the kids can play safely. Thank you. Thank you. Dennis Spiegelman,
Patty Hughes, and then Leonie Olson. My name is Dennis Spiegelman and I am one
of nearly 600 residents at Lakeshore Gardens, a plus 55 community close to
Ponto. But first, let me paraphrase Joni Mitchell. Don't always go to show you
don't know what you got until you lose it. They paved paradise and put an
apartment house. Over the last year, we have seen an apartment complex of 40
units in phase one with another 120 units scheduled in phase two. This
development will be adding another 120 rental units. Imagine how that's going to
impact traffic. This last parcel of open land in Carlsbad with surrounding new
complexes both completed and building means we stand to lose the last open
space of land available to everyone not just those who can afford those enormous
rents. This park will provide a unique opportunity for residents, visitors and
campground families alike for generations to come. Therefore, I oppose
amending the Poinsettia Shores master plan. Thank you.
Patty Hughes, Leonie Olson, and then James Dieberg. My name is Patty Hughes. I'm
and pro-Ponto Park.
Green space is essential to our mental
and overall wellbeing.
The preservation of this bit of green space
would benefit current residents and visitors to the area,
but also the tenants residing in the 40 newly built
town homes at Tower 24, Ponto Beach.
Since it seems all they have is a dog park
pickleball park. And by the way, at a public meeting with the Fenton group at Cape Ray,
prior to the development of that property, it was really being touted that the neighboring public
would enjoy future retail business at the site. This, and it seems like they're telling us that
today as well. This is hardly free and accessible to all. It's a for-profit
situation and hardly satisfies the documented 6.8 acre park deficit in the
Southwestern Squadron established by the Growth Management Program of
the City of Carlsbad in 2012. There could be no better time or place to resolve a
a nine year delinquency to acquire land and develop a park.
Thank you all for your consideration
to keep planning area F non-residential reserve.
I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
Next is Lianni or LeAnn Olson, followed by James D Burke
and then Peter Armstrong-Louie.
Yes, I'm LeAnn Olson, and I want to thank all of you
for your efforts on behalf of our community.
I just want to respectfully disagree.
I feel that we need an area that is undeveloped
on the coastline.
I have visited Tower 24.
I believe it's about approximately 80 units, not 40.
And it's very urban.
Do we really need to monetize the last remaining bit
of property we have?
I think we've all heard enough today about the environment and what's happening and the
concern about the bluffs going into the coastline.
If we leave this property as a park or even just undeveloped for a time we have the opportunity
to see what the future holds.
It doesn't look very bright from the environmental point of view.
I don't know that the hurricanes, the tornadoes, and
the continuing falling of the bluffs is really going to go
away.
If you read anything about environmental science, and I
first became interested in it after reading The Tipping
Point by Al Gore, it's happening.
And so I think rather than jump to adding more
residences, and I don't know what low-cost housing is, but
on the coastline, I'm not sure that it's really fulfilling
the intention.
Please postpone the decision to make this
into a residential area.
And at the very least, keep it as it is
and reconsider what is being asked.
Thank you very much for listening.
Thank you.
Just an update, we have about 75 more speakers,
including 20 in person.
We're continuing with James D. Burke, Peter Armstrong-Louis,
And then Mona Pastor.
Hello again, Commissioner Harmon.
I'm still Jim Burke.
Where do I start?
Let's start with this.
This is dated 24 September.
It's 119 pages, and it lays out the city's plan
for what they think is a good idea for all of us
who live in South Carlsbad.
Sir, could you speak into the microphone, please,
so we can hear you?
Has anybody read this thing?
119 pages to know what's really in here.
There are some surprises.
In talking about parks, let's get a little specific on that.
Everybody says, let's have one.
I'm talking about basketball courts, soccer fields,
baseball fields, a track for kids to ride their bike on.
That's the park I'm thinking about.
It's disingenuous to talk about a trail in the Batagos Lagoon
where the kid can't ride a bike and say, that's a bike path.
It's not true.
It's disingenuous to count Aviara Golf Club, La Costa Golf
Clubs as park areas in the general plan.
That is not true.
They are not available to the public unless you're playing and paying.
There are too many items in here to discuss.
Because of the impact of the Ponto case, it deserves its own documents.
It deserves its own hard book.
Putting it together with the Carlsbad burial takes away,
it waters down the impact of this particular issue to us.
And it is distracting as you go through this thing and you try and read it, and
it goes back and forth from one case to another.
I challenge you to read this thing,
sit down and tell me you really understand it.
All right, a couple of thoughts from my original comments.
I've lived in eight states, 56 countries visited.
This is a gem in South Carlsbad.
We cannot screw this up.
I ask that the CCC keeps the land use
non-residential reserve at planning area F
does not allow any development there.
This TH-8A calls for general commercial space.
Are you planning on putting in a Chick-fil-A,
a Handles ice cream shop, and Starbucks,
or a massage parlor head shop, marijuana dispensary,
and tattoo parlor?
We deserve to know.
Thank you.
Next, Peter Armstrong-Louis, Mona Pastor,
and then Howard Krauss.
Peter Armstrong-Louis?
All right, I'm not seeing them approach.
Mona Pastor.
Good afternoon commissioners.
I'm Mona Pastor, a vice president of the League of Women Voters
in North County, San Diego.
Many of our members are residents of the city of Carlsbad.
We urge you to uphold the existing coastal recreation
requirement for planning area F and deny the city of Carlsbad's
request to amend the LUP for Poinsettia Shores specifically
for planning area F. Our league supports housing development
in the county, North County, including low income and affordable housing.
But we also support increasing the quantity and
quality of parks that preserve open space and
our other natural resources here in the city and county, such as lagoons,
watersheds, and open space.
We support neighborhood parks that have recreational facilities for year-round use.
Consider the imbalance.
It's been discussed already this morning.
North Carlsbad has 10 coastal parks west of I-5,
totaling about 37 acres, maybe more.
South Carlsbad, where most of our Carlsbad residents live,
has zero, despite decades of growth.
Planning area F, Epano Beach, sits
in the middle of a six-mile stretch of coastline
with no coastal park.
The owner proposes townhomes, commercial and hundreds of parking spaces.
Residents here under the name of People for Ponto have offered an alternative six acre
grassy park with room for picnics, playgrounds and activities.
This would bring us to the standard of three acres of parkland per 1000 residents here
in the southwest quadrant.
has failed to keep pace with our population growth for 16 years and sea level rise, beach
erosion is a current and future problem. Geological surveys show up to 75% of recreational beaches
will be lost. I urge you to deny. Thank you.
Thank you. Howard Krause, Vicki Sayage and then Chris Wright.
Good afternoon commissioners. I'm Howard Krause, long time Carlsbad resident and board
member of North County advocate. Regarding planning area F, the developer
Fenton purchased 11.1 acres just a few years ago for less than eight million
dollars knowing full well that residential development would require
zoning changes and Coastal Commission approval. While we support the staff's
requested changes to the Carlsbad LCP in general, we urge you to reject the
of Point City Assures master plan amendments
that would allow residential development as proposed.
Additionally, what you decide for Point City Assures
also affects the amazing adjacent Cam Seng property
where a development application is also pending.
Approval gives the developer a massive financial windfall
at the expense of public access, low cost visitor services
and other requirements of the Coastal Act.
The need for more affordable apartments and condos
is being satisfied and can be satisfied elsewhere
in the city.
Carlsbad had the opportunity to purchase the property
before Fenton did, but declined,
and the city staff still cites threatening letters
from the previous property owner's attorney
as a reason not to intervene now.
So you, the Coastal Commission, are our only hope
to preserve some of the last remaining undeveloped Southern California coastline for the greater
public good now and for the future.
Please act fairly and wisely for us all in keeping with your mission.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Vicky Sayaj, Chris Wright and then Gary Nessim.
Hello, good morning.
Vicky Sayaj.
I please deny any land use change for area F for all the reasons that you have heard.
I want to switch to the Agua Herionda Lagoon and I am going to ask you to please not certify
it.
For 20 years developers in the city have tried to develop this 40 acre property and the people
have spoken twice by the way of the ballot box to not have that done.
I ask you to honor the will of the voters.
In 2006 the voters chose proposition D to preserve the space around the lagoon.
allowed only tourists serving commercial or travel recreation, and as you well know, that
means like a coffee shop, boat rentals, or bike rentals.
In February of 2016, an LA developer came to town and tried to bypass all the CEQA laws
and put a huge mega mall.
We gathered our petitions, got it on the ballot as Measure A. We were outspent 100 to 1.
that guy spent $11 million and defeated it. Three months after doing that, the City of
Carlsbad came with this exact same proposal to change travel recreation to visitor commercial.
I'm holding a memo that was written on April 6, 2016 from then retired City Manager Gary
Barbiero to the brand new City Manager, three City Managers ago, Kevin Crawford, saying
that this was not just a semantic change, it's a substantive change. Travel
recreation only allows small little uses. Visitor commercial or visitor serving
commercial in that memo describes what the forum and the outlet mall are. In
addition it also describes that table 2.4 in the general plan allows mixed
use. When you put mixed use in there you put the h word housing. Now it's even
worse if you put housing in there state laws override anything local control is
completely lost the voters have spoke it's a legal loophole the voters have
spoken twice please honor the vote honor the will of the people and do not
certify this plan thank you thank you next Chris right Gary Nassim and then
Dennis Cowen and yes we have presentation right thank you while
we're waiting I'll just introduce myself I'm Chris Wright equitable land use
alliance and we're a nonprofit in Carlsbad we support a Ponto Park but
we're here to ask if the Commission to retain permitting authority of the
deferred certified Aguahelion de Lagoon segment it's within the the city's
habitat management plan. I spoke to this commission in 2016 to preserve this
sensitive habitat as an area of deferred certification as originally designed in
1982. Please, next. That shows the map in 1982. In 2006, the voters approved
Prop D, next, to preserve open space and with 48 acres of commercial as a land
and use designation of travel services commercial.
Residents wanted to preserve open space, next slide.
August 2015, City Council approved
a regional shopping center without environmental review.
Residents overturned the vote via referendum
as a vote in February 2016, next slide.
At the 2006 Coastal Commission meeting,
the Coastal Commission overturned
the city's request for
mixed-use residential and retained permitting authority.
There is a significant difference between TR and VC.
I humbly ask the commission to retain
authority of the deferred certification
of the Aguahedión Lagun segment.
The residents do not want them all nor mixed-use housing.
Thank you so much.
Thank you. Next, Gary Nassim, Dennis Cowan,
And then Edward Newland's a third.
Thanks for coming to Oceanside.
I live in a northwest quadrant of Carlsbad.
I have lots of parks.
I really think we need this Ponto park.
A couple of, five years ago, in my neighborhood,
we had a little area, open space,
that was, they were tempted to do seven houses on it.
And the community came together and said,
But we really like to have that as a park.
And the city opposed doing that park.
But with little pressure, they came and made Buena Vista Park.
Not much to it.
Couldn't get a restroom in it because the budget was really low.
But a developer wanted to put some development in South Carlsbad.
And as mitigation, they paid money to make that into a park for us so
the citizens of Northwest Quadrant could have a little park.
didn't help the Southwest Quadrant any which has very little parks.
Now all of you have nice houses and you may have noticed some changes over the years.
I'm a real estate broker and when I first got into real estate there was accelerated
depreciation and it made everyone want to develop everything all of a sudden in the
boom in the United States.
And then a few years ago in the 90s you remembered these nice derivatives that caused a nice
recession for us because it gives a nice boost to housing. And right now you have
the state of California that says that we have to do as much housing as
possible. So you're getting density bonuses and everyone is coming out
trying to put pressure on cities and everyone else to put extra land. You
suddenly make a piece of land that was worth eight million dollars worth thirty
million dollars by putting all this density on it and then someone wants to
develop it. While the pressure on the city is huge,
Carlsbad hasn't voted no to any developer in many, many years. And as all these
people know, they're little snickers, but we really need to save our park land. Now
we're gonna have, Carlsbad's gonna have about 30, 40,000 more residents than our,
our, we think. And we're gonna need that much more park land at three acres per
thousand residents. Thank you. Thank you. Dennis Cowan, Edward Newlands the
third and Patty Greeley. Good afternoon Coastal Commission first of all I want
to thank you for your presence here and doing the work that you do on a daily
basis by trying to keep these nice areas that we have available. I don't know how
you guys sit through these meetings this long I'm about ready to go brain dead
here so and I'm sure you are too and you probably need lunch but anyway I urge
the Coastal Commission and the City of Carlsbad keep Area F as non-residential
reserve. Area F represents the last opportunity to create a public coastal
park at the southern gateway to Carlsbad. My wife, Al, and I, we have two precious
grandchildren, like I'm sure you guys do too, and I never thought I was gonna be
able to live at the beach. I lived in East County, a La Mesa, El Cajon area, but
luckily the smartest thing that I ever did was to listen to my wife when this
area was available to us. And hopefully one of these days, due to the great
living that we have where we are at, our grandkids can have this house and their
kids have a park. So thank you so much for all the hard work that you do. I love your
rationale with a lot of the items that you were talking about with the trees and this
has been a real eye opener for me. So thank you so much.
Thank you. Next Edward Newlands III, Patty Greeley and then Bonnie Shaw.
Hello Coastal Commission, thank you so much for your work. I agree with my friend over
here that just talked about you guys have long commission meetings. I'm on the traffic
commission in Carlsbad and I don't know if I could do this but I would like to also put
my support for keeping Planning Zone F residential. To me it's just good sense. I mean it's such
a precious resource what we have left of the coast. I live right up the street from there.
I'm in the San Pacifico area, I mean once you lose it, it's gone and I it's
flabbergasting to me so you guys are here to protect the coast and I implore
you to do that and somebody quoted Joni Mitchell before so I'm going to quote
Obi-Wan or Princess Leia, help us Obi-Wan Kenobi you're our only hope. Thank you.
Thank you. Next Patty Greeley, Bonnie Shaw and then Kathleen Steindelberger.
Yeah, we'll help you
Okay
Thank you for your service
I'm here to say please keep planning area F as non-residential reserve. It's my understanding that in
1985 in 1986 this was the designation and in
1996 the CCC wrote that the development needed the park and low-cost accommodation
studied and documented this was the information that was provided to residents in this area and given my use of
the wheelchair and
Using the walking distance to a park this is critical so I am the actual
representation of
Why the park is needed and why it needs?
Walking distance it can't be further out
And it's nice to talk about statistics and building and all of that. I worked in development
I did hotel development. I understand development, but it's a human factor and
You guys are the hope for the human factor. It's also my understanding that the CCC mission is to protect
conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coast for the environmentally
sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.
And I know that you guys know your job, but it helps to remind all of us that you're here
to safeguard the coastal ecosystems and natural habitats, to protect and maximize public access,
private development for the coastline to address environmental challenges like sea level rise and climate change
This mission sounds like your priority is the environment the wildlife
Which the cams cam saying property is a corridor for all the wildlife to continue to move along the lagoon and
All which equate to non-residential reserve designation
It's that the planning area F is a part parcel for the park access for current and future
Generations. Thank you for your commitment to your mission statement. Please leave planning area F as non-residential reserve for current and future
generations
Similar to what the chula Vista speakers commented on
Please don't change anything from what it originally was
Thank you.
Next is Bonnie Shaw, Kathleen Steindelberger, and then Pat Bleja.
Hi, thanks for letting me speak. My name is Bonnie DeBoe Shaw, and I'm a California native.
I've always been proud of our California coastline, and I want to thank you, the California Coastal Commission, for your efforts to protect and
conserve our precious coastal areas to make California's coastline one of the best in the world.
I just told a friend that she was coming down, and it was her first time in California, and she said, I agree with you.
it's the best in the world. I'm here today to urge you to protect a very
special vacant parcel on the coast at Ponto. This is now our only opportunity.
This vacant land shouldn't be developed with dense apartments but rather public
coastal recreation for locals and tourists. Please keep the land use at
planning area F as non-residential reserve.
Apartments don't belong on this fragile coastline.
We're already losing to erosion.
I thank you so much.
Thank you.
Kathleen Steindelberger, Pat Bleha, and then Bette Mulhern.
Hi, I'm Kathleen Steindelberger.
Hello again.
I support coastal staff's denial of Carlsbad's request changes
to the land use at the former Encinas power station.
I support preparation of analysis of biological resources on site prior to making decisions
on future land use on this site.
I also support a park at Ponto, but we have a lot of speakers on that, so I'm going to
skip over that part.
Carlsbad Boulevard and the California State Park Campground need stronger commitments
in this LCP.
The LCP references the city of Carlsbad's linear park.
We've heard a lot about the linear park over the years.
in the southern portion of Carlsbad Boulevard.
Will the development of the future linear park
that we have never seen designs for,
will this development require maintenance
or require expansion of the emergency coastal armoring
at the one mile stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard
between Monzano and Island Way?
Please ask the city of Carlsbad to commit to a definition
and a location of this linear park with long-term planning,
including coastal impacts and alternatives analysis
that aligns with the coastal resilience adaptation goals
of the Coastal Act.
Commit to realigning Carlsbad Boulevard
in the northern part of Area A, where the city has repeatedly
placed emergency riprap, which erodes our beaches.
Many of the beaches in Carlsbad are now
in danger of disappearing or already have disappeared.
A coastal resilient beach at this location with proper planning
could exist here according to GHD up to six feet
of sea level rise providing coastal access
to recreation and habitat for many years to come.
Let's honor 50 years of the Coastal Act
by supporting the relocation of Carlsbad Boulevard
and approving policies that'll ensure future generations
can enjoy this coastal beach in Carlsbad, thank you.
Thank you.
Pat Bleha, Bette Mulhern, and then Dennis Stojawa.
These are, we have eight more speakers in person.
Thank you for hearing me.
I realize that the, for more than half of a century,
the California Coastal Commission has been entrusted
with protecting the state's 840-mile shoreline.
And I am in support of the park
and denying the development of Area F,
and it should be kept non-residential.
I understand that the Coastal Commission
has had issues with the coastline being bombarded,
and the applications for mitigation for the waves
the current water coming in and in I was reading a New York Times article which
talks about you guys and you say such efforts delay the inevitable experts say
with human development beaches evolve with sand ebbing and flowing and the
Coastal Commission wants to allow for more of that natural change that might
involve moving parking lots and roadways by the inland and replacing sidewalks with paths
through sand dunes and native plants. Then you said erosion near private property is
a far more difficult problem to resolve. This development is really, the half of it
that's there is really congested with literally hardly any green space. It's like the size
of a driveway, some of the areas, the playground or whatever they have there.
So building more is going to create a problem in the future.
Thank you for listening to me.
Thank you.
Next is Bette Mulhern, Dennis Dojewa and then John Gama.
If any of the names have been called, you can go ahead.
Yes.
Go ahead, John.
I don't see anyone else approaching.
Wow.
Good afternoon, you guys.
It's a tremendously long day for you.
My name is Dr. John Gama.
I'm a very concerned citizen living in South Carlsbad.
I've been involved with the People for Ponto Committee
and its efforts to work with the city of Carlsbad
for over a decade.
I can say that it's been one of the most frustrating
experiences of my life.
I don't know if you noticed, in one of their presentations
today, they listed parking spaces as recreational space.
These are the types of things that we have to deal with as a resident.
It's unfortunate that our city management has to resort to stuff like that and say that
a park that's 10 miles away meets our park needs.
How can that be?
I ask you, can an elderly person go 10 miles away to a park?
children ride their bike to that park, much less walk? It makes no sense. Absolutely no
sense. Where do I start? Approximately 15 years ago, the city tried to put through
Apanto Beachfront Village Village Project. I don't know if any of you are here then.
You denied that city's request at that time. You specifically asked that the city explore
visiting quote visitors serving uses ie a public park for that space only 15
years later today they did it today they presented it to you 15 years they
haven't shown it to the citizens but today they did last minute in hopes that
you would be duped and think that they have actually done a meaningful
evaluation children in my neighborhood have no place to play except the street
but please make no mistake this is not just a local South Carlsbad issue. People
from all over the county as well as visitors from outside the area would
benefit greatly from a coastal park in planning area F. Oh I can't be summation
you guys. Thank you sir your time is up. Please be consistent with your prior
recommendation require that they thank you sir evaluate a public park for that
area. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Dennis Dojewa, Fred Briggs, and then Rio
Griffith. Thank you, Dennis, for hanging out. I feel like I started. I was born and raised in
Los Angeles and I survived the Watts riots and we had to move from where, you
know, black people were, oh, so we could be in a safe area. So we came by St.
St. Andrews Park. My sister was five years older and she took me over and introduced
me to tennis. So since 1975 I've been doing tennis for little people and I think about
children and their future. And what are we here for if not our children? And so I really
appreciate everybody's compassion and understanding of how we can give back to this world simply
by being what? Loving and caring and knowing that if it's not tennis maybe pickleball
or walking down and getting in the water. I was a knee writer for years and I love the
ocean and Ponto overlooks the ocean and so if we have a park that overlooks the
ocean it would be truly amazing so thank you for your time and being here thank
you. Thank you and thank you Dennis for waiting. Next is Fred Briggs, Rio
Gifford and then Patty Langen. Turn that on okay good afternoon my name is Fred
Briggs. Thank you for coming. This is a good opportunity for those of us who have been
involved for a long time to express our opinions on some of these matters. I have been a resident
in this area for over 50 years. I came here because of the beaches and I have walked every
single mile of those beaches. And I will tell you for a fact, I have never seen
the kind of devastation that we've had this last year. Our beaches are ruined
and they're getting worse. Right now it's my belief that because of the threats of
erosion along the beach and sea level rise, that for future recreational
public recreational needs that we need to move a lot of the recreational
facilities slightly inland with access to the beach. The idea of Ponto Park fits
that concept in that it's far enough back from the beach to be used as a park
and close enough to be provided with access to a beach that can be maintained
perhaps even from land rather than the sea. The Ponto Park is a good idea. It
saves the open, the little open space we have left and it provides a park in a
needed area for a highly needed purpose. If we want to continue with a kind of
tourist based economy we have, we've got to have some place for them to recreate.
All right, thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Rio Gifford, Patty Langen, and then Stacy Green. Hello commissioners, my name is
Rio Gifford. I'm an elementary school teacher here in North County and I
stand in strong opposition against the rental development being proposed at
Poinsettia Park. Today you have a choice. You get to choose between financial
greed that benefits a select few, or public enrichment that will help the lives of people
for many generations to come.
Our California coastline is shrinking, partly due to developers like this.
The only thing they care about our community is the fact that they can charge $10,000 a
month townhomes.
There's nothing affordable about that.
They say they want to protect the environment by paving it over.
When you think about your legacy and what you did here, when your grandchildren are
old enough to understand what you did here, I hope that they look at you as people who
fought back against financial corruption and greed, and instead chose to protect lands
for all people of all socioeconomic backgrounds.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Patti Langen and Stacy Green.
I believe Stacy Green is our last in-person speaker.
Good afternoon, I'm Patti Langen, lifelong Carlsbad resident and president of Buena Vista
Audubon Society which represents over 1500 member households mainly residing
in north coastal San Diego County. Except for the Poinsettia Shores master plan we
support most of the staff's recommendations. Coastal access is a
right for everyone regardless of income. We support protecting lower cost
accommodations and continuous lateral public access along the lagoons
especially Buena Vista Lagoon which currently lacks access. We support
stronger protection of cultural resources. In addition, we support
wildlife crossings to connect habitat. On bird safe designs we support including
this recommendation but request stronger more specific language. North American
bird populations have declined by over 3 billion birds over in the last 50 years.
San Diego County lies on the Pacific Flyway with over 100,000 birds
migrating through on a given day or evening in spring and fall. Building
collisions are a major cause of bird mortality. Bird safe design is cheaper
when incorporated at the start of a project than by retrofitting buildings.
Standards should comply with the California Green Building Code A5.107
And the city should offer incentives rather than merely encouraging
developers because they opt out of it all the time. We support added protection
for sensitive habitats, especially coastal sage scrub and also keeping
Buenavista Lagoon, Agua Hedyonda and Batikidos lagoons, their wetlands and
their buffers as hardline preserves. We oppose the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan
as modified specifically development of area F we support holding on to this
area as a potential future park and open space thank you very much thank you
Stacey Green hi good afternoon thank you for the opportunity today I'm here
for two reasons I am wholly supportive of this residential project that I have
personally been involved with for over 15 years today in an opt-in one of our
most respected government officials, Jim Desmond wrote and I quote, there is a question I hear
at almost every event I attend, where are my kids supposed to live? I have a daughter
who taught school in this area and had to leave her beloved profession because she could
not afford to work and live in the area. She grew up or where her mother lives. And this
This project was allowed to be purchased from ShopOff to HD Fenton, one of the most trusted
builders in this community today.
They celebrate their 100th anniversary with a commitment to our communities.
They not build just residents, they build communities.
Why do you have multifamily?
You want to encourage less traffic.
So you live and work, you can build a Starbucks type of coffee shop in your community where
you can work upstairs in your home and walk downstairs and have your coffee. I highly
encourage you to approve this project as it has been 15 years plus in the making and represents
a well thought out plan. These homes are a residential community where our children can
live and walk across the street to the beach. I encourage you to approve this project. Thank
Thank you.
Thank you.
And we did have one more speaker, Hilton Sher.
Hi, my name is Hilton Sher.
It's my first time here being at the Coastal Commission and it's kind of awesome seeing
you guys in action and that you guys are our lost hope for protecting the beach.
I have lived in Ponto Beach for 10 years.
I'm a father of two young kids and I think we all share the same mission which is really
to protect the coastal area for the public good.
I've been part of this People for Ponto for 10 years, and I've been part of helping
collect just under 20,000 signatures by managing the website.
Our kids play in the street every day, and Veteran Park, as someone mentioned, is a total
lie.
It's 30 minutes on an e-bike, and we have to cross major roads.
There's no way I'm sending my kids that far.
11 and 8. The beach is great, but it's rocky and it's not somewhere my kids can
just safely kind of play on their own without supervision. The city has
constantly ignored the thousands of requests that they've received. They
should honestly be embarrassed sitting here. I always thought, and maybe I'm just
naive, but that their job was really to protect the public's interest, the people
that they represent, but that definitely doesn't seem to be the case.
They seem to always put developers first, and I'm really hoping that you, the Coastal
Commission, will do better.
Ten years from now, no one is going to say, I wish there were more apartments there.
There are apartments everywhere up and down the coast and inland.
I think we have a huge opportunity right now to protect this piece of land and make it
something amazing, beautiful, and inclusive for people that live there and anyone who
wants to visit this beautiful area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I believe that concludes our in-person speakers.
I turn it to you, Madam Chair.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
So a couple of things.
We are going to break for lunch.
I really appreciate everyone's testimony and I appreciate the folks on Zoom who will stick
with us while we take this break. To my colleagues it's going to be a brief 20 minutes. For the
folks that are here please don't engage with us during this break. The hearing is still
ongoing so we can't speak with you. And Commissioner Lopez wanted to make a very brief comment,
briefly sir. Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. There was a comment that was made that just
kept me a little off guard. It didn't pertain to the project directly, but Moore had a base
in race and I didn't want to take a break without acknowledging that that comment was
made and I cannot, I just want to be clear that I don't support those sort of
comments being made publicly and as a member of this Commission did not want
to take a break and leave that out there as a proud uncle of men of color it just
it struck a chord it struck a nerve and I just wanted not to take a break and
leave that lingering so thank you for that moment and that personal privilege
Madam Chair thank you thank you we'll be back at 140 and we will be at one minute
per I also just remind commissioners that they cannot speak to each other
about this matter because we are still in hearing thank you okay thank you
everyone for your patience now we are going to move to zoom speakers as a
reminder you will all be at one minute per if I could encourage you to please
Please focus on any new information that you would like to communicate to us and hasn't
already been stated.
That would be extremely helpful.
We're grateful for your patience and look forward to hearing from you.
Chris.
All right.
Thank you.
As a reminder to those on Zoom, we will be moving you in as a panelist to speak.
Please don't turn your video and microphone on until it is your turn to speak.
We'll start with Dolores Lodle, Peter Armstrong-Louis, and then Eric Nixon.
Give us a moment as we're moving you in.
Peter Louis, I see that you're on two devices.
Can you raise your hand on the device you wish to be moved in on?
Peter Louis.
And then Dolores, go ahead, I see that you're in now.
Hi.
So California Coastal Commission.
My name is Dolores Lodle.
I'm a community citizen.
I address the condition reject item 8A for Ponto of changing the land use plan.
I have lived in the area of Southwest Carlsbad in northwest Encinitas for 34 years and have
solely watched open space land lost to development.
The many nurseries and smaller developments have morphed into oversight developments have
strained our resources and our infrastructure.
Please understand I am not anti-development.
I have advocated for many local developments to move forward
because I realize that we do need additional housing
to decrease prices, to keep the middle class
in our community.
I have three grown children
who I'd like to see remain in the area.
So while I'm speaking out against this particular change
in land use is not because I am anti-development.
I request you reject this particular land use
because the area, I'm almost out of time.
I also wanna thank the commissioner who spoke out
against the racist remark.
that is not who we represent.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Peter Louie followed by Eric Nixon
and Dorothy Fritz, Peter Louie.
Peter, you're in, you should be able to unmute.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can hear you.
Oh, good.
Not to repeat all that's been said.
I want to express my strong support for Ponto Park
and for its non-residential use.
The park is much needed.
I live in the southwest section of Carlsbad, have for many years.
There is no park nearby and I would say the use of Veterans Park is the ludicrous that's
quite far away and the four quadra of things seem to happen.
So please support Pono Park and support the non-residential use.
We don't need more housing in this area, but we desperately need a part.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Next is Eric Nixon, Dorothy Fritz, and then Victoria Earl.
Eric Nixon, go ahead.
Hello, can you guys hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hello, I'm here to ask the California Coastal Commission to keep planning Area F designated as non-residential reserve.
There's simply too many unanswered questions
to approve land use change
involving one of our last remaining coastal open spaces.
We can build housing in a lot of places.
We don't have to monetize every single inch
of our coastline for profit.
And once this beautiful land is gone, it's gone.
Let's please make this a place that benefits all people
and not just developers.
I urge the commission to reject certification
of the proposed land use changes,
preserve planning areas F,
planning area F existing designation
and returning this matter to the City of Carlsbad for further review, public input, and resolution
of the outstanding questions before any changes are reconsidered. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Next is Dorothy Fritz, followed by Victoria Earle and Michael Hedges. Give
us a moment as we're moving you in. Dorothy, you should be able to accept now. All right,
Dorothy, go ahead. Dorothy, you're in as a panelist. You should be able to unmute.
Okay, thank you. Hello, I am Dorothy Fritz and I visit Carlsbad very, very many times
throughout the year. I love the area, I love the coast and I will say this that I am very
much, I ask the CCC that they please keep the land non-residential reserve at the planning
area F and it's not allowed for any further development unless it is a park. I will say
say this, that I have seen that this loss of coastal land is getting a lot of attention
outside of Carlsbad. Personally, I saw it in The New York Times, a big article about
it, and I live in Waco, Texas, and this September, Waco, Texas, which is a small, small town,
they had an article regarding Ponto and its supporters of the park. I was shocked and
surprised because who would think they'd pick it up? But the eyes of Texas are upon you,
so please, Coastal Committee, do correctly. Be right. Thank you.
you. Next is Victoria Earle. Yes, hi, I'm Victoria Earle. I'm a resident of
Leucadia and I live very close to Ponto Beach. I go there every week with my
three-year-old boy. Even when we consider all the coastline we have around here,
Ponto really stands out for its, you know, truly beautiful, low-key and rugged beach
in the environment surrounding it. So protecting this peaceful coastal open
space is so important. We've seen numerous high density
complexes get approved and built through our Encinitas in
recent months. And unfortunately, many with very
basic, unappealing designs, and I really urge you not to let the
same happen to beautiful Ponto. This land will have so much more
impact to our local community as a communal park space rather
than building even more high density housing, especially this
close to the beach and the ocean. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Michael Hedges, Lucy Sargent, and then Raj Altenhoff. Michael Hedges.
Michael, you're in as a panelist already. You should be able to unmute. There you go.
Thank you. My name is Michael Hedges. We have a home over near Ponto and Batakitos Lagoon,
and some of the previous people that spoke talked about grandchildren. I have 18 grandchildren,
and the one thing that they hear almost as much as I love you is watch out for cars,
because there's nowhere for them to go. In fact, we end up going up to Camp Pendleton because my
son allows an officer up there with four of my grandkids and spend time up there because they
have two parks within a half a mile where they live. And so I had a bunch of other things I was
going to say. I'll boil it down to this. Build us a park. Build us a park. Place the jewel in the crown
of this amazing community, and I guarantee you will never regret it. And 50 years from now,
when your grandkids are taking their kids to the park, they'll thank you. And they'll thank you
because you did the right thing, you did the wise thing to build a legacy for future generations.
Thank you. Thank you. Next is Lucy Sargent, Raj Aldenhoff, and then Grace Keith. Lucy Sargent,
I see that you're on a phone. You should be able to unmute and begin. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'm Lucy
Sergeant and I lived in Carlsbad Village and I came here from the East Coast about 20 years ago.
I could have lived anywhere in the world and I chose Carlsbad. There's literally no other
way or place I want to be and when I first came here my family was here already and they said,
I want to show you something and they drove me down Highway 101 actually from Encinitas and
There was Ponto Park, not a park yet, and they said, you know what, this is why we live here.
So congratulations on the 50th anniversary and I don't think your apartments will see the next 50
years because basically the ocean is changing. It's much more wild. If you've lived on the east coast
you've been through major hurricanes that destroy islands, homes just falling, homes that like are
are on stone forever since the 1800s falling into the sea.
Plenty of things like that have happened.
And I predict that building this will happen as well.
So please consider that.
And one more, two more words for you.
Water wins, water wins.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Raj Altonhoff followed by Grace Keefe
and Colleen Mickey.
Raj Altonhoff.
Good afternoon commissioners.
My name is Raj Altonhoff.
26 years ago, my wife and I drove up the coast,
walked into an open house,
and fell in love with South Carlsbad.
We raised our kids here,
and I've watched three generations of dogs
on the very land you're deciding on today.
My own house doesn't have an ocean view,
but anyone can walk across the bridge
over the train tracks on Avanade and Sinus,
and the whole Pacific opens up 180 degrees.
Putting 120 townhomes right there
and close that off for good.
Your staff's own report shows South Carlsbad
short of parkland.
They closed that gap with Veterans Park,
which is Miles Inland.
It also lists five nearby parks,
but those parks are neighborhood parks
and not one of them is on the ocean.
Under the Coastal Act, oceanfront land,
suitable for recreation should be protected
unless the demand is already met.
In South Carlsbad, it isn't.
I'm not against housing,
but this is the last open oceanfront parcel
South Carlsbad. Once it's built, it's gone forever. Please tonight is the meeting. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Grace Keefe followed by Colleen Mickey and then Bob Keefe.
Grace Keefe. Hi, my name is Grace Keefe. I'm a social worker who grew up on Ponto Shores and
I'm here to oppose the staff's recommendation on Agenda Item 8A for the sake of the community's
mental and physical health and also Carlsbad's ecological health. Studies have shown that kids
raised with accessible green spaces are 55% less likely to develop psychiatric disorders.
Kids in this area don't have that access. This coastline also acts as a buffer zone against
erosion and natural disasters. New housing development is needed and it should be focused
in areas with schools and job infrastructure and most importantly it should include at least the
recommended amount of affordable units. We don't need more high-end coastal housing on our fragile
ecosystems. We need a park. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next, Colleen Mickey,
Bob Keefe, and then Ian Zach Suzyki. Colleen Mickey. Hi there. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, thank you everyone for listening and thank you Coastal Commission for being an advocate for
for the impressed, for seals, birds, monarchs,
and advocates for the ocean, including artificial turf
and pipelines and trees, and advocate
for low-income housing.
And I actually work at Ice Town Carlsbad,
which is about five miles inland.
And driving to work today, we have tons of space
that's not developed yet.
So just like the city redeveloped
and rezoned for Veterans Park,
they can do that and give us the park at Ponto.
to me it's a lot about land by the ocean because by making this all residential you are limiting
access to everyone for the last little bit of undeveloped land between here or between Mexico
and Camp Pendleton. So we really appreciate that the whole city wants Ponto Park so please listen
to the people instead of the people that are getting paid the only people that advocate for
that is the people getting paid, so thank you.
Thank you. Next is Bob Keefe in Zakarzewski
and then Nick Jansen. Bob Keefe. Thanks much and thank you commissioners, I very
much regret for many reasons not being there with you
in person. My name is Bob Keefe. I happen to be the executive director of E2
which is a national organization of more than 13,000 business leaders who
understand we can have both a good economy
and a good environment. But I'm speaking here today on my own behalf as a resident of South
Carlsbad for 25 years. I used to live right next to the Ponto Beach parcel. My children grew up
there and on the beach across from it. Matter of fact you just heard from one of them two speakers
ago. Bottom line is I understand the value. I understand the importance of business and
economic development. I understand the rights of developers. But I also understand the value and
the importance of protecting our fragile coastlines and the benefits economic and otherwise of
protecting them. This is about preserving the last open space of its kind on the coast and
South Carlsbad. Fundamentally, it's about the very core mission of the Coastal Commission to
protect and enhance California's coast and ocean for present and future generations. Allowing us
to develop, not just our ocean, turning this parcel into a park does protect our coast and
Thank you. Ian Zacharzewski, Nick Janssen and then Matt Audgers.
Ian. Coastal Commission attendees, thank you for having me. I'm not sure if my
video works but I'm standing in that spot right now.
I'm standing here with my dog Buzzy. I don't know if you can see him
and in front of the Tower 24 development also.
That's right behind me. I apologize for the truck but I'm looking at the three
story with Jack development that obscures the view here, and has done nothing for the local
residents of the area. We moved here from San Francisco 10 years ago, attracted to the open
space, and this area is absolutely beautiful. Since then, they put up Alila Maraya on the cliff
and obscured that whole cliff side on the border with Lucadia. Tower 24 came up and developed this
whole corner of the lot. I took specific objection to the speaker who's trying to
sell this development as saying that there's parks that are very close to us.
From my house living in South Carlsbad to Cannon Park, it's 2.1 miles. That's a
46-minute walk. Poinsettia Park is two miles away.
Thank you. Thank you Ian. Next is Nick Janssen, Matt Rogers, and then William Swan. Nick Janssen.
Yeah, good afternoon everybody. I just want to say I'm blown away by our community and how
everybody has commented today and to bring something new to light and just make it stand
out, we are losing our beaches. We are losing our public open space. We haven't had a beach
at North Ponto for the past 10 years. It's a pile of rock. My children don't visit our beach,
and I live close to our beach. We have a major regional problem, and it needs to be addressed.
we have a historical lack of maintenance we don't have a new sand supply since we've developed
everything um and um i just want to also say that uh um i i just i feel very strongly about this
please don't approve this for residential use thank you next is matt adgers william swan and
And then Trish Reno, Matt Audrey's morning chair and commissioner.
My name is Matt Audrey's and I'm a Carl's bad business owner.
And live here with my wife, twin boys and a daughter on the way.
Um, I asked you to disagree with the staff recommendation, deny the master
plan amendment for planning area F and keep it non-residential reserve.
Your staff has received more than 10,000 comments on this site.
That's a community telling you what this land should be.
Earlier, staff showed six proximate parks.
Everyone being east of the Fiver and Encinitas.
Not one is in South Carlsbad on the coast.
The Coastal Act makes public coastal recreation a priority,
and this is one of the last open coastal parcels left.
If state law requires a replacement site,
the city can find one.
Hard is not the same as impossible.
Coastal Park at Ponto cannot be built anywhere else.
on the point that there's currently no money to buy the land, that's a perfect reason to
wait. Not a good reason to rezone. Thank you. Please keep planning area F, non-resident
short-serve. Thank you. Thank you. Next, William Swan, Trish Raina and then Bridgette Rince.
William Swan. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Bill Swan. Next March, I will celebrate
40 years as a Carlsbad resident. For decades, I've watched housing explode while public
recreation lagged behind. I used to bring my dogs to run on this exact open space and later as
president of Carlsbad Youth Baseball, I spent years fighting just to find fields for our kids to play.
This commission has rightfully denied residential proposals here multiple times before.
Why are we doing this again? Training, planning, area five, area F for 120 private rentals is
short-sighted. It trades permanent long-term public tourism revenue for a one-time private
interest payoff. The public gets zero long-term benefit from that. A public park here creates
a permanent coastal destination for all Californians. Honor your precedent, protect public areas,
and vote no on TH8A. I thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, Trish Raina, Bridget Rince,
and then Cindy Lockmore? Trish Reyna. Trish, you're in as a panelist, you should be able to
unmute. There you go. Yes, hello. Hi, I've lived in the area for 20 years. I oppose the change.
I am all for keeping this a park or some kind of recreation facility. It is the last
piece of land that is available to observe and use in this way. It is a true gem and it belongs
and we should be able to
get people to speak with us
amongst the people. I oppose
any sort of housing in that
area or adjacent properties.
There needs to be much more
consideration in the
environmental standings. We
do not need to go on loopholes
or buybacks or allowing
anybody to make a switch for
one for the other. This is a
unique piece of property and
needs to be treated that way
with the current and most
a precedent from now and into the future, and all of those numbers need to be re-evaluated.
Setbacks, easements, etc. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next is Bridgette Rince,
Cindy Lockore, and then Kristy Johnson. We haven't been able to promote either of you as panelists
because we need you to accept it. We're trying Bridgette Rince. Please accept being
promoted to panelists. Bridgette Rince, and then Cindy Lockore and Kristy Johnson.
Okay. Bridget. Okay. Now, you're rejoining as a panelist.
And then Cindy Lockhorn, Christy Johnson, please accept as well. Bridget, go ahead.
Okay. You can hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Perfect.
Just wanted to say it seems very overwhelming that no one wants residential there, which
is so understandable. So I don't think you need additional information.
You have all the information you need at this point to make the right decision for us.
We moved here two years ago.
I've already seen a lot of growth buildings going up, as someone also mentioned, in Encinitas
and by Cape Ray, a bunch of units went up there as well.
And as Zach showed, you know, we go down the highway every day in our car and just look
at the beautiful ocean.
Where we came from, the kids had nothing to do.
Those kids were miserable.
don't want the kids of Carlsbad and North County to experience what they do in the bigger cities.
We love the charm of Carlsbad and North County so much. We never knew that there was this kind
of beauty that existed and we can't believe that for 26 years it was our dream to come here and
we finally made it two years ago. Please make the right choice and do not make that residential.
there is plenty of other land that can be added and it's an oxymoron to say low cost in California.
People can't afford it already. Thank you. Thank you. Cindy Lockor, Christy Johnson,
Tara Longridge. Tara, please accept being promoted to panelist. Cindy Lockor, go ahead.
Hi, my name's Cindy Lockor and I'm a Carlsbad resident. I'm asking you to look beyond the
immediate question of housing and look at what we are permanently giving up. Ponto is one of the
last significant pieces of coastal land in Carlsbad that we still have the opportunity to protect for
future generations. You guys heard this over and over. Once the 120 homes are built, there's the
opportunity has gone forever. You are the Coastal Commission. You understand better than any
anyone that coastal land becomes more valuable, not less valuable as our population grows.
Public access becomes harder to provide and sea level rises takes away existing recreational
resources. Please keep planning area F non-residential reserve. Don't make a
decision today that eliminates the future options for coastal park
recreation, visitor serving uses, or other public benefit. And please don't convert
the strawberry fields from its current destination to coastal visitor CV. Once
these destinations are changed, we lose flexibility to protect these lands for
the future. Other people brought up great points that kids can't bike from
from Lower Carlsbad all the way up to the new park
that's gonna be 10, 15 minutes away.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, Kristy Johnson, Tara Longridge
and then Dara Ditsworth.
Kristy Johnson, let me restart your camera.
There you go.
Hi everybody.
I'm Kristy Johnson.
I urge the California Coastal Commission
and the city of Carlsbad to take immediate,
transparent and accountable action
to provide a true and significant Pontwell Coastal Park.
Planning area F represents the real last opportunity
to create a meaningful public coastal park,
as you've heard from many, many folks before me
in this portion of Southern Carlsbad.
The documented need is substantial.
The public support is massive.
I'm one of many.
And once this land is developed,
I'm just echoing that this opportunity
is truly gone forever.
So please preserve the existing coastal recreation
requirement and ensure that Ponto receives
a substantial, accessible, and fully usable coastal park
that serves the community for many generations.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next is Tara Longridge, Dara Ditsworth, and then
Roxanne Johnson.
Tara Longridge.
Hi, it's Tara.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Oh, good.
Great.
So I'm just asking us to recognize
that housing and coastal preservation
are not interchangeable decisions.
We have this one remaining opportunity at Ponto
to create something that every resident in the Carlsbad
and visitors throughout the region can use.
So once this conversion to homes happens,
we'll never get that opportunity back.
We already have substantial residential development,
but we have no comparable coastal park.
So we have decades of housing built along the coast,
but I think we should ask ourselves
if we built enough public space
to serve the people who live here.
My family doesn't need to be able to afford
a million dollar coastal home
to deserve access to the coast.
I think about my own senior parents,
they shouldn't need to own property here
to enjoy a sunset in a public park.
So unlike housing, which can be built at other urban sites
and a coastal property cannot be recreated somewhere else.
So this gives us a once in a generation opportunity
to leave something behind that belongs to everyone.
can build housing elsewhere. Thank you. Next, Dara Ditzworth, Roxanne Johnson and
Thomas Krauss. Dara Ditzworth. Hi, my name is Dara Ditzworth. I'm speaking as a South
Carlsbad resident. I moved here 10 years ago and now have two young children. I urge you to keep
Ponto planning area as designated as a non-residential reserve. Please uphold the
existing coastal recreation requirement for this area. Please affirm the precedent as the requirement
has been part of the record for decades.
So what concerns me most about this decision
is its permanence.
There are many other places where California
can build housing, but there are exceedingly
a few substantial pieces of undeveloped land
remaining this close to the Southern California coast.
And once coastal land like this is developed,
we don't get another opportunity to reconsider
how it could have served the public.
We can't manufacture another piece of coast
20 or 30 years from now.
For my family, this isn't an abstract land use issue.
I have a five-year-old and a toddler.
We live in this part of Carlsbad.
Yet, we can't go to any nearby coastal community park
where we could simply walk, ride a bike,
or just experience the coast as a part of everyday life.
Thank you for your service and considering.
Thank you.
Next, Roxanne Johnson and then Thomas Krauss.
Roxanne Johnson.
Hi, my name's Roxanne Johnson.
I live here in San Pacifico,
literally the community adjacent to this parcel. I'd first like to say that I don't respect the
earlier false claims by staff about available parks nearby. That is a lie. It should be corrected
if you want trust to exist. Those of us who live here and raise children here, we've taken note of
that deception. I'm not against housing. I am against the destruction and development of our last
tiny bit of open space where the needs of our community are not being considered and better
why we're here today. And
those other locations for
housing do exist. So it comes
down to whose needs matter
more. The needs of the
families in the community who
are already here or the few
newcomers who could be served
by additional housing. I don't
know where you all live if
you're going to be personally
impacted by this decision or
not. But please put yourselves
in our place. Once this piece
of land is developed, the
opportunity for public
enjoyment is gone forever. So
Thomas C. that you're in as a panelist, but it looks like you don't have a mic connected.
I'm going to bump you back to attendee mode really quick and see if you're able to unmute
from there.
All right.
It looks like Thomas actually might be frozen and unable to move.
The rest of the names we weren't able to find on Zoom.
I'm going to list out all the names that we weren't able to find.
There's quite a few.
If you hear your name, please raise your hand on Zoom so that we can find you.
All right, I'm going to start listing names.
David Wine, Chaz Wick, Ron Fritz, Catalina Ailmer, R. Sibb, Leo Festin, Cherie McLarty,
Marina Burke, Bianca Poling, Elizabeth Tudino,
Mark Cleveland, Jim Feike, Rick Donahue, John Dugan,
Jim Kahn, Shirley Keating Hudson, Simeon Nichter,
James Burke, Jennifer and Han Lin, Karen Taber,
Ty D, Gina Prentice, Don Sake,
Heidi Salisbury, Catherine Pringle, Eric Gibson.
All right, I'm seeing three hands raised,
four hands raised now.
We'll start with the iPhone, just as iPhone,
please unmute and state your name.
Hi, this is Marina Burke.
Go ahead.
Okay, sorry, I have something I wanna read quick.
Thank you, Coastal Commission, for your time today.
This land was originally designated
and not develop open space back in 1985, 86.
That was for a reason.
Then the developer went bankrupt
and the new developer deleted the 12.8 acres of open space.
You, the coastal commissioner,
the last bastion of hope in returning this land
to its rightful intent.
In 1996, you wrote in our Carlsbad local coast program
that before planning area F could be developed,
the city and the developer must study and document
the need for public park or low cost lodging
west of the railroad tracks at Ponto.
Where is that study?
Enforce the study.
See what we are telling you.
There is a huge injustice at play.
Please don't just listen and turn around
and thank us for our time and hold with your assessment
that the city is meeting the demands of the community.
We need you to stand up for us in the environment.
This is what you do.
Please remember this is a hearing.
It is not a pronouncement.
I'm asking please let there be more due diligence
into this matter.
What are we doing to ensure the land for future generations?
This is the last open space to save in San Diego.
We need you to protect it.
Thank you.
Thank you. It looks like Thomas Krauss has a microphone connected now.
You should be able to unmute Thomas Krauss. Okay.
You're unmuted.
Hi.
Good morning commissioners.
I've lived in California for a short start.
Thomas, I think that you cut out. You're really.
in California from one to five years with 30 minutes of the Pacific Ocean and yet have
a big system.
There's two acts including parking the Coastal Commission exists to protect our irreplaceable
coastline for all Californians for generations to come during planning area F is not in the
city, you know, an inventory, despite an earlier false assertion by staff draconian short-sighted
and highly controversial housing mandates which could likely be overturned, therefore
do not require this irreversible rezoning. This development threatens public access by
foreclosing lower cost visitor accommodations and racial opportunities, while likely reducing
That was very choppy.
Next we're going to take under the name Cade, can you please unmute and state your name?
Okay, I see that you're unmuted please say your name.
This is surely Keating Hudson. Okay.
Please protect Ponto Park it's a co coastal jewel. The Carlsbad staff has given reckless and dangerous information.
going miles away to veterans park blocks of ugly towering high density buildings and a parking
nightmare are a blight that only the majority of the city council and the developers seem to want.
We all oppose it. I appeal to you for responsible leadership and to do what the Carlsbad City
Council has not done repeatedly with the exception of Teresa Acosta and Priya Bhatt Patel who do
support our Ponto Park. Please once and for all please give us our Ponto Park
and deny any residential use. Also zero tolerance for any racial remarks as made
earlier. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Thank you. Next under the name
Zoom user with their hand raised. Zoom user please unmute and state your name.
It just says Zoom User.
You should be able to unmute.
All right, I'm not seeing any movement.
I see some other hands raised, but they're not
on our list of speakers.
If I'm missing anyone, please raise your hand.
Our fights, OK.
Our fights, you should be able to unmute now.
Our fights, all right, I'm not seeing any movement.
I do see Patricia Bleja, but we took your comment in person.
All right, our fights, I see they're unmuted now.
Should be able to go ahead.
All right, we aren't hearing anything.
I think that'll conclude our speakers, Madam Chair.
No, no, no, no.
OK, under Zoom user now, I see that you're unmuted.
Go ahead.
Hi, my name is Dawn Sake, and I support a true Ponto Park.
Pontos more than just vacant land,
it's one of the last remaining opportunities
to preserve this meaningful open space.
Once this land is developed, we can't get it back.
And though I'm very grateful to call Carlsbad home,
my request goes beyond local wants and needs and desires,
beyond today.
I do support the Coastal Commission's beautiful mission
statement to protect, conserve, restore and enhance
environmental and human-based resources
of the California coast and the ocean
for environmentally sustainable and prudent use
by current and future generations.
I stand behind that mission, therefore,
let's preserve our coast, not pave it.
Our carbon footprint is massive.
And when we know better, we do better.
Let's take positive actions now
for our ocean, lagoon, remaining wildlife.
Preserve this rare and special land
by providing an open park area that's accessible to all.
and visitors. Please keep the land use at planning area F as a non-residential reserve.
All right. Thank you. And then our fights, one last try. I see that you have the ability
to unmute. All right. And we understand that Chaswick is trying to join, but we still aren't
seeing them in the Zoom meeting. All right. I think that will now conclude our speakers.
Okay, thank you very much to the public will now return to the applicant for their rebuttal
I believe you have four minutes remaining sir
Yes, thank you. And if you can bring up backup sites 41 and 34 while I start first as your staff asked us to
highlight how this item has been discussed at City Council this item since
2021 has been discussed five times at City Council with no direction to pursue any acquisition of the property as a park
1st in January 2021. There was a specific report on ways to consider purchasing of planning area F
There was no action other than to direct staff to return
Related to the entire Southwest quadrant that was returned on July 13th 2021
And again, there was no action of the city council
October of 2021 was where City Council approved submission of this project
That's before you today and a staff is recommending to modify and then again
in 2023 staff after three meetings of an 18 person citizens committee that reaffirmed
the park standard accepted the report that reaffirmed the park standard as written on
July 18th 2023 and then approved the parks master plan at September 26 2023 which included
an evaluation and presentation on parks within one half mile of different area residential
areas of the city. On the slide now is our current park standard and how it is
met under all four of the quadrants with incorporation of the regional park.
We also annually report what we think the park need will be at build out of
the city. We obviously don't know 100% what build out of the city will be but
when we project our general plan and population we will need some additional
park lands specifically in the northeast quadrant but we do think we have enough
parks and the other quadrants and we have time to build those other parks.
Related to, if you could do slide 34 now, there was a discussion of the Kamsang property
so I just wanted to highlight where that is.
Slide 34, the Kamsang property, it is a property that is currently designated visitor commercial.
It is immediately south of the planning area.
It is not impacted by this application today.
So on this slide, it is shown as the 14.3-acre blue property.
The property in green is the planning F property.
Again, there's no actions pertaining to that.
There is an active development application that is moving through the process.
There's a CDP at the local level that is appealable to the Coastal Commission, given its proximity
to the lagoon.
And then finally, there were some comments on the TC designation.
There is no more TC designation.
And so we're proposing to change on the strawberry fields to visitor commercial, that's the
current designation, the nomenclature that our general plan and local coastal program
includes.
There's no housing that's allowed in our local coastal program, which does overrule the general
plan in this aspect.
And as part of the action, there were some references to giving us authority in the Agua
Hidionda Lagoon segment that is not on the table in the proposed action.
following this action if approved with modifications the city will still not
have authority there it'll be deferred certification so any development of
either the power plant or the strawberry fields will be subject to this
commission's authority with that available for any questions we did send a
letter it's also been distributed it includes our proposed modifications okay
thank you very much with that I will close the public hearing and return to
our staff.
Ms. Ross or Mr. Schwing.
Thank you and I'll start just briefly to address some of the things that we've heard today.
I want to start off by saying that commission staff appreciates the community's strong advocacy
and desire for a public park at this location.
We recognize the immense value that the residents place on public open space and recreational
access and we don't disagree.
However, staff have grounded our analysis in the regulatory framework that governs this
site.
While staff continually looks for opportunities to expand public park networks, as city staff
just explained, the city staff has not identified or planned for a mechanism to require and
develop this private parcel for public use.
The subject property is privately owned and is currently designated for commercial and
and residential use under the certified land use plan.
The zoning designation is currently non-residential reserve,
which is a holding zone intended to be updated
when a specific project is proposed.
So when a development proposal came forward,
the city was required to analyze the site
for a potential park or visitor accommodations,
and they have done so.
Although the CDP for development of the site
is not before the commission today,
staff has been working extensively with the city and the developer to revise the project to move
the majority of the development to the eastern side of the property the residential side with
minimal low-scale visitor commercial development and the protection of habitat located west of
Ponto Drive. This was a deliberate decision to potentially allow the future inland migration
of Carlsbad Boulevard and the protection of the state park as well. As a result, staff
believes the changes to the master plan are consistent with the certified land use plan
currently in effect and the Coastal Act as well as supporting the city's housing requirements.
Therefore, staff continues to recommend the IP be approved as submitted. And I'll turn it over
to Carl to have a few more comments. Thank you, Diana. I just want to take a
moment to thank the city for working with us on for a very long time on all
of the changes to this land use plan and the implementation plan and also
working with the property owner with regard to area F as well as all the
input that we received from the public all of that has shaped our our
recommendation. I also want to take a moment to thank our staff that's been
involved with this Diana Lilly and Tony Ross have worked extensively on this
matter and really appreciate all of their efforts here as well as Robin
mayor, our staff council who worked extensively on this and this is the kind of proposal that
really draws on a lot of different areas of expertise in the agency. So a lot of folks
were involved. I did just want to touch for a moment on the city proposals. They presented
some language today during their presentation on the bird safe design policy and we've
now reviewed that language and we believe we can accept the language with regard to
the bird safe policy language and I can just go ahead and read that the way it is edited
by the city and that was in their letter was in their presentation and that's with regard
to LCP-6-P22, it would read, evaluate locations and types of buildings where bird safe design
would be most appropriate.
And in those locations and types of buildings encourage the use of special design and window
treatments to improve the degree to which new developments are bird safe.
And then the policy continues with the language as unchanged.
With that I'll wrap my comments were available for questions and
Thank you
Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. So I will turn to the Commission to my colleagues
I have a list going please
So if you'd like to get on that list, please catch my eye and I will add you to it
We'll begin with Commissioner Kalmick
Thank you chair
And thank you for the residents of Carlsbad for coming out today and voicing their opinion on how they would like to see their city
And thank staff for I think five years of doing a general plan update and coastal staff for working to
Come together on a very complicated document
Though I couch that in I feel a lot of these discussions
Were probably made at the City Council level
Who were the ultimate land use authority for deciding what this wanted to be?
Our goal here is obviously to reconcile that with the Coastal Act
So there had a couple of technical questions and now I want to hear from the rest of my commissioners
the zoning versus the general plan I was and actually was able to pull up the
master plan for non reserve non residential reserve and the definition because there's a lot of
Public comment today about non residential reserve. I think people focusing on the word reserve
and the definition within
The land use allocation in the current poinsettia Shores master plan says that
It's basically unplanned. It's no no planning
For future uses could include but are not limited to commercial residential office or other uses subject to future review and approval
So there there was not a park designated here that that the city is attempting to change
So I think a question for Carl's bad staff is the current general plan designation
The current zoning and then the change in those two that are being requested as part of this
Sure. Thank you. So the property in the general plan since 2015 has been designated r23
Which is a 23 units per acre side on the east side of ponto and then on the west side of ponto
It's all one parcel general commercial
The zoning is planned communities and the zoning is part of our local coastal program implementation plan that refers to whatever is allowed in the Point City Shorts master plan
that is where the current designation is the non-residential reserve and our proposal is to amend that plan to be consistent with the
R23 and then on the east side and then on the west side would be the special policies
recommended by staff that would modify the western side into three zones that
allow for some commercial some habitat and some passive recreation. And then to
dig into the habitat section because I saw the picture that shows some green space
out there that's passive habitat. Yeah there's coastal sage grubs so that's
actually and that's passive habitat and will be required to be maintained. And in
the residential side it does also look like there is open space and I'm
assuming your zoning code requires some sort of open space per number of units.
correct the there's an open space designation per number of units there's
also 15 percent open space that's going to be applied to the project so they're
going to have some recreation for their amenity recreation and they're going to
have some other general open space as part of the development is that public
open space it'll be private open space for the residents okay but there's
nothing that would potentially preclude the city from as part of the next phase
of this because we're just approving potentially approving horizontal today
We're not approving and not even specifically a project where would be approving land use kind of very squishy land use design
That goes back to the City Council for another discussion as to what the actual vertical project would look like, correct?
Correct. So if this is approving is approved by City Council that will just change the zoning and the master plan, right?
A coastal development permit will be needed for the vertical construction and residential including the easements and other specifics
Outlined on the property on both properties and there isn't
Anything precluding the city from negotiating with the applicant on certain open space requirements?
No, I mean it is a housing development project so we have to
Regulate it by the laws that exist exactly exactly. Okay
and to confirm this is private ownership and the from Google Street View and I think from what we saw from
Testimony there's fences around both these properties currently. I don't know the current state
There's been fences of overtime at different times. It's habitat
There's currently or at least was as a few months ago. It's being used as staging area for the railroad
Improvements, so there's been a lot of operations and work on the site recently. Okay, so the east side of the site closest to the freeway
I guess for lack of a better term is it's got construction equipment and it's it's disturbed land at this point the eastern side
I mean our biology biological reports and the permits approved by the agencies including Coastal Commission
There is some habitat and any impacts will need to be located but it's not to be confused with that
There's actually building going on. There's no houses being built there. Currently. Correct. There's no authorized housing
Can we talk about that and so the I mean effectively it's fenced off open space. It's private property
If this is not approved
It effectively remains an inconsistent
general plan
zoning plan
Use, but the City Council could still approve a development there
with with
different metrics I
Mean the City Council could approve a development and a local coastal program amendment that would need to return to the Commission
Right for their approval of that sure, okay
So yeah, I mean there's some kind of revolves out my
like technical questions on this is that there's still another discussion to be had on this and that I think that
After 10 years of this and that the city council has done an enormous amount of work to try to create a park
I don't believe this is a venue
To achieve that goal for the residents
I don't think the Coastal Act and I think staff has said this a couple of different ways that that the city the
City Council's job would have been to do that not the Coastal Commission. We're here to identify coastal resources
and
Not compel I think in a land use decision of this making a nexus to to create a park as much as I think everybody wants
Right you go knock doors and tell people hi. Would you sign my petition?
Do we like a park in your neighborhood? Of course everyone's gonna sign that so I think it's
You know, I think that the venues is somewhat different, but I'm very interested to hear if anyone's got any
Different ideas on how to achieve some sort of win for residents, but I think that again this may be the wrong venue for that
Thank you
Commissioner Jackson
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you to all the speakers today
I want to acknowledge the residents who for years have been advocating for public recreation open space responsible planning at Ponto
The level of sustained community engagement I think deserves recognition and respect
Certainly appreciate the community's desire for a park, but there's nothing that we do today
Or that the city can do that can automatically turn this into a park. Is that a correct statement?
That's correct
Okay, and you know to piggyback off of what Commissioner Kelmick said
That decision really is up to the city in that regard now we may prefer a particular outcome
but at the end of the day it's not our preference that prevails I think the
Commission sorry I threw the chair this commission could weigh in on land use
and zoning designations as we've been discussing today that is in the purview
of this Commission to review and make your decision on but the specifics of is
it a park or you know I think is is not at this point front within our purview
Okay, I just want to make sure I was clear now with regard to the housing element and state housing mandates
Yeah, I guess there's a question for the city
was this
part of your housing element that was removed or
Help me understand that sort of dynamic sure in 2021
We approved a housing element that included an inventory of vacant sites as part of the City Council action. They removed this
Because we did not have enough sites and our inventory we had a rezone program where we were required to up zone
approximately
1600 units within three years
City Council removed this site and directed us to add other sites in the Southwest quadrant
But took no action to change the general plan designation that allows for housing there
Subsequently a few years later. We did adopt a housing element rezone program that accommodated our current
Regional housing needs allocation. So any and I appreciate that and having gone through this housing element exercise myself. It is a
It's a challenge. So I appreciate you
I appreciate you know number one getting it done and then getting it approved by HCD
Any particular reason why this parcel was removed from the housing element?
That was an action of City Council
They were there a discussion and there this side and the development of this side did come up at that house at that City Council
So I think it was an nod to the public controversy and surrounding it.
But at that meeting, we did highlight that SB 330 was in effect already.
And so any change would require an up zone somewhere else.
Okay, and then and so the city after moving it from the housing element took no action to.
Consider additional use or purchasing it was it was a purchase ever part of a discussion.
Um, there was two hearings in 2021 actually before the housing element where that was a topic of conversation
We presented the site itself the current owner before the pre
before this one, um
There was correspondence with them related to not being a willing seller and the city council did not take action to pursue
acquisition of the property there was any community outpouring of
of uh willingness to assist in a purchase or was there
Donor who's willing to purchase any any
understanding of the community's
willingness to participate in a land purchase
Nothing specific as at those hearings at all five of those hearings. They were Brown act
Meetings and so members of the community some of the same ones here today were there in participating and in each of those meetings
Okay. Thank you. And then with regard to the what is it 24 affordable units?
The current application is 120 units
24 which is 20 percent would be affordable our inclusionary housing requires 15
But because this was a previous housing element site
The the percentage is required to be higher is 20
Okay, and what are the levels within the 24 moderate low very low. No those of
20% low income so
24 low income correct. Okay, that's all I have for now madam chair. Thank you. Thank you vice chair heart
Thanks. Um, I just want to start by saying, you know, I've been involved in park creation for
35 years and
parks are created out of a process of having a
Yeah, I mean not most land that becomes a park is privately owned and then what happens is the community
gathers, and there is a, sort of like a snowball effect,
which is I think what we're witnessing here,
of people realizing what's so important for their community
and gathering petitions and growing support
and dealing with potentially zoning that provides
an obstacle to the creation of a park.
I mean, parks don't just happen
because a few people wanted or it's pre-zoned.
They happened because of a movement.
And there's so many books and so much about it, you know?
And that's what we're seeing here in my mind.
And there's so many reasons why the community
has risen up the way they have,
starting with the lack of parkland.
I mean, I really am so appreciative
of the creation of the Veterans Park,
But for someone attempting to walk,
should they be able to even make it across the highway?
And I'm not sure because I don't live there,
but it seems like a lot of obstacles.
But based on just my quick mapping it out,
it's an hour and 40 minute walk.
So that's not happening.
So basically in this community,
there is no parkland that's available.
Children are playing in the streets.
and there's a serious deficit in this area.
But even more than that, I think that there's a lack
of recognition of the impacts of sea level rise.
So as we heard from Surf Rider, the potential loss
of the South Carlsbad State Park campground, day use,
the fact that the road is already,
there's a lot of armoring going on
that's creating even more beach loss.
This community has got a serious issue
with what will ultimately result in the loss of park land,
the loss of camping.
And so when you have this last little sliver of remaining
open space, which seems to be really the last little sliver,
not just for this area, but up and down the coast.
I mean, there's areas that are covered by lagoons,
and there's maybe little trails,
but in terms of real coastal part potential,
it just doesn't exist for miles and miles and miles
around this area.
So I think it's easy to pick at the details
of where things stand, but my understanding is currently,
at least based on staff report,
that planning area F is currently designated
non-residential reserve,
and that we're in the process of determining
whether that would then be, whether we will then support
ultimately a rezoning and redesignation of the area
to provide for this very dense development.
I will say in the staff report,
it indicates 18 affordable units,
and then I hear 24 affordable units.
But putting that aside, my understanding of the cost
of the adjacent development by the same developer
of a three bedroom moderate unit is approximately $7,500 a month.
So even at affordable, I mean, I find it very hard to believe that this is gonna be
the kind of workforce or affordable housing, rental housing that is gonna make
a difference, but if this is developed, one thing that the public has said, and
I couldn't agree with more, once this is developed, you will never get it back.
And this community will suffer from all of the impacts of sea level rise and
loss of everything I've just described, but they will not have this area as an
area for adaptation. So personally you can pick apart the details of the master
plan, the general plan, etc. But I think you have to really look at what is going
to be the impact of this housing development in this area and the loss of
this area permanently. Thank you Vice Chair Hart. Please no
Thank you.
Okay.
We have a few questions.
The first one, I want to thank staff for working with the city in eliminating one of the areas,
the bird, the construction standards associated with protecting birds.
I'm glad you were able to reach agreement on that.
The second thing that I was interested in is there was an immediate lot that you indicated
in slide 34 that is to the south of that.
And that, as I understand it, is going through a development process right now.
Can you comment more about that?
Because there seems to be, we're talking about the same space.
There's a lot right next door that looks very similar.
Can you comment more on how that is zoned and why the zoning is disparate?
Sure.
So that property is zoned visitor commercial.
It allows for a number of uses.
It's the same one we're talking about for the strawberry fields.
The current development application is a hotel and timeshare development.
I think approximately 200 hotel rooms and 40 timeshare units.
That is working through the process.
We have received questions and inquiries from both members of the public and state parks
on acquiring development application and status of that, but there's something currently moving
through. We think just given the public comments as well as the current proposal, there's a
chance that that project will be appealed to this commission before anything is authorized.
And I have one more question. It seems that you also have a disagreement on the initial
staff recommendation was to delay prescribing or dictating the low-cost visitor serving
amenity needs for the immediate area. And in their amendment suggested that the delay
that was initially proposed so that you could come up with a plan, I actually support that.
you have the ability as a city to manage how you offer and make whole, you know,
whatever you, whatever is created or is expected to be created that you
reach that standard of the 25% low cost visitor serving.
But I would support that that you continue to have the flexibility and
that you not have to resolve, resolve that in this action since it seems like
continuing to look at that. Can you comment on that? Why it is your
understanding that you're in a better position to continue to work on that
element of this process? Yes so we think there's a lot of things and the staff
alluded to this that make Carl's Bad different in our visitor accommodation
and our visitor serving uses. We have a theme park that has hotels around it and
adjacent to it and we get a lot of seasonal visitors. We are supportive of
recommending the delay to our City Council because we think that gives us
the time to come up with a program that is specifically applicable to the needs
of Carlsbad residents visitors and businesses and we just haven't had time
to do that on a focused level because there's so many other things in this
plan. So that's why we're recommending in our letters, recommending returning to
the original language proposed by staff, which is putting that as a required
component of our implementation program.
Yeah.
And I would be supportive of that.
I think you are in the best position and given that you have, uh, an excellent
track record of making affordable, low cost visitor serving amenities available.
Um, if you're to be believed, uh, now let me get to the housing component.
Yesterday we.
I apologize. Is that better? With regard to the housing component, I don't
know yesterday we received a presentation that updated the commission's recent work
on supporting housing on the coastline. And I was struck by the number, it was approximately
2700 units total and of which 645 were of these social, social character or affordable.
I'm very supportive of your housing component, and to be clear the median income at 70% is
about $77,000 so the resident would be eligible with a total family income of about $75,000
$7,000. Can you confirm that as your understanding? Because I don't want to have any of our commissioners
get the misimpression that the affordable units are going to be $7,000 a month in rent.
Yeah, the affordable units will not be $7,000 a month in rent. Your numbers sound approximately
correct. The condition if the project is approved will be required to be 70% of area median income.
So there's a complicated calculation on number of persons per household and what those rents
can be, but they are significantly below the market rate units and that will be deed restricted
and a requirement on the applicant.
And to that point, I think the other important characteristic here is that there are three
and four-bedroom family homes, which means that instead of individuals or seniors, we're
actually welcoming families to Carlsbad.
to join the other families in plain on the street,
but plain on the coast.
And I think that's something very important that is missed.
This commission is responsible
for serving the entire state of California
and having a planning process that supports,
at least from my vantage point,
a lot of activity on the coastline,
including living along the coastline.
And so, this is an important element of this proposal
that I don't want to set aside.
It is critical that we acknowledge
that many of us cannot afford to live on the coast.
We don't live on the coast for that reason.
And this is part of those affirmative steps
to bring low-income families.
In this case, let's be clear.
This is like a teacher can afford to live there
with her kids and family.
A fireman can afford to live there.
This is the kind of, I think, community
that Carlsbad is known for
because their inclusionary housing program
is known throughout this county
for not having these little cuts or little set of sides
where you quote unquote marginalize the inclusionary housing components, you have it integrated
into each neighborhood that you're in and it's I think remarkable that you are considering
integrating and in the coastal zone affordable housing.
So that is an important value that at least from my life experience I appreciate very
much in this project and find valuable.
So to recap, I support the, well, you reached agreement on almost everything except four
items with, with our staff and that's not an easy task by the way our staff are committed
to California State Law, the California State Law as they experience it and interpret it.
And so that you only have disagreement of 94 elements or a hundred and some elements
on four, that's really good.
just saw that they decided to work with you on the elements associated with
protecting bird flight. I hope while this meeting goes on that we can reach
agreement on giving you flexibility on the low-cost visitor serving component.
That would bring me to support this motion even more and I appreciate the
opportunity to ask questions. I have a question for the developer. The
developer, and you know, I reported that we spoke yesterday, but you said
something to me yesterday that was very important. You are not using the
entitle, the entire space to develop this housing project. You're, you set
a bedside section of the space that is basically going to be available and ready to be given
back if Carlsbad Street moves or the ocean.
Funny to say if the ocean encroaches out of its current boundaries.
There was another component, there is already a piece of land that will remember vacant
or not develop because it has EHSHA on it.
As any responsible developer, you're already making concessions on not the maximum economic
use of your entire property, but within the law, what you're required to do for the natural
space and what you're required to do as a planning function for any future challenges
we face with sea level rise.
that correct? That is correct. We worked extensively with the city and coastal
staff to evaluate the the current land use designation and identified that the
Coastal Act issues really relate to the parcel west of Ponto Drive. This has been
indicated in earlier testimony the residential portion is currently
disturbed currently being used as a laid-down yard for the adjacent railroad
track. So west of Ponto Drive, the city's general plan designates that for tens of thousands
of square feet of commercial space. We reduced that significantly in our proposal to accommodate
the Esha. Through further negotiations, we reduced it even more significantly down to
a maximum of 4,000 square feet and incorporated principles in the suggested modifications
that in the area closest to the ocean, the prime land,
that any installations be temporary and able to be removed
to allow for sea level retreat.
So we've made pretty significant modifications
on that 3.8 acres.
Almost, I can't do the math in my head,
35% of the property or so.
Thank you, I hope you take note that increasing
By 20 homes, you are having a significant impact
on the state of California's coastline
by making that many units available on the coast.
And mind you, you're required to do it by law.
I just appreciate that you're developing
and you're willing to have that kind of development component
where families can move in and be part of this community.
Madam chair, I thank you for the opportunity to ask questions.
Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Kelly.
Thank you, Chairman.
So a couple clarifying points.
It's my understanding we don't have a housing project
application in front of us.
There is a project that may move forward through the city's
process should this change occur today.
and this is what is currently being discussed theoretically,
but that because we don't have a housing project
in front of us today, it may change
as it goes through the city's process,
just like all projects change from time to time.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
So in terms of getting into the specifics
of number of units and affordability of the units
and location of the units, none of that is before us
and none of that is set in stone
and none of it is guaranteed.
Is that correct?
I think it would be, the affordability would be guaranteed
because there's a city,
the city has an inclusionary housing ordinance,
but that can also, that's not what's in front of us.
Is that accurate?
To be clear, the number of affordable units
is not memorialized anywhere through this action,
but the restrictions on development
for the west side of Ponto Drive
are included as a suggested mod,
and so any property moving forward
would have that same restriction for development
on the west side of Ponto Drive.
and the restriction being that it would be
for a residential use.
No, we're saying it's the west.
So it's not the residential side.
The west side of Ponto Drive still does have restrictions
and that's part of this action.
But the specifics of the residential project
to your point are not part of the action
in front of you today.
Thank you.
That's just helpful to clarify.
I have a couple questions.
We talked about slide 34 that city staff presented.
I was wondering if you could bring that up
and just have a question about the other land use
designations and zoning on south of the Ponto area
that we've been talking about.
There was a parcel that I saw designated as OS.
Is OS open space on the southernmost part of that slide?
Yes, OS is open space.
And sorry, go ahead.
I was going to say that property is in ownership
of a nonprofit organization.
Could you have any idea what that nonprofit organization
plans to do with that open space?
Not aware of any specific plans.
I mean, they have trails and other things
they maintain throughout the lagoon and foundation.
But the development I spoke to is
on the Kam Seng property, which is that 14 acres that's
adjacent to it.
and can you describe that development?
Yeah, it's a hotel development approximately 200 units
and 40 town home timeshare developments.
Currently because of the habitat and fire restrictions,
if moving forward would be required to deed restrict
a portion of its property as habitat.
Currently none of it we count as open space
because it is not designated.
And I can double check here.
So of the 14 acres, approximately five and a half acres of that would be dedicated
to open space if the development moves forward.
And would it have public access?
There would be a public access trail around it.
There's an amount of public parking that's included in the current development
application, but it's they would not have access to all of it because there is
ESHA and fire buffer is part of it as well.
And then the open space that you mentioned that's owned by the southernmost parcel
that's owned by the nonprofit, is that accessible to the public?
That individual property I could not speak to.
There are some trails around the lagoon area.
I don't know if anyone wants to.
Has there ever been discussion about the desire
to turn that into a park?
Not to my knowledge, although the larger property,
we have had at least some inquiry feelers from state parks
about the status of the project and wanting
to know what's happening in this development area.
And then correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a discussion
and kind of a disagreement, for lack of a better term,
about the timing of when the visitor,
the low cost visitor accommodations would be,
would move forward.
So you want to postpone that requirement
and to put that into your implementation plan
that's gonna come later?
Correct, so the staff's proposed modifications
would include the policies and objective requirements
for the low cost visitor accommodation,
including creation of a mitigation program.
The original language and what we're recommending
is a policy that would require us to develop a program
as part of our implementation and return with that
as a separate application later.
And just because you were talking about
at the Sam King property and that hotel development,
would that move forward through your process
before or after the implementation plan cements what the low cost accommodations would require?
That property would potentially move forward.
I mean, they're getting closer to having a final environmental document.
We have advised them of the Coastal Commission's position on low cost visitor accommodation
and what is in our current plan as well as advise them that that is a property in an
area that is appealable to the Coastal Commission for final decision.
does their plan currently have low-cost visitor-serving accommodations as a part of the proposal?
Their plan does not.
Okay.
So, I think I understand what might be happening here.
I think for us having low-cost visitor-serving accommodations, I understand Carlsbad has
done a great job of creating lots of hotel rooms, and so you are not similarly situated
to maybe some of your neighboring communities that really have kind of done whatever they
can to not create those visitor serving accommodations in and near the coast, but that said as we
see continued high end development of visitor serving accommodations, having the low cost
accommodations either on site built into the project or a mitigation fund that allows for
it to take place somewhere within the community is a priority for many of us on the commission.
And so I think I definitely want to underscore that to, you know, adopt this plan or to move
forward at this time and to kind of kick the can down the road about what the low cost
visitor serving accommodations requirements would be and knowing there's a hotel development
literally like right next to where we've been talking about this whole time that may not
have low cost as a part of it because it's going to move through the process before the
implementation plan I have a little bit of heartache around that so out of
curiosity there were some comments that were made early on about I'll use the
language they used can you comment about the term exporting the low-cost
accommodations to other cities is that something that is being discussed that's
something is nothing that's been specifically discussed and coming up in
our comment I mean the reason our original plan didn't include the low-cost
accommodation is some of the feedback from our stakeholders and ultimately to
our city council of the different situation with Carlsbad and I think the
reason that we're requesting to defer is not related to that specific development
because that motel has been on and off in process for about a decade as well
more so just there's unique circumstances and requesting more time
for outreach but to go back to your question no that's not something that
we've specifically had come up in conversations other than the speaker
today okay and then can you just describe me really quick and I know
this has been a long presentation so really quick might be difficult what is
unique about Carlsbad that you feel like you should not have the requirement of
the low-cost visitor serving accommodations as a part of this
process right now I think the the uniqueness is the volume of visitor
accommodating uses that we have as well as overnight stay rates that we have so
the percentage of our units that under today are existing low-cost as well as
the the campground and then our just large inventory of hotels in
relationships with our theme park it's been something that that we think we've
done a good job of bringing access to the coast in the coastal zone and we
wanted that to be incorporated as part of our program. Understood so I just have
to say I have had the incredible opportunity to visit Legoland many times
with my kids, and I would not classify those incredible hotels as low-cost. It
was certainly a splurge to stay there and to get to experience it, and so I
think about all of the families in and around California who would love to come
to Legoland and experience it, but cannot afford to stay there or in other
places nearby. So I do think as we try to contextualize what what all the moving
pieces are here, I want to just give deference to staff and really what
they're trying to do in terms of maintaining that percentage of low-cost
visitor service accommodations and requiring that we don't move forward
without that component kind of intact. I really struggle with the park
conversation only because it seems as though if there was this groundswell of
interest and support from the community that we've seen here I don't understand
where those conversations have left have fallen short at the City Council level
and as a City Council member myself you know we we have a lot of passionate
community members and we have these conversations but over the course of
time you you find a pathway forward that's like this community really wants
a park and this is where we're gonna designate it in our land use plan and
And because that action hasn't happened,
and it sounds as though the council has moved forward
with wanting residential to take place on this site.
As it was said previously, we can't,
there's no confirmation that if we were to say
this can't move forward, that all of a sudden
there's a creation of a park.
And so I think it's this, I find it to be challenging
just because I want to support what it is
that the council seemingly has put forward
through a decade of engaging with stakeholders.
But at the same time, you know,
this community is incredibly passionate
and wants to have those recreational opportunities.
And I would love to see that maybe in the next phase
of what happens with the housing proposal,
there is always an opportunity
to find publicly accessible space,
not every housing development has to be a gated community
with gates or not, that there potentially could be
a publicly accessible privately owned park
on the site of the residential development.
We have seen those take place many times in other cities.
I don't know necessarily if it's within the coastal zone,
we've seen that, but that could be just as an idea,
a pathway forward to create some harmony in the community
and that I'm sure the housing developer
is going to create recreational uses for their residents.
And there's nothing that precludes them
from also designating a part of that space
to be publicly accessible should they want to do that.
And that I'm sure could build some goodwill
with the community as well.
So that's just a suggestion,
but definitely not a requirement today for me.
I think those were all,
oh, the question I had for staff about the glazing
the reflective nature for the the the protection of birds in the wind in glass
so we our language was more of a mandate and their language is encouraged when
possible or we were always encouraging it always said encourage so the policy
as it was originally proposed in the staff rec said encourage and then it was
just there's been an additional can you read the edited section again it's like
we're feasible. It just says when it's a building for which it's necessary or
basically evaluate ahead of time whether it's a building where you need
bird strike prevention if it is then you encourage it. Okay can you remind us the
mods that we propose that there was disagreement on the birds has been
seemingly we've come to terms on that. What is the other two? Yes, the birds
we've come to agreement on the definition of temporary impacts and
permanent impacts are the other two and then the lower cost overnight
accommodations suggested modifications. Okay and then for in terms of the low
cost accommodations so our policy would require either building on-site or like
an in lieu fee program as a mitigation if the hotel development doesn't build low cost
on site?
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And do we have an existing percentage that's what's been adopted in other programs?
Yes, 25 percent.
Sorry, 25 percent of all rooms and the fee is, do we have a set fee structure, I assume?
We have a methodology.
It's not a set fee.
And that methodology has been reviewed and approved in other communities?
That's correct.
Okay.
And so that's what we're proposing today.
And they're asking for more time on.
If we incorporated the proposed staff's recommendation today, and there is a later desire from the
city to make a change or request a change, is that possible?
Yes, they could always request an amendment.
Okay.
I think I'm not exactly sure.
I think that would just be in terms of how we would move this forward. It would just be with staff's recommendation and then but
with the knowledge that if obviously if that's the commission but if
The city feels very strongly that they want to do something different because of their unique circumstances
They could always request the amendment in the future. Okay, great. Thank you
Thank you, Commissioner Lee
Thank You Commissioner Kelly also for those clarifying
Remarks and comments on how to logistically move this forward
I had a lot of concerns around the low-cost visitor serving and I think this is a clear pathway that can be used
Well, I just wanted to offer a couple other
Observations about this project especially in light of the nature of some of the comments that we heard today first
I think it's really important to emphasize the legal and planning
Context of the property and what our jurisdiction is in all of this because this is privately owned land
and it's been contemplated for residential development for more than 20 years with residential and the commercial land use designation certified by this body in
2016
It's not an existing public park nor has it been designated as one
I'm confused by some of the testimony referring to the site as a park or urging this or anybody to save a park. I
Certainly appreciate the community's desire to preserve open space and understand the attachment that develops when residents enjoy
Informal access to a property over the years
but I think it's important to distinguish between the public's preference for a particular use for private land and
Also what the legal entitlement to that use is
The city has not identified this property for acquisition as a public park nor has it allocated funding in order to do so
And I also wanted to address the repeated requests
To retain the property's non-residential reserve designation. I think the city has adequately
Addressed that as a temporary holding designation
It did seem like some commenters though wanted the Commission to revise or revisit its 2016 decision
But I don't believe that the record before us
establishes any compelling basis to reverse those land use
Decisions that our own body made a decade ago
More fundamentally as a couple other people mentioned
retaining this non-residential reserve designation
would not create a public park.
It would not transfer ownership to the public.
It would not establish public access rights
or provide the city with the resources
to acquire and operate the property as a park.
It would just simply leave the future development
of privately owned land unresolved.
And so it's very important to distinguish
between preserving the possibility of a park
in the abstract and also identifying
legally and financially viable pathways
to actually creating a park.
And I haven't seen any evidence today
that there is such a pathway here.
It seems like there are other parcels nearby,
whether it's the nonprofit owned designated area
or other areas that the city could put together
or other agreements that can be made with private developers
in the stages of development to create those carve outs
for the public to be able to use spaces
within private property.
But I certainly don't believe that it is appropriate
to indefinitely withhold development approvals
on private property as a substitute
for a public acquisition strategy.
I want to acknowledge the property owner's willingness
to allow the public to enjoy this land
during this extended period of planning
and entitlement process.
It sounds like it's an open property that people are using
and have been used to using.
That to me is a very meaningful accommodation
the surrounding community and one that should be recognized rather than penalized at this
point.
I've seen the scenario many, many times.
Usually property owners are heavily advised to fence off undeveloped land and to secure
it and make sure no one can go on precisely to avoid establishing these patterns of informal
use that generate opposition when development ultimately comes around.
To me, that's the wrong incentive as a matter of public policy.
We should be encouraging property owners to allow such enjoyment in the interim without
later having that work against them when their legitimate development rights come back around.
Next I want to underscore how critical this property is to meeting the city's housing
needs and its statutory housing obligations.
These housing element sites are not just theoretical.
They represent actual land use capacity that cities have to rely on to demonstrate that
that they can accommodate their share of their arena numbers.
In coastal communities especially,
where developable land is so scarce
and regulatory constraints are so significant,
every viable housing site really, really matters.
And we should be especially cautious about the decisions
that would reduce or eliminate housing capacity on land
that has already been identified for this purpose.
It wouldn't reduce the underlying housing obligation
instead, it just requires that the city identify,
as you've stated, replacement capacity elsewhere on land
that could very well have its own issues
with environmental or infrastructure
or community constraints.
So I'm putting considerable importance
on preserving the residential development
potential on this parcel.
And then in light of one of the comments that we had today,
I also want to acknowledge the broader concern that arises
in housing discussions.
I completely respect the concerns of existing residents
regarding neighborhood character and open space
and community impacts.
Sometimes we see those are euphemisms though
and I think we should be mindful of opposition
that is rooted in discomfort with change,
particularly when that change involves rental housing
or households with more modest incomes.
We have a collective responsibility to ensure
that our coastal communities remain accessible to people
across a broad range of incomes and backgrounds.
The opportunity to live near the coast
should not just be limited to people
who already have the means to do so.
And finally, I wanted to recognize
the collaborative process among the city,
the property owners, and commission staff.
It's a significant accomplishment after many, many years
of planning and technical analysis
and all of this negotiation.
Ultimately, our responsibility is to apply the Coastal Act
in a manner that is principled
and evidence-based and consistent.
And we have to protect our coastal resources
public access but we also need to respect private property rights and
recognize the critical importance of building more housing on our coastline.
Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Madam
Chair. I think my colleagues on the dais here have covered most of my questions
or clarifications but I did have one maybe bigger picture contextual
question linked to one of the other items on the agenda today which has to do
with the potential relocation of Carl's Bad Boulevard?
And how are you accommodating potential future need
for infrastructure impacts
and relocation potential of roadway
on the parcels that have not yet been developed?
It's a hard enough task when you do have a developed parcel.
So how are you bringing that concern
into planning around those?
Sorry, if I can just go to one slide because we do have a slide that kind of shows if you
can go to slide 36.
So as spoken during the director's report, this is an ongoing effort with the city and
it will be on the commission's agenda coming up, talking to a public works team.
current plans are in early 2027 to report to City Council and begin taking
the next environmental permitting and alternative design step for the
realignment of the road. This is a slide we've shown it for for a few years now
but this shows the right of way that the city already owns. One of the speakers
earlier showed that between the northbound and southbound land there is a
significant amount of property. We have referred to it as approximately 60 acres
that could be opened up for ultimate other uses, whether part of natural rehabilitation,
whether ultimately part of passive items as the sea level impacts continue to happen.
So this has also been described to as a potential linear park that could have some recreation
spaces open to the public for it.
So what this shows is the three portions of the one mile segment, the area in pink is
the area that is already owned by the city of Carlsbad.
I guess in short that there is a lot of land owned and the right of way to work with to
develop a plan and talking to our colleagues in public works there's a commitment to get
going on that analysis and environmental permitting to ultimately build that project and put ourselves
in a better position to obtain grants to implement it.
Okay, so the development plans then have that footprint with the new blue line as opposed
to existing roadway for all planning development?
Correct.
I guess all of that right of way is in between the ocean and the development.
You can see here on the bottom slide about the middle, there's some clear area that's
planning area F. Immediately the south is the Kamsang property we've discussed.
Okay, thank you.
And then I wanted to go back to a different issue, the 12-month temporary impact versus
permanent impacts.
Could you clarify for me, again, how we landed on 12 months as being viable?
It's been established through previous Commission actions on a regular basis, 12 months is the
general consideration for temporary impacts.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's it.
Thanks.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Wilson.
All right. You literally stole my fire. Just kidding. What I mean to say is on my list
of things to talk about was precisely the linear park concept because what you see between
on Carlsbad Boulevard, between La Costa or La Costa, whatever you want, and Turnarounds,
which is the airport road, you have a three-mile section that Caltrans built out back in the
day as four-lane highway before they moved all of their emphasis on that onto
Highway 5 and transferred that land over to either the county or the city. And so
now you have a four-lane road that's three miles long that's between two
sections of two-lane road. So there's a lot of space in there to work with. I
know that's not what we're talking about specifically today but I want to make
sure that that understanding or that opportunity to look at that is there
because in the current context if you had a two-lane road there you would not
build another two-lane road adjacent to it with space in between. You just
wouldn't do this. It wouldn't be something you would do and it's an
appendage or you know it's like a it's basically it's something that's left
over from a former planning time back when that was going to be the highway
the coastal highway that singularly so there's a lot of space in there to work
with is all I'm saying from from what I can see and similar to you know the
the conversation that we had for Ocean Beach for instance and so if you're
looking for a place to kids to write for kids to ride bikes you have three miles
miles of road that you could convert to linear park, trail, all kinds of stuff.
It just seems like there's so much space in there to really work with and work with state
parks to probably open up some spaces in there where you can actually have some, move a few
campsites around within that to be really creative and make something really beautiful.
So I hope that the community can do that, whether or not this project as proposed, or
It's not the project, but whether or not this land use amendment as proposed happens or
doesn't happen, I would hope that that would get there.
So that was going to be the last thing I was going to talk about, so it just prompted me
to kind of bring it up to the top.
So can we go to the property that you guys have there that's called the Sam King?
Is that what you can?
Yeah.
And so that, I'm just wondering about that for a second.
So you're saying that you have an application in right now
for that, and is that in process?
So if for instance, if we were to,
and I just put this to staff,
if we were to put an open space overlay
over that piece of property, what would happen?
I mean, is that within our discretion today?
The LUP is before you today.
It hasn't been considered by the city council.
We don't really have a lot of facts developed around that.
So theoretically, it is within your authority.
But you would need the facts and the evidence
to back up that change.
OK, you may have to make findings.
OK, findings like there's a need for open space and parks
and access for the community of for this section of the coast
for not just for the community, but for the state writ large.
The challenge, again, being that it's privately held property.
Just designated it open space does not turn into a park, but it still could be zoned visitor commercial and be open space I
Believe it is zoned visitor commercial, right? I'm saying it could be both of those things
visitor commercial
Yeah, it depends on the the local government. That's why I'm looking to the city in terms of what types of different overlays you could
designated property
I guess what I'm asking that question, is it too late because there's already an application in?
My understanding is there is not an application in yet.
Okay.
Through the chair, if I could clarify, there is an application that's been deemed complete
for some time.
It's been modified, so that's one of the reasons it's been in process for a while.
It is proposing to deed restrict a significant amount of open space because that property
is directly adjacent to the lagoon, so there is habitat and Esha, as well as required fire
buffers that cannot overlap with that. So it is pulling back from the lagoon at
least as the proposed project. That's not something we've been discussed as
switching to open space with our City Council but if the project is approved
that would count into our open space inventory. We can certainly discuss it as
I mentioned before that's also a project that is in an appeal zone and could be
appealed to this body.
OK.
So I'm just wondering, in terms of it
could be appealed to this body, but still, unless there's
an open space overlay, you're saying
there is an open space overlay de facto because of the ESHA
issues that are there, right?
Is that what you're saying?
Correct.
There is ESHA on the site, and so there
will be required buffering from that ESHA.
And if the project moves forward,
it would result in a deed restricted open space.
But there's not in our planning documents today, generally speaking, unless there is
some sort of deed restriction or nonprofit or government ownership, we did not put open
space restrictions outlined on private property.
Okay.
But you could.
I mean, you have that authority.
Is that just a policy or you're saying you just can't...
We'd have to consult with our city attorney before we had a formal response.
but it's been a long-standing policy
of most local governments.
I mean, because it is a fairly significant contiguous
piece of property, 14 acres or so,
without a road going through the middle of it.
It seems like, I mean, from a park perspective
or from an open space perspective,
it's just a much more juicy piece of property.
And you guys really, and I guess I'm kind of wondering
why that property wasn't considered more valuable
For this for for the sort of park concept versus the one that has the road going through the middle of it. I
Think from speaking for the direction we have from City Council
We don't set policy but neither property has been designated for a park both properties. We consider just vacant land
Okay, maybe I'm asking the wrong person because you're not a park advocate. So, okay, I get this now
All right. So so I guess I'm kind of wondering can you
Can you imagine why or do you have history or understanding and maybe I'll just they'll be there'll be heads nodding and shaking in
Terms of the their the interpretation of what you're saying, but why do you think that that is the case?
From what you've seen in the community. I
Can't speak to the specifics
I mean the there's been more recent activity on the property called planning area F
when state parks reach out to us a couple years ago just to reach out and kind of
Understand what was going on in proposed development. They asked questions about both properties
We don't know if they've talked to either the owners of either property
I will say we did get a letter from the previous owner of planning area F
Specifically highlighting that that air property was not for sale
Okay state parks
We have you been talking to state parks. What can we can you give me some understand?
I'm gonna go to staff
Can you give me some understanding why state parks is playing in the world of these properties
and what their expectations or what they imagined they wanted to leverage from those discussions?
So there are a couple things.
They are looking at long-range planning and opportunities to purchase land in the future
because they have 220 campsites that are already hazardous.
And so they're starting to look at where they can move to, including the right-of-way and
portions of this parcel, obviously something has to be for sale, but they have participated
in this item to say that they are in support of the way that we've done it, which is to
leave the western side of planning area F open in case they want to purchase it in the
future or in case they're able to purchase it in the future if it becomes for sale.
And I understand it sounds like they're doing that for planning area G2, but I haven't had
any conversations with State Parks about planning area G.
is the use that they have right now, which is camping and that they have on
their property, would that be something that would be considered open space even
though it's got some structures on it and those sorts of things? Would that be
considered an open space use? Carl's Bad Zoning would allow camping in open space,
yes. Okay, alright, which would also be a commercial visitor open space use. So if
But there was an open space overlay over the property that I was just referring to.
Camping would be a viable use or would be an allowable use under that designation.
It would with the acknowledgement of the habitat on the site.
So you need to reconcile those two, but yeah, where there isn't sensitive habitat, it would
be possible.
Okay.
It seems like there's a need for some flexibility in planning in this whole region, in this
whole space.
More than that, there needs to be real energy into it, and I see that one thing that has
sparked some of that energy is the fact that that road is going away, and we've been pushing
real hard about some options in that regard, and so I'm hoping that that triggers those
real interesting and hopefully fun conversations about what can be the future of three miles
of coastline.
just one piece of property that we that we're kind of like swirling around it's
still it's like three miles a coast so I don't know if I have a whole lot more
about this that I can get into because I almost feel like there needs to be there
just needs to be more discussion on how these pieces fit together I really am
very surprised, though, about the lack of — I didn't see any letters, and maybe I
just missed it — from housing advocates who have been just telling us over and
over and over that we, you know, we don't do enough about housing and then we
don't prioritize it. And this would be the moment you would imagine that we
we would be hearing from them about the housing crisis and our needs to balance these things.
And I actually lean very heavily in that realm, so just so we're clear, it's just interesting
to me.
Okay, that's all I have for now.
I appreciate the time.
And I really appreciate the community coming out and the passion.
I do think there is a need whether or not
we move forward with staff recommendation today or not.
I feel like there's a lot of opportunity
and needs to be a lot of energy put into that.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Escalante.
I'll keep it short since everybody's
sort of gone through most of the issues.
I do appreciate the discussion on the dais today.
And I do, you know, from all the comments.
I mean, of course, you know, we all love public parks,
but I think this particular site,
it's quite complex in its history,
especially within its legal parameters.
So I think that's, I agree with,
I lie myself with Commissioner Lee,
and I do think staff did their best
to condition this project,
to comply with the state and local housing statues
while meeting the Coastal Act standard of review.
Although I do think that it's important for the city
to really explore how to develop this expanding the park
areas in their communities and providing
this much-wanted asset there.
I just think I'm the last one to comment,
so I'll just close out because I'll
wear my hat of elderly commissioner here.
I have sat through contentious public comments
many, many, many, many meetings like this,
but I've never heard such blatant racism
come out of anybody's mouth on that mic.
So I hope that this community looks hard within
to solve some of that because that,
this is a very diverse community.
This is Southern California, San Diego County,
and that kind of ideology and that kind of perception
of our fellow Californians,
that's absolutely intolerable and unacceptable.
So anyway, that's where I'm at, thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
If I could ask for a slide 34,
I just need to better understand the question of access.
And I think one of the issues that's missing
is how we define a park.
So as 34 comes up,
there that street that runs down the middle there,
that's a bridge over the tracks,
it's Avenida Encinas, right?
Yes that is correct.
Okay and as you come down to the lower right hand side of the screen as we're looking at
it I see a large sandy swath.
That is a state beach, correct?
At the very bottom of the screen, yes.
With volleyball nets and access for community.
But getting from Escalona Court you have to cross train tracks, right?
Yes.
If you're trying to get across there.
But there's a walkway down that road, Avenida Encinas, that takes you straight down with
marked crosswalks all the way to the end point before you can walk along the roadside where
there's a bike path to get to that beach, is that correct?
I'd have to look at the specifics of it.
There are some pedestrian improvements in infrastructure.
The project, if moving forward, would be required to build some infrastructure.
I just don't have those in front of me today.
Okay, because as I'm looking at it on Google Earth,
I can see the marked paths all the way down.
And so I think the question I have is,
what is the definition of a park for the community?
Because even as I look at the large piece
that Commissioner Wilson was pointing at,
what I think is being, what I think I'm hearing
is we want like a wide open grass space, right?
Like the traditional park that you would see
within a community, but would somebody stop there
to watch the sunset versus walking 100 feet more
to watch it on the beach?
These are big questions that I personally,
as I look at those options, do I wanna see
this developed versus what's already there?
There's access at Tower 22,
which is that lower right-hand corner.
I come back to the larger questions,
and I think I'm done with 34.
Thank you so much for that.
So I want to wholly align myself
with the comments of Commissioner Lee
and just say, I know we've gone around on this issue
and at the appropriate time,
I'm happy to make the motion to move staff recommendation,
but I do appreciate community showing up today
and expressing their views and concerns.
I personally feel we're in a moment where we need housing.
I know it's not what we're opining on today.
24 units isn't quite enough for me, that may come back,
and this is just me making comments.
I would like to see more.
I'm just gonna be blunt there.
As that comes back, the school's seeing a 6.8% reduction
in student population, and that matters too
as we pay per pupil in this state.
So I just wanna point that out in terms of impact
of the rest of the kids in the community.
As we're talking about three and four bedroom units,
that is appropriate.
That is what we need in terms of producing housing
the people who make communities like this incredible places to live and keeping the
fabric diverse in a way that strengthens our understanding of cultures and community.
And so looking at all these different pieces and what's in front of us access to the beach
which I consider a park where I come from the ability to run around play on a beach
is something my kids for us it's an hour away and the idea that 200 extra feet is too far
It's a little it's a little bit much for me. And so again, at the appropriate time, Madam Chair, after final comments, I'm happy to make the motion to see if we have enough folks supporting staff recommendation. Thank you, Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you just a clarifying question just to make sure I'm I'm clear any of
reelectives here just staff well bravo to you all for moving forward with
council's direction but at the end of the day as Commissioner Kelly said this
is going to go back to the city and the council on a Tuesday could vote three to
to to do something other than whatever we do today really doesn't it matters but
the council can still change their mind and go in a different direction there
could be a groundswell and they decide hey we want to park maybe the
developers you know wants to have it named after him and he donates the land
or something super generous like that but at the end of the day it's up to the
council to decide which way they're gonna go and three votes on a Tuesday
gets you a development three votes on a Tuesday can get you a dog bark that so
anyway it's more commentary than question I guess thank you okay thank
you I appreciate there's a timeliness issue but I do have a question and then
some brief comments and feel somewhat small in the scheme of this conversation
but I want to just follow up on the bird safe design changes that have been
proposed I appreciate that we had the word encourage in there already but the
way I'm reading this it says that we would now only encourage that in those
buildings where it's been determined that bird safe design is most
appropriate whereas before I read it as we would encourage it generally so I'm
I would love to hear from staff on why we're comfortable with what seems to be
an additional limitation on our encouragement of bird safe design thank
you I think you're right that the city's revised language does narrow the
review process a little bit but we felt like in general the original language
was to encourage our ecologist was happy with that and the idea of evaluating
the locations and types of buildings where it's appropriate does not seem
like a bad idea so we thought it was it was close enough. Okay I appreciate that
and I realize again in the scheme of things it's a somewhat limited or small
point. But to me, encourage is already quite squishy. And we've made it squishier. So frankly,
I don't support the change. It doesn't seem to rise to the level of conversation. But
I had to put that out there. I appreciate you trying to find some middle ground. And
I appreciate our staff coming to the table on that as well.
I'm clearly on the losing side of this discussion today. And I really appreciate the thoughtful
comments of my colleagues, but I do think it's important for me to go on record with
where I stand on this issue. I fully agree with the comments made by Vice Chair Hart
and I associate myself with them. It was really moving to see, as she said, the snowball of
advocacy for recreational space in this community. From a Coastal Act perspective in particular
though, preserving that recreational opportunity, that capacity for recreational space, that
is an important consideration for us as a body.
So it, to me, is beyond the number of comments we received.
It's an obligation for us vis-a-vis the Coastal Act,
as is considering the sea level rise implications, which,
to me, I think we significantly under-emphasized
in our analysis.
And the adaptation capacity, or lack thereof
with this potential change, is very concerning to me,
particularly in light of the many conversations
we've had just in this hearing alone, but in past hearings as well, in this El Nino
year in particular, I mean, we've spent hours discussing the need to plan for sea level
rise and to think about adaptation before we make these decisions, and I'm just a bit
concerned that we are too easily setting those considerations aside here.
If we don't move forward with the zoning change today, my colleagues are absolutely right.
There is no guarantee that this would become a park if we don't make this change.
But I don't think that's the whole story.
The reality is if we do approve this change, of course while the council can change direction,
we are ensuring that a park or recreational space is made significantly more difficult.
It's clear to me that the monetary value of this parcel is going to skyrocket with the
zoning change.
It just will.
That means that whatever chance there may have been and understanding it's not on the
market yet, but any chance that there may have been for recreational uses before whether
it's a purchase by the city or a purchase by a group of interested community members,
it's been made meaningfully more difficult. Commissioner Kelly clarified this point very
well and I appreciate it. I'm concerned that we are pinning an awful lot of our support
on this change on the promise of affordable housing development with great respect both
to the developer and to my colleagues, it's an illusory promise at best. And it really
is not relevant, nor is it before us today. I also want to say as a city council member
in a town that has a profound housing crisis, a coastal community, I'm acutely aware of
the need, the moral urgency that I feel to develop affordable housing. And like Commissioner
Wilson, I almost always come down on the side of housing development. But here, in this
case, I think our obligation under the Coastal Act to preserve recreational opportunities,
along with our obligation to carefully consider sea level rise risks and implications are
simply too important to ignore. And with all that said, I, it is clear I'm on the losing
side of this conversation, but I do appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective and
I believe commissioner Lopez you were interested in making a motion or the emotions. Yeah. So just for clarity. I'm going to look to Council. I see the motions and resolutions on page. I think it's 10 of this item. That's correct. And there's three in a row that have to be completed in order to exact staff's recommendation of that. There's four other four. Okay.
There's four other four okay, all right
So I'll start with the first one which would be I move that the Commission certified the land use plan amendment for the city of
Carlsbad is submitted. I recommend a no vote. So I'm rejecting that request. Is that correct? Okay second
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Lopez a second by Commissioner Kelly. They're asking for a no vote
May we have a roll call, please? Yes, Commissioner Escalante
No, that's Galante. No commissioner heart. No heart. No Commissioner Jackson
No Jackson. No Commissioner Kelly. No Kelly. No Commissioner Lee
No, we know Commissioner Lopez. No Lopez. No, Commissioner Kalmyk. No
Kalmyk. No Commissioner Smith. No Smith. No Commissioner presciado. No
Merciato no commissioner Wilson. No Wilson. No chair Harmon. No Harmon. No, the vote is unanimous
All right
So the second one here is that I would move the Commission certify the land use plan amendment of the city of Carlsbad
submitted if modified pursuant to staff recommendation and I'm asking for a yes
Second
Thank you motion by Commissioner Lopez the second by Commissioner Kelly. They're asking for a yes vote. Maybe we have a roll call, please
Commissioner Hart. No. Hart. No.
Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson. Yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Lee. Yes. Commissioner Lopez. Yes.
Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Kalmyk. Yes. Kalmyk. Yes. Commissioner Smith.
No. Smith. No. Commissioner Presiado. Yes.
Presiado. Yes. Commissioner Wilson. No.
Wilson. No. Commissioner Escalante. Yes.
Escalante yes, give me a second. The vote is seven yes three no. I'm sorry.
Chair Harmon. No. Chair Harmon no. The vote is seven yes four no. So then I would move
that the Commission reject the implementation program amendment for the
City of Carlsbad as submitted. I'm recommending a yes vote. Second. Thank
you. Motion by Commissioner Lopez a second by Commissioner Kelly asking for a
yes vote. Chris Teoh. Commissioner Jackson. Jackson yes Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly yes
Commissioner Lee. Yes. Lee yes Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez yes Commissioner Calmick. Yes.
Calmick yes Commissioner Smith. Yes. Smith yes Commissioner Presiado. Presiado yes Commissioner
Wilson yes this is a yes to reject right got it Wilson yes commissioner
Escalante yes that's Escalante yes Commissioner Hart I'm I'm sorry but what
I'm seeing is that this motion is to certify the LUP so a yes vote would be a
vote to certify we're on the IP now I thought we're on number motion three
Rejection of the IP in that case. Yes. Thank you counsel
Heart yes chair Harmon. Yes
Harmon yes the vote is unanimous
All right
So then lastly I would move that the Commission certified the implementation program amendment for the city of Carlsbad if it is modified
Pursuing to the staff recommendation asking for a yes vote second
Thank you motion by Commissioner Lopez second by Commissioner Kelly they're asking for a yes vote
Commissioner Kelly
Yes, Kelly. Yes, Commissioner Lee. Yes Lee. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Yes, Lopez. Yes, Commissioner Kalmick
Yes, Kalmick. Yes, Commissioner Smith. No
Smith. No, Commissioner. Preciado
Yes, Preciado. Yes, Commissioner Wilson
Yes, no, no, sorry. No
Wilson no Commissioner Escalante
Yes
Escalante yes Commissioner Hart. No Hart. No Commissioner Jackson. I
Jackson yes chair Harmon. No
Harmon no, the vote is seven. Yes for no. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. Let's take
Seven minute break. We'll be back at four. Thank you
Okay. Thank you everyone
We will return to our calendar and I believe we are down at item 9a
Mr. Schwing. Yes, that's actually before you get started. Mr. Schwing apologies. I'm going to turn to our deputy AG for a report out
Yes
The Commission met in closed session yesterday and the Commission received litigation information and advice and took action on one matter
The city of Fort Bragg versus Mendocino Railway
That's all short and sweet. Thank you. Mr. Schwing to you
Great, thank you. So item 9a is a commission appeal of a City of Del Mar permit approving the replacement of an existing
three-foot-tall chain link fence with a five-foot-tall transparent glass fence and gate on a portion of an
NCTD owned lot currently leased to the adjacent residential property owner
The appellant's contend that the approved project is inconsistent with the public access
recreation and coastal hazard protection policies of the Delmar certified local coastal programs specifically
The appellants contend that the new fencing approved within the North County
transit district right-of-way
To be used as private recreation space
For the adjacent residents could potentially interfere with the planning and construction of a formal bluff top trail that is required
mitigation for sand eggs Delmar bluffs five
legalization project. The Coastal Act and the City's LCP have numerous policies that prioritize public use of
suitable lands for public access and the project raises a substantial issue as to consistency with these policies.
The project also raises a substantial issue concerning coastal hazards.
The NCTD parcel is located within a highly dynamic bluff system that experiences significant erosion slope instability in landslides.
The new fencing approved by the city may compromise drainage and stabilization options
for protection of the railroad and overall efforts to ensure safe siting and maintenance of the trail.
So finally the city
incorrectly determined that the project site is not located between the First Public Road and the sea.
The site is located between the First Public Road and the sea and due to this error the city
did not evaluate whether the development could interfere with historic public access.
within the NCTD right of way
So staff recommends the Commission determine the project raises a substantial issue regarding conformance with the certified LCP and
The chapter 3 public access policies of the Coastal Act. So unless there are three or more commissioners
Who wish to hold a hearing on that question substantial issue will be found and we will do de novo review at a later date
Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Are there any expertise?
Are there any public comments none great? Thank you
Do three or more commissioners wish to have a hearing on substantial issue?
Okay, substantial issue has been found and the de novo hearing will follow at a future date. Thank you
Thank you. I think mr. Hudson. It's to you for the DDR for the south central coast district, please
Thank you. It does bring us to item 11. This is the deputy directors report for the south central coast district this month
it includes one permit waiver and one emergency permit waiver. I would note
that the permit waiver being reported today is for a state parks project to
repair damaged piles and supports for the Malibu Pier as part of their
preparation for this year's El Nino storm season. In addition, the permit
waiver being reported today, regular waiver, is by the, I'm sorry,
emergency waiver, is by the Los Angeles Department of Beaches and Harbors for
work during two separate events in August and September to open a temporary
channel through the beach berm located between the Zuma Beach Lagoon and the
ocean and that was necessary to relieve water pressure and allow water to drain
from the lagoon to abate active flooding of the Arizona crossing that served as
the entranceway to the public parking lot and the beach and staff is not aware
of any opposition to the other items being reported today and we're asking
Whether three or more commissioners object to any of the items in the deputy director's report. I am available for questions
Thank you very much any expertise
Any public comments none? Okay. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy director's report
Seeing no objections the Commission concurs
Item 14, please. Thank you. And item 14 is the deputy director's report for the South Coast District
Which will be will be presented this month by district manager Shannon one
Thank you Steve. Item 14 is a deputy director's report for the South Coast
District which includes four permit waivers, one immaterial CDP amendment, and
two emergency permits. Regarding the emergency permits, the first one was
issued to the City of Long Beach to replace a 12 foot long vehicle barrier
and bridge abutment and a 12 foot long railing with those of the same size in
the same location, both of which were damaged by two consecutive vehicle
collisions on Studebaker Road Bridge. The immediate work was necessary to
maintain vehicle safety and prevent debris from falling into the channel
below. The second emergency permit was issued to the City of Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power for removal of sediment and vegetation from
the Santa Ynez Reservoir debris basin and also from the adjacent streambed in
the Santa Ynez Canyon Creek. The immediate work was necessary because the
debris basin is at capacity and storm events could cause debris to breach the
basin and fall into the reservoir which could damage the reservoir cover and or
contaminate the drinking water within the reservoir. Regarding all
other items on the Deputy Director's report, staff is not aware of any
opposition to any of the items being reported today and we are asking whether
three or more commissioners object to any of the items for which this action
is needed today on the Deputy Director's report and staff is available for
questions. Thank you Ms. Munn. Any expertise? Any public comments? Only
Carolyn Groves, she's available for questions.
Thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objection, the commission concurs.
Item 15A, please.
Thank you.
And item 15A will be presented by Yi Ming Lo.
And this, I would note, is Yi Ming's first presentation.
And Yi Ming is a coastal program analyst in our South Coast
District.
We do have a PowerPoint.
If we could pull that up, please.
And Yi Ming, please, take it away.
All right, thanks, Steve.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Item 15A is the substantial issue hearing of an appeal
for a local CDP approved by the city of Los Angeles
for the demolition of two single-family residents
and the construction of a new mixed-use structure
with 20 apartment units and restaurant uses
on the ground floor.
The applicant is three on the tree, LLC,
and the appellants are Richard Garvey
and Citizens Preserving Venice,
represented by Robin Brutusil.
As shown on this aerial photograph of the site,
the project is located approximately 0.2 miles
five blocks inland of the nearest public beach along Main Street, which is a densely developed
commercial corridor with a mix of both commercial and residential development in the single
permit jurisdiction area of Venice in the city of Los Angeles.
Next slide, please.
The subject site consists of three contiguous lots that total about 9,090 square feet in
size as outlined in Navy and our designated neighborhood commercial under the certified
Venice LUP.
The site is currently developed with two one-story single-family residences outlined in black
on the slide, built in 1921 in 1952, and one vacant lot used for parking for the adjacent
residences.
Surrounding uses include a mix of one-, two-, and three-story residential, commercial, and
mixed-use buildings.
Next slide, please.
As shown on this slide, this is the site plan for the city-approved project.
The city-approved project includes demolition of the two existing residences.
Next slide, please.
construction of a new 26,889 square foot four-story mixed-use building with 20
residential units of which four are reserved for very low-income households,
3,676 square feet of restaurant uses, 656 square feet of office space, a 2,883
square feet roof deck with a solar trellis, and both subterranean and ground
level parking totaling 28 spaces alongside 45 bicycle parking spaces. 24
Four of the parking spaces are subterranean and reserved for residential uses and four
parking spaces are at ground level and reserved for commercial uses.
The city utilized a variety of density bonus incentives and waivers for the approval.
The primary assertion by the Appellants is that the project's mass, scale and bulk would
not be visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and is inconsistent with neighborhood
community character.
The Appellants also assert that with only 28 parking spaces, the city approved project
would impair public access to the coast.
The Palants further assert that the city failed to harmonize the Coastal Act and State Density
Bonus Law by granting excessive incentives and waivers that undermine coastal resource
protections and exceed what is necessary to provide the below market rate units.
The Palants cite Coastal Act Section 30250A, which states that development should be located
in existing areas able to accommodate it and contend that the project could overwhelm local
utility systems.
The Palants also cite Section 30253 and contend that the city failed to show that the project's
subterranean garage incorporates measures that would ensure flood safety.
The appellants also made numerous contingents regarding the city's compliance with CEQA,
the Mellow Act, local safety codes, and unpermitted development.
However, these contingents are not related to the city's findings of conformance with
the Commission's standard of review on appeal, which is Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, with
the LEP providing guidance, and are therefore not valid grounds for appeal.
Next slide please.
The LEP requires a total of 118 parking spaces for the proposed project.
The appellants contend that the reduced parking will have negative impacts on the public's
ability to access the coast.
The City's findings addressed this through AB 2097, which prohibits any public agency
from imposing parking requirements on projects within one-half mile of a major transit stop.
Therefore, the City did not require vehicle parking spaces pursuant to the certified LUP.
State law does not eliminate the responsibility to provide adequate mitigation for any impacts
to public access that result from such reduced parking standards.
In this case, the city found that the proposed 28 parking spaces and additional measures
will serve to minimize any significant adverse impacts to public access.
While the transportation demand management measures were not included in the city's findings
or conditions of approval, they were included in the applicant's proposal, and the applicant
has subsequently confirmed that the TDM strategies included in the project as approved by the
city will be maintained for the life of the development, and the city has received this
in writing.
Thus, staff believes this contention with the proposed mitigation measures to minimize
impacts on public access does not raise a substantial issue.
Next slide, please.
The appellants assert that the massing scale and bulk
of the four-story, 46-and-a-half-foot tall building
with reduced setbacks, combined with its presence
across three lots, render it visually incompatible
with the surrounding development and with the character
of the Los Venice Canal's historic district.
An analysis of the height of the surrounding structures
based on a staff site visit, as shown here on the slide,
shows that the neighborhood is characterized primarily
by one and two-story single-family residents,
and two to three-story multi-family residents,
and commercial structures of varying sizes
and architectural styles.
Next slide, please.
As shown here in this photograph,
which shows Main Street facing north,
the project site is located to the west, sorry,
the project site is located to the east,
and a large three-story apartment building
is located to the west across the street.
The project is located facing Main Street,
a commercial corridor, and the property is zoned
for neighborhood commercial.
Based on a staff site visit
and the applicant submittals to the city,
there are seven three-story buildings
within 300 feet of the project site.
While the ground floor will have no setback from Main Street,
this is similar to other commercial developments
along Main Street.
Next slide, please.
As shown here, the height of the rooftop access structure
and the solar panel trellis feature
reaches 52 feet 10 inches,
while the parapet of the building reaches 46 feet
and six inches.
While the height of the city-approved project
is greater than all the existing multifamily residences
the neighborhood, the certified LUP does not have specific height limitations for commercial
or mixed-use structures, and the City Approved Project incorporates a combination of step-backs
on upper floors, articulation, balcony recesses, and landscaping to mitigate visual impacts,
and to further improve compatibility with nearby residential areas. Furthermore, the City Approved
Project relies on both state and LUP density bonus provisions, which specifically allows new
development to deviate from LUP standards to provide below-market rate housing. In this case,
the city's approval included such findings to justify variances. The
appellants also contend that the city failed to harmonize state density bonus
law with the Coastal Act by granting excessive incentives and waivers. However,
the city's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record which
demonstrates that the project does not degrade any coastal resources. Furthermore,
state law AB 2797 requires harmonization of the density bonus law with the Coastal
Act to ensure that the visual and scenic resources policies of the Coastal Act is
is not used as a basis for blocking density bonus projects
in the coastal zone.
In this case, the location of the city approved development
along the busy and densely developed commercial corridor
would result in a project that will still be
generally consistent with the surrounding character
of the area, while also complying with the LUP
and state density bonus provisions.
Thus, staff does not believe that this contention
raises a substantial issue.
Next slide, please.
Regarding community character,
the appellants further contend that the project
would disrupt the historical low-scale residential form
of the Las Venice Canals historic district.
However, the project site is designated
neighborhood commercial and the existing residential use
is nonconforming under the certified LUP.
Main Street has long supported commercial
and mixed use development and has historically
has been viewed by both the city and the commission
as an appropriate location for pedestrian oriented activity
and neighborhood serving uses.
The redevelopment of the site with the mixed use
of both commercial and residential development
would bring the subject site into greater consistency
with the underlying commercial land use designation
for the subject site pursuant to the certified Venice LUP.
Moreover, the approved project represents a net gain
of 18 residential units on site,
including four below market rate units,
which will provide housing
for an economically diverse population.
Thus, this contention does not raise a substantial issue.
The opponents also contend that the project
could overwhelm local utility systems,
citing recent news coverage.
However, the city founded in its environmental clearance
that the site will be adequately served
by all public utilities and services,
given that the property was previously developed
with commercial uses surrounded by urban uses,
served by existing infrastructure,
and is consistent with the general plan.
Thus, this contention does not raise a substantial issue.
Next slide, please.
The Appellant Site Section 30243A of the Coastal Act,
which states that new development shall minimize risks
to life and property in areas of flood,
and contend that the city failed to show
that the garage incorporates features
that would minimize such risk.
However, the project is located in an inland location
incorporates all appropriate waterproofing, drainage and flood protection measures required
by local building and safety codes. Thus, staff does not believe this contention raises
a substantial issue. Next slide, please. In closing, staff concurs with the findings made
by the city and believes that the city provided adequate legal support for its decision to
approve the subject project. Staff therefore recommends that the commission find no substantial
issue with regard to the contentions in which the appeal has been filed. The motion to accomplish
This can be found on page four of the staff report that concludes the staff presentation staff is available for a question. Thank you
Great. Thank you very much. Are there any expertise?
Commissioner Escalante
Thank You chair on Tuesday October 6 at around 11 a.m.
I made on zoom with the palens Robin rudestal of citizens preserving Venice and Rick Garvey
President close to the project to discuss several of the project issues
they explained that the project is located within the Las Venas Canal's historic district
and that the district contains a significant number of contributing structures. They expressed
concern about the scale, intensity of this five-story, three-lot mixed-use density bonus
projects and its impacts on the character of the historic residential neighborhood immediately
behind it. One of the main concerns was the project's proposed reliance on a very narrow
residential alley behind the project for vehicular access to the parking garage deliveries,
trash and recycling and other commercial activity.
They explained that the alley is approximately 15 feet wide,
cannot accommodate two vehicles passing each other
in many locations and currently serves the garages,
parking and entrances of residents.
Mr. Garvey lives seven houses from the project
with his front door opening directly onto the alley
and described the increased traffic
as a significant safety and quality of life concern
for the neighbors.
They pointed out that concentrating the project
commercial impacts in the alley would place them directly
into the residential neighborhood,
rather than Main Street, the commercial street.
They discuss provisions of the Venice land use plans
addressing alley access, as well as provision calling
for the buffering between commercial and residential uses.
They contended that under the circumstances of the site,
the impacts of using the alley need further review
and that the project's relationships
surrounding residential historic district
has not been adequately analyzed.
They expressed concern that all the project received substantial density bonus incentives
and concessions and substantially reduced parking in order to provide affordable units.
The city's approval did not adequately address the projects' impacts on coastal resources.
They have supported other density bonus projects and found that they adequately harmonized
it too, but not in this case.
They further raised concerns about the transportation demand management program, the state of the
did not include the TDM program as an enforceable condition of the approval and expressed concern
the Coast Commission staff appear to rely instead of volunteer rely instead on voluntary
applicant implementation or self-certification. They raised issues about the subterranean
parking and potential dewatering impacts you know noting that the site was former former
Venice Canal area which was filled in by the city and the project is located within the
beach impact zone. Lastly they stated that our appeal raised many
numerous issues and then in their view the city the city could contain
significant errors in our resolved questions. Anyway that's the summary of it. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay before we open the public hearing, Ms. Mayor, did you
want to make a comment at this time? Yes thank you Chair. There has been a
a little bit of confusion about whether some of the persons who
wish to testify participated in front of the local government.
To air the side of caution, we're
allowing everyone to testify.
But if everybody could also just say, in one sentence,
very quickly, how they exhausted at the local level,
we would really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Chris, to you.
Hello.
We have two appellants, Robin Rudisill.
We've already moved her.
And then Rick Garvey, and then after that, we have applicant Tony Russo, who should be here.
Robin Russo, if you're going to mute yourself.
I see you unmute it go ahead and speak.
Uh, there should be a slight other. Yes, we have it.
It won't allow me to turn off the video turn on the video, but.
That's okay, it's okay. You should be able to now.
All right, so I'm Robyn Rudisell for Citizens Preserving Venice.
You see the red line, that's the boundary.
The three lot project sits well within the historic district.
All the green dots are contributors.
Next slide.
This is the approximately 15 foot wide alley.
All the structures you see on both sides are not part of the project but will bear its
commercial impacts.
Next slide.
The LUP generally requires alley access but not when access cannot safely or feasibly
be provided from the alley. Our appeal specifically raised the city's failure to analyze the
alley's physical and visual impacts and impacts on the historic residential and special coastal
community character. That is a substantial issue. Next slide. The Venice neighborhood council
strongly opposes this project. Next slide. The LUP identifies commercial use intrusion into
residential areas and the need to buffer residential from commercial impacts. So why direct all these
impacts into the rear alley when Main Street, the commercial corridor, can easily accommodate them.
Next slide please. Nearly double the LUP FAR limit and rising over 50 feet within a historic
district. Next slide please. There's no transition to the adjacent one to two story neighborhood,
no buffer between residential and commercial. Please declare substantial issue and establish
a precedent for the City by applying Section M of the Density Bonus Law consistent with
the legislative intent we all fought so hard for. Thank you. And the rest of the time will
be by Rick Garvey. Thank you. No rebuttal. Next is Rick Garvey. Rick, I promoted you
to panelists to be able to accept. I see you moving in. Hi everybody. It looks like I can't
access my video, but that's fine. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners. You should
be right now. My name is Rick Garvey. All right, let's try. Hey, there I am. Good afternoon,
Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Rick Garvey. I am a neighbor. I live about
50 feet east of the property. I'm asking you to find the appeal. It raises a substantial
issue. I feel it raises many, but I hope you will allow it to proceed to de novo review.
As Robin mentioned, this project sits within the Los Venice Canal's historic district.
This is a documented historic area whose character is predominantly low-scale residential, yet
the approved project, as you've seen, is over five stories and over 50 feet high, has
a zero front setback, reduced side yards, and elimination of the step-back plane.
The question is whether the scale and massing are compatible with this historic district
that I've lived in for 30 years?
It is not.
It's also dangerous.
For more than 30 years, I've lived in the back house on the 200 Blocker Horizon, and
my front door opens directly onto Toledo Court.
This is not an abstract traffic issue for me, I live in this alley.
The project will funnel 20 apartments, 2 restaurants, office space, deliveries, trash, recycling,
and other activities through a 15-foot residential alley currently only used by neighbors.
The record needs to establish, not simply assume that this arrangement is safe and workable
because it's not.
Please look at this narrow alley behind me.
Look at the beautiful sky that will be gone if you approve this project.
In addition, there are only 28 parking spaces for this combination of uses.
Venice is one of California's most heavily visited communities.
It raises a legitimate question about coastal access and whether parking impacts have been
addressed.
They have not.
So commissioners, I'm asking you to decide.
You don't have to decide all of these issues.
Just recognize there are enough substantial issues to warrant a full review.
I appreciate your time and hope you have a great day.
Thank you.
Next is applicant Tony Russo.
He should be here.
Push the base.
There we go. Hello.
We have slides as well.
All right. Well, thank you, commissioners.
I'll try to be brief considering the time.
My name is Tony Russo with Crust Real Estate,
and I represent the applicant for this project three on the tree LLC.
I thank you and to your staff for their thorough report.
This project has been shaped by more than 10 years of community input.
We first filed a density bonus application in 2013,
and withdrew it in 2015 to respond to community feedback.
A later specific plan exception design
was actually submitted in an attempt
to locate the vehicular access off of Main Street
in lieu of the alley, but this was not supported by LADOT,
city planning, nor coastal staff.
So in 2024, we returned to this density bonus project,
which is the project before you today
in a much reduced scope and scale.
The city plan commission approved this project unanimously.
The city council denied the CEQA appealing anonymously,
and your staff recommends no substantial issue.
We're hopeful the commission will concur.
Next slide, please.
So I'll summarize this.
As proposed, the project is consistent with the certified
Venice land use plan, as staff eloquently explained.
I'll just skip over this.
Next slide.
As your staff found, the city approval
is consistent with chapter three of the Coleslaw Act.
The site is infill on a developed commercial corridor,
are already served by utilities and transit,
blocks no public ocean or coastal views,
and sits 250 feet from a major transit stop.
And it includes a mobility program
that staff really explained multiple parts,
committed for the life of the project,
that's submitted in writing both at the city
and coastal records.
Next slide please.
This project reflects where Main Street is headed.
Now this is the city's 2024 draft community plan.
Obviously the city is working on a certified LCP
with Coles Commission, so that's still in flux.
But I do wanna note that in the 2024 draft community plan,
they designated this block as neighborhood center,
allowing for four stories with a density bonus.
Which, so it's kind of like where,
what's the direction headed for this block in particular?
I think it's helpful to note that.
Additionally, this four story building is consistent
with other decisions made by this commission in Venice,
including 657, 659 Sunset, 720 Rose, 2467 Lincoln Boulevard,
among potentially more.
Although the community plan is in draft again,
and it's focused on the LCP, I really
think this is helpful to note as a direction, which
is what our project adheres to.
Next slide, please.
Finally, the project delivers real benefits.
It provides 20 new homes, four of them
affordable to very low income households for 99 years.
That's 20%.
It repays the share rear to alley and creates an active tree line main street frontage.
The project is supported by Abundant Housing LA, Westside for Everyone, CalHTF, and EMB
law which should all be included in the record.
We thank the district office for their hard work and consideration.
We respectfully request that you find no substantial issue and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
So we have some public speakers.
Peggy Lee Kennedy followed by Steve Belvolak-Aqui, sorry,
Robin Murez and George Francisco and Tammy Houseman.
I will have a question for you, Ms. Tammy Houseman.
Next is going to be Peggy.
We've already moved you over to panelists.
You should be able to speak.
OK, thank you very much, Peggy Lee Kennedy.
I'm a third generation Venice resident,
and I'm gonna tell you,
you can't compare that building development to 720 roads,
which is only for previously unhoused people,
the whole development, so that's ridiculous.
This is a for-profit organization,
and parking is a substantial issue, incredibly substantial.
The city has not mitigated all of the parking
it's removed from the al fresco and all the parking signs it's put up and the lots they've
closed overnight and all the painted curbs red I mean it's outrageous they have not
mitigated any of the parking and now you want to give them a waiver on parking that's really crazy
and as far as providing a few low extremely low income housings well we need only low
income, extremely low income housing in Venice to as a reparation for all that's been removed.
And this commission is partly responsible.
We did an audit of the waivers in 2014, March, and your only thing you did is said no more
waivers when 25 months of bogus waivers that mentioned Venice.
So and that was under the prior, whatever director Ainsworth and he got promoted.
So you know, this body is partially responsible for this community's character being so destroyed
and it's caused a lack of diversity.
So and I am part of the people that are being driven out of my own home.
So it's really important that you take these into consideration.
is substantial. Size is substantial there. Parking is substantial. The fact that
it's comparing itself to previously homeless people housing. Come on.
Next is Steve Babilacqua. Robert Murez. George Francisco. Steve, you should be
able to unmute yourself. Yep, here we go. Hi, am I starting? Here we go. My name's Steve Babilacqua. I live down the street very close to this thing. The lawyer's
comments were very misleading actually in that he made it seem as if this had been approved by the
VNC. The VNC is still unanimously like hates this thing, declined it. Also the Land Use and
Planning Committee, it's never been approved by them. That was extremely misleading. Also the
parking thing's a nightmare. Already Market Street is basically they have a center lane that
is filled with trucks for several hours every day. This is going to make it a lot worse. But
the alley is too small. No one has mentioned the horizon. The street just north of this where the
access from is a one-way street. So that's going to involve a lot of circling the block. And lastly,
there are a lot of families here. This is a street of families. There are kids. I have kids. There's
kids all up and down this block. And now you're going to put in this oversized thing with no
parking, two bars, a restaurant, and a lot of people just leaving drunk and looking for parking
and the ride shares. And it's all just, it's way too big and it's never been approved by the
neighborhood that was really really really egregious. So thank you, I really think you
should look at this more closely and thanks. Thank you, next is Robin Mears, you can go ahead
and unmute yourself. Good afternoon, you've had a long day, thank you very much Chair and
the Commissioners. This, the first home I owned in Venice was just well off of this tiny alley that
would be shared now by an additional 20 some residents
plus restaurants, I mean, it's absurd.
It's a crazy tight T shaped alley.
And there is no way, I mean, right now
people have to back up and make their way through.
And I spoke before the neighborhood council
when this first came up years ago.
It is only more egregious now than it was before.
they're manipulating these density bonuses
in a way that is completely antithetical
to what the Coastal Commission stands for.
I know that Coastal Commission initially
was all about coastal access.
This is against that.
I know that you have since adopted notions
for wanting to have low-income housing in the coastal region.
This is bogus, having four units supposedly
that in no way are, you know,
evaluated through the years by the city.
They have no, they don't check to see these things.
But, you know, four out of 20 plus restaurants and bars,
and it is completely the wrong greedy project
in the wrong, oh, and it's in the historic district,
which I just got an email yesterday from Ira Brown
who heads up the planning department.
and he specifically said that CEQA is, you know,
the aspect that looks at our historic elements
needs to be addressed to stop these developments
that are in the historic district
and are antithetical to the historic character
of our community.
Please do not allow this to go through.
Thank you very much.
George Francisco, go ahead and unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for your time. George Francisco. I'm here officially
representing L.A. County Business Federation and the Venice Chamber of Commerce. Our organizations
have long supported this project. We have long supported providing more housing in Venice
and I would like to commend your staff for not just doing an excellent job in their report but
but for also detailing with great specificity,
the reasons why this is a conforming project
and there are no substantial issues.
Personally, I'm a direct neighbor of the project.
I've lived there for 15 years.
I've been a Venice resident for 40 years.
This is warmly received by residents and business members
on Main Street, a street which is 90 feet wide
in which could very, very easily accommodate
the added commercial component.
This is the center of Venice.
The historical component of the center of Venice
has always been commercial.
Again, we applaud your staff
for their very well articulated determination
that there's no substantial issue.
I hope you all approve that.
And I'm certain that the applicant's representative will be able to answer any detailed questions
you want, but this will be warmly received by the vast majority of the community.
Thank you, George.
Tammy Hausman, we moved you over to panelists.
Yep.
Hi.
So quick question real quick.
Remember, we had a question for you.
So have you posed at the local level?
Yes.
I don't remember.
I'm sorry.
I don't at my fingertips have the email that I sent the letter to, but I did send a letter
and okay go ahead and speak okay thank you so much for your time i really appreciate
sorry that's not for you that's okay that was very fast testimony
so i'm i'm a resident of on market street um my house overlooks this site um i just don't
understand how the alley can possibly accommodate the traffic on the site. I know that the speed
limit for alleys is 15 miles an hour because I just took my California driving test. You can
barely even go five or 10 miles an hour in that alley. There's so much trash, there's garbage cans,
there are people walking dogs, there are contractors. It is so congested. I don't
understand why this project had to have so many variances. If it was an as-a-brite project,
it would be one thing. But to have multiple variances for this project calls into question
its validity. And, you know, there's a lot of noise already in Venice. While, you know,
you know, we welcome a lot of people to Venice
and especially on the weekends,
this would cause more traffic, more congestion.
And I, you know, especially that it's in this historic
district, it absolutely makes no sense
for this neighborhood at all.
So I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
That concludes our speaker.
Okay, fantastic.
Thank you very much.
With that, I will close the public hearing
and see if there are any further comments from staff.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.
Margaret Malloy just arrived a little late,
but we'll let her speak real quick, sorry.
Margaret Malloy, we're gonna promote you to panelists.
I see that you're on.
Go ahead and unmute yourself.
Go ahead and speak, please.
Hello commissioners, I support the appeal
and I ask you to follow a substantial issue.
You just heard from a person who represented themselves
as a Chamber of Commerce representative,
but failed to state that he is a tenant of property owned
by this developer applicant.
And he has presented himself to multiple city officials
as property manager for these properties.
So there should be a conflict
of interest consideration there.
I sent you a very dyslexic last minute letter
that's the last in the correspondence
for this showing that the infrastructure cannot support
this project and it hasn't been properly researched.
And certainly taxpayers and residents shouldn't be
put in liability position.
There have been multiple pipe breaks and flooding
in this immediate area.
And the infrastructure is over a hundred years old.
So we've had public officials saying, that's a problem.
That's a problem that needs to be researched and resolved
for this kind of approval because every such approval is a precedent. Mr. Francisco said
Main Street is 70 foot wide. Your your residents have testified the alley is 17 feet wide. You
can see the problem. The entire commercial and residential activity would be on that 17 foot
wide alley. You know city departments have made poor judgments in the past. You can't just leave
it to them to decide what will ultimately be passed onto taxpayers and immediate residents.
So please find substantial issue, take the time, the applicant should be required to
provide an independent engineering report on the feasibility of that alley, as well
as all of the other issues that have been raised before you. Thank you.
Thank you. We just want to make sure the last four we didn't see on zoom, but I'm just going
to say their names if they can raise your hand Jeremy McCreary Kathleen
Rosson er cats and Greta Kobar okay no hands raised okay thank you very much
with that we will close the public hearing and return to our stuff yeah
just to stress some of the comments that the appellant reference LEP policy IB7
that states that driveways and vehicular access to projects shall be provided
from alleys unless the Department of Transportation determines that is not
possible, and the city did not determine that there was a safety issue. The project is still
subject to regulatory compliance measures in the zoning, building, and fire codes implemented
by LA Department of Building and Safety, the Bureau of Engineering, and LA DOT. At the local
level, the LA municipal code requires a loading zone adjoining the alley, which provides turning
radius for trucks to pull into the subject site. But in any case, as addressed in the addendum,
concerns regarding alley width, circulation, alley safety, and emergency access are not related
to the city's findings of conformance with the of the project with chapter three with the lup
providing guidance so staff found that it was not a valid ground for appeal
and lastly one of the public commenters asserted that it wasn't approved by the planning and land
use management committee um the la city plum committee denied the local appeal and upheld the
decision at their hearing on june 23rd and more detail about how the project was processed at
the local level can be found on pages five and six of the staff report under section three
And thank you, I'll just add a few overarching observations very briefly.
So, I'd just like to recognize Ms. Rudecil's comments and agree that we must harmonize
state density bonus law and the Coastal Act.
Now, we, in this case though, believe that that is what has been done in this particular
case.
And I'd like to note that the purpose of the Density Bonus Program is to allow for increased
residential density in urban areas, which is of particular importance here as the C
of LA is working to address the current state's housing crisis. So while our
staff agrees with the appellants that the new four-story structure will be
larger and taller than many of the surrounding structures, it'll be four
stories whereas many of the surrounding structures range from one to three. In
this case we concur with the city's action as we believe that it's that the
subject site which is located along a dense commercial corridor Main Street is
an appropriate site for these exact types of projects and so in this case
where we have this exceptions have been made under the density bones program to
allow for increased height size and number of residential units we believe
that this will not result in significant impacts to coastal resources and so this
project is an example of where that harmonization is occurring with that
I'll just conclude our staff comments and note that we are available for
questions thank you okay great thank you very much with that I will return to my
colleagues comment questions motion like to make a motion I move that the
Commission determine that appeal number a-5-ven-26-0019
raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has
been filed under section 3 0 6 0 2 of the Coastal Act staff recommends a yes
vote. Second. Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner
Lee, a second by Commissioner Preciado. They're asking for a yes vote. May we have a roll
call please. Come on. Sorry. All right. Escalante? No. All right. Kelly? Yes. Preciado? Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Low pass?
Yes.
I'm thinking too hard.
Smith?
Yes.
Cal-Mick?
Aye.
Thank you.
Yes.
All right.
1-0.
7, yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
The motion carries.
Appreciate it.
Okay.
Before we adjourn for, oh, we have one more, I'm sorry, 16B.
16B.
16C.
That is correct.
One last item.
So, good afternoon commissioners.
Item 16C is an application by the City of Long Beach for the demolition of two wood float
docks, concrete access platforms and gangways, and the construction of one new concrete float
dock and landing, a new aluminum gangway with a graded deck.
Post project, the peers will be repurposed for public viewing platforms and the project
will result in a decrease of over-water coverage. Can we get the presentation for this, please?
I'll just keep going. As you will see in a minute, the slide will show that the proposed
project is located on public tightlands within LME display near the marina entrance channel
within the city of Long Beach. Slide two, please. Slide two shows the existing site
plan. The births are owned by the city of Long Beach Marine Bureau and have not been
operational since 2018 due to disrepair and safety issues.
Therefore no vessels can dock there or otherwise use them.
The birth docks are part of the city's permitted slip inventory and were previously rented
out on a month-to-month basis like the rest of the slips within Alameda space.
Slide three, please.
Slide three shows the proposed site plan.
The project also includes the following work, replacement of utility lines, curb gutter,
paving work for new piers and the gangway, minor lawn removal to install a new gangway landing,
new EV chargers, and utility pad, removal of existing gates and piers, gates to the piers,
replacement of the gate piers and guard rails, construction of a new gangway landing, and
replacement of signs to ensure that potential adverse impacts to wildlife are avoided.
Special condition one requires submittal of revised final plans indicating that no trees
These will be removed and that any railings will be comprised of bird safe material.
The city anticipates that the project will take approximately nine months to complete
commencing in March of 2027 during nesting season and concluding at the end of the year
during non-nesting season.
To ensure impacts to nesting birds are avoided, Special Condition 3 requires a biologist to
conduct breeding and nesting bird surveys during construction and if nests are discovered
within 300 feet of the project site to monitor birds and noise throughout construction activities
and to cease work if the biologist determines that the work would adversely affect breeding
or nesting.
Post-project, the city will maintain the current lease management program to the new dock.
While access to the new dock will continue to be limited to leases only, new public access
will be provided through the repurposed piers indicated on this slide in the blue arrows,
which will become observational platforms that will be available for use to the general
public for free during daylight hours.
However, signage indicating the availability of the new free public amenity is not proposed.
Special Condition 8 requires submittal of the final public access signage plan, requiring
the signs to indicate that the public may use the peers without charge during daylight
hours.
After publication of the staff report, Sierra Club submitted a letter raising issues, which
is posted in the correspondence section of this agenda item on our website.
The letter asserts that demolition of the existing docks would result in the loss of
nesting sites for Western goals and other multiple species as birds would no longer
be allowed to nest on the new docks.
As addressed in the staff report, the Commission's staff ecologist Kaylee Griffin stated that
The use of the working docks as nesting sites for shorebirds is precarious to juvenile birds
as it could result in potential conflicts between human users and wildlife.
And the adjacent trees in the area provide appropriate habitat for nesting of shorebirds.
The letter also raises concerns regarding the proposed public access signage plan and
suggests that additional signage should be required to identify the Los Alamitos Bay
Marina as an historic coastal bird rookery.
As discussed in the staff report, although staff supports the idea of new educational
signage, in this case the proposed project does not provide a clear nexus for such a
condition and therefore staff does not believe there is a legal basis for the commission
to require additional educational signage.
The letter also asserts that the new dock will not provide meaningful public access.
However, as I just described, the project will result in a new public viewing platforms,
which will be over the water and ADA compliant.
Thus, this type of access allows people of differing abilities to view the water and
what may be in the water from a vantage point that's not available on the land.
The letter also raises concerns over the length of construction activities that they will
take place during nesting season and that construction staging, that the
construction staging location has not yet been finalized. This item was
previously scheduled for September 2026 hearing and the original staff report
indicated that the project would take approximately one month to complete.
However the City clarified that construction would take approximately
nine months to complete including during nesting season. As stated,
Special Condition 3 requires breeding and nesting bird surveys during
construction, which is typical for this type of development in this location.
As described, the special condition would require a biologist to monitor birds and noise
throughout construction activities and provides the authority for that biologist to cease
construction activities if they would adversely affect breeding or nesting birds.
Slide four, please.
In closing, staff believes that the proposed project, as conditioned, will conform to both
the chapter 3 policies of the coast of luck and the city's certified LCP which
serves as guidance therefore staff recommends that the Commission approve
this item with special conditions and the motion to accomplish this
recommendation can be found on 6th of the staff report and this concludes
staff's presentation and we're available for questions okay thank you very much
person Simone yes we have two speakers and one available for questions and
And Kintrell and Anna Christensen, I have promoted you to panelists.
And then the one available for question is Steven Figueroa.
And, Kintrell, you can unmute yourself, please.
I see you're unmuted.
Go ahead.
I also, I believe there are three of us that are going to speak myself, Anna Christensen,
Christian and George Christiansen no there's no George I'm sorry just you and Anna Christiansen
are you guys all on one PowerPoint yes could we have the slides please yes he has it up
good afternoon Ann Cantrell for Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands task force and the coastal
committee. California Coastal Act Section 302-30 states marine resources shall be maintained,
enhanced, and when feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species
of special biological or economic significance." End quote. Whose side are you on? Next slide.
The City of Long Beach operates the largest public marina system in the United States.
The Alameda Bay marina alone has 1,665 boat slips distributed across 50% of the surface
of the entire bay.
According to its website, the marina completed a $105 million renovation, including replacement
of all boat slips, docks, and various aspects
of the marina's infrastructure in 2019.
We question the need for this additional dock.
Next slide.
The proposed cement dock will not
be accessible by the general public,
or available to local birders seeking
to tie up for a few hours.
Slips will be leased for 15 days maximum,
guaranteeing their use by visiting yachters,
not area residents.
Observation docks are unnecessary
as green space and walkways along the shoreline
already provide excellent views of the Bay.
And next slide, please.
And Anna Christensen will continue.
Thank you.
And before you go, Anna, we will take George as well.
We see that you said you're sharing
device. We didn't receive a speaker slip but yeah in the future put in a separate speaker
slip for him as well. But go ahead. Go ahead George you're four. Okay you can read that.
The project requires the demolition of birth one and two, two existing wooden docks at the site.
This would result in the loss of four critical nesting sites for western goals,
a species whose population is in decline. Only 20 pairs are known to annually nest
in LA County. Western Gulls are on the orange alert tipping point list as they have lost over
50% of their relatively small population in the last 50 years. They are indigenous to the west
coast of North America between Vancouver and Baja. Their limited range and nesting sites primarily on
a few coastal islands restricts population growth. Only five to ten percent nest in urban areas,
making these docks an exceptionally rare and significant coastal resource. Next slide.
Western goals began to nest on the concrete pilings after two docks were closed to boaters
and the general public in 2018 due to public safety concerns. Multiple pairs have continued
to nest here annually. Today, these docks are the only known nesting site for Western
goals in Alaminos Bay, restoring and preserving them as Esha must be the coastal commission's
top priority. Next slide. In addition to western galls, cormorants, pelicans, great blue herons,
and other members of the Alameda Bay marina rookery make daily use of the dock year-round,
hauling out or resting here after foraging in the waters of the bay and wetlands.
Next slide. The adjacent shoreline is unsafe for coastal birds, in part due to debris washed
ashore or discarded by marina visitors and occupants. Onshore, these birds are also at
risk from human, animal, and vehicle interactions. Some marina tenants resent sharing space with
coastal birds due to their noise and droppings. There have been incidents of boaters shooting birds
and marina trees have been illegally poisoned in order to eliminate nesting sites.
Okay. I'll take over now. Next slide. Alameda Bay's coastal birds have endured years of
Big Bang fireworks shows during nesting season. The nests of the western gulls on the docks
were only a thousand feet from the actual blasting point. This July was the first time
the fireworks were prohibited due to the coastal commission allowing the birds to raise their
young in peace. This project will permanently evict the very birds the coastal commission
sought to protect. Next, the dock replacement project will last nine months taking place in
part as you've heard during nesting season. The proposed special conditions requiring avian
surveys, limiting the volume of equipment during construction, and after consultation, possible
temporary stoppage of work by the project biologist. These will not protect the sea gulls, the western
goals nor ensure that other coastal boards can be safe in this area. Yacht leases and other human
activity on the new dock will mean the end of nesting and roosting at this location. Next.
There's no mitigation proposed for habitat loss because it neither the applicant or your staff
even recognizes the dock as habitat although they did so up in Santa Cruz on that dock
for the same very same species. If you look at this these sites you can see that this particular
project site is ringed by missing and and eliminated nesting sites for coastal birds.
This is cumulative loss is insurmountable. Next slide. In addition to providing valuable
and rare nesting sites for these these western gulls and habitat for other other coastal birds,
these dock offers the public a unique opportunity to view these birds up close and personal and
experience them which will lead the community to foster more respect for coastal resources.
Therefore the Sierra Club asks that the cops be preserved and that you vote no on this CDP.
I feel like we're almost being punished for the fact that we we tried to spare these ducks,
these birds from fireworks and now that they've managed to be spared now they're being sacrificed.
Thank you. Thank you. And I want to apologize that we didn't actually or we did actually have
you're signed up from 9 15 this morning it just got misordered on our end and I
want to apologize for that you just have to apologize for preferring yachters
over birds that's what we thank you Miss Christiansen. Okay any further comments
Chris? I think that was it. That's it. Great thank you Simone. Okay with that we
will close public comment and I'll return to Miss Vaughn if she has anything
further to say. Just very briefly I just want to reiterate that those strips are
to clarify that those slips will be available for lease on a month to month
basis consistent with the city's current lease program. There will be no
change in access to the births themselves but there will be a new
public viewing platform over the water, two of them, that are ADA compliant so we
believe that this project will result in an increase to public access to this
area. And just the Commission's ecologist believes that nesting on the dock will
result in conflicts between the birds and human activity and there are nesting
trees in the area that provide more appropriate habitat and special
condition three includes provisions to protect nesting birds nesting and
breeding birds during construction activities thank you very much I'll
return to the Commission comments questions a motion I move that the
Commission approve coastal development permit five dash two five dash zero six
four nine pursuant to staff recommendation and I recommend a yes
Yes, vote.
Thank you.
That's a motion by Commissioner Kelly, a second by Commissioner Kalmyk.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Okay.
Very briefly, we trailed the minutes from yesterday to today.
Move approval.
Second.
Thank you.
That was a motion by Commissioner Lee, a second by Commissioner Lopez.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the minutes are approved.
All right.
We're done for the day.
everyone. See you tomorrow.