Good morning everyone. Welcome to the Friday session of the California Coastal Commission
I'll call this meeting to order and we'll begin with a roll call, please
Good morning
Commissioner esquante present a
Commissioner friend here
Commissioner Jackson
present
Commissioner Kelly here
Commissioner Lee here
Commissioner Kalmyk here
Commissioner Smith present
Commissioner Wilson here and chair Harmon here. We have a quorum. Oh, you know also the non voting commissioners
We have commissioner Brownfield. Yeah here and commissioner Williams here almost forgot about them. We have a quorum
We'd never forget
thank you very much and also a
Very warm welcome to Commissioner friend. It's his first meeting. We're very happy to have you and
With that we will get started move to virtual meeting procedures, please
Good morning. This Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through zoom
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at CalSpan
Cal-Span.org if you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and
Not speak on an item. We recommend you use the CalSpan website
For 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 submittals 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 comments 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 comments are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak at the
discretion of the chair.
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item.
If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's webpage and click on the
link to fill out a speaker request.
If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the Commission's
your 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.
is your time to address the commission. The organizer will invite you to turn on your
video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute the phone. Madam Chair, that
concludes the virtual hearing procedures. Great. Thank you very much, Simone. And now
we will move to agenda changes, please. Good morning, Chair Harmon and Commissioners. Welcome
to Oceanside. Agenda item three is the agenda changes for today. The posted agenda changes
memo remains accurate and that is a good reference.
All told, there are four agenda changes for today, all for being moved to consent which
I'll run through next.
Item 9A is the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority's proposed vegetation treatment program public
works plan and that item is moved to consent.
Item 11B is Santa Cruz County's LCP cleanup amendment and that item is moved to consent.
Item 11C is the time extension for Santa Cruz County's replacement provisions, LCP amendment,
and that item is moved to consent.
And item 11D is the City of Santa Cruz's LCP code clean-up amendment, and that item is
moved to consent.
And that concludes the agenda changes for today, and I'll hand it back to you, Chair
Harmon.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Now we will move to general public comment.
Thank you.
For members of the public, I will be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite
you to speak when it is your turn. Each speaker will be allowed two minister and general public
comments at the discretion of the chair. In order to allow for live video testimonies on zoom,
we will be bringing you in as a panelist. As we bring you in, your zoom will reload. This may take
a moment to speed up this process. We will bring several people in at a time, but please remain
muted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak. After your time is up, you will be moved
back to attendee mode. For the members of the public present in the room, I will
call your name in the order that they appear on our sign-up list. When you hear
your name, please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you
approach to speak. There is a raise hand function that will help us find you in
the attendee list. If you are using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand
by dialing star 9. If you are participating by Zoom, you should see the
button on your Zoom screen. If you have signed up to speak for this item and are
able to do so, please raise your hand now. When it is your time to speak we will
invite you to unmute and turn on your camera. You can unmute yourself on a phone
by dialing star six. First up we have Alex McNally, Adam Leverez,
Wade Woback and Darryl Gail. If you would please press the button on the mic, ma'am.
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Alice McNally. Governor Newsom has declared a
state of emergency in preparation for the oncoming El Nino, which is predicted
to flood, erode, and reshape the California coast. Song's nuclear storage
site was asked on 923 what their El Nino emergency plans are to protect the 1800 tons of waste
stranded 100 feet from the surf. They claim everything is robust enough to withstand extreme
natural and manmade weather events and continue to perform the containment functions. No need
to take additional safety measures other than adding more riprap and repairing the pedestrian
way to protect pedestrians from the pounding surf. Edison claims these two
actions will restore the system to its original design and enhance long-term
resiliency. No mention of a more robust seawall, a hot cell on site to transfer
the waste in case the air-cooled silos become clogged with water, sand, cobbles,
debris, and overheat. Only a robot vacuum, a slow process which cannot vacuum but
the canisters. SONGS has no El Nino emergency plan in place. The Coastal
Commission has an excellent one on your website. The Commission has responsibility
to protect and enhance California's coast and the authority to issue
administrative orders to require compliance with the Coastal Act. Use it.
Thank you. Thank you. Adam Leverins, Wade Womack, and Darryl Gale.
fall after that we'll go to zoom. Good morning again final day. Um on on
wednesday you heard uh peter cas quote the executive officer of state lands
talking about really appalling incredible discrepancy and real
definite inequity going on i just wanted to note that this is the
two-year anniversary of those statements being made to this commission
You've seen things just take a long time to work through.
The sea lions in La Jolla, the moorings in Newport.
I mean, things take time and I'm going to talk about process.
I don't know, I don't recognize council today,
but maybe these are things that they can reflect on.
Dr. Hart asked questions Wednesday after we spoke.
And I know on agenda items, there's an option when you sign
that you can be available for questions. I don't want meetings to go forever, but
I've been at a lot of meetings where it would be real timely if a person could
answer a direct question from a commissioner. You can't expect staff to
know all this stuff. I mean, there's so much they have to do, so I'm just posing
thoughts of maybe there's possible process rather than me, and because I
can't talk about the same subject more than once each month, I can't respond to
Dr. Hart in a timely fashion. And another thing I wonder is if something's
before you there's all the ex parte concerns but as of now no Newport Beach
matters related to this are before you. Mr. Presiato you mentioned a number of
emails you'd received from people in Newport. I think you can talk to people
now without having ex parte concerns and again I'm not an attorney but I'm trying
to help process and make things go quicker and respond to your inquiries
and questions quicker and just maybe things can move along a little faster
than they sometimes do. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Wade Womack followed by
Daryl Gail and then we'll go to our Zoom. So go ahead and use your raise
hand function and Comoroske Janet Rogers, Aziz Sharif and then Chord Bauer.
Womack? Yes, they have it up. You just can't see it yet. But it's there.
Hi. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Wade Womack. I'm a Newport Beach resident.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and happy Friday. Thank you, commissioners, for
all you do to protect coastal access. I'm a coastal access advocate myself. And thank
you for expressing concern regarding the unprecedented 6 p.m. curfew in Newport Beach.
you see a slide from the city's social media campaign that started in January
of this year called not in Newport. While well-intentioned it is extremely
negative in connotation. Next slide please. Here's an Orange County Register
article two days after the 4th of July ruckus where the city manager is
is expressing concern that the social media campaign may have backfired and fed into
what occurred on the 4th, the ruckus.
The 6pm unaccompanied minor curfew is unreasonable and unfair to law abiding teenagers and children.
The city should work on improving its messaging prior to implementing an unprecedented curfew,
criminalizes otherwise lawful beach activity.
I have a teenager.
I can't stomach the thought of him being down at the beach at 6 p.m. and being subject
to arrest for going to the beach that he otherwise enjoys freely and openly pursuant to our
COASAL Act. Thank you for everything you do. Really appreciate it and have a great weekend.
Darryl Gail, followed by Janet Rogers, Aziz Sharif, Cord Bauer and Matt Kuller.
I'm Darryl Gail. You've done it again. Setting the tone for extreme denial, El Nino is coming
to wreak havoc on our coast. When are you going to address what you have created? When
are you going to do something, say something? You, your predecessors, blithely gave Edison
permission to poison and permanently ruin our coast. You continue to ignore the fact
that this apocalyptic mess which you let Edison dump on our beach is now facing inundation
with silt, seawater, mud, sand, algae clogging the air vents and corroding the already scraped
gouged damaged containers, canisters. Edison is in complete denial. They claim that their
crappy crumbling wall will stop El Nino. That is so hysterically funny. If it's so strong,
let's pay to put their let them put their worthless wall along our whole
coast and we will not have to evacuate at all we won't have any problems. I was
there in Chula Vista October 2019 when Steve Padilla and Dana Bocco didn't put
any constraints on Edison like an improved seawall a hot cell leaving the
cooling pools which we begged and begged and begged for. So what are we supposed
to do? When are you going to rectify this situation? And I'm sorry, I am not going to
thank you for your attention because you have been ignoring me for years and years and years.
So I'm going to use the last 42 seconds to just glare at you and ask you, when are you
going to do something about the canisters on the beach, a hundred feet away? When are
you going to do something? When are you going to say something? It's like El Nino might
coming in a few weeks and all the canisters will be covered with water and
silt and they're gonna overheat and they're gonna blow up and each of these
canisters is 20 feet high and it's gonna be like Chernobyl and we won't even have
a coast. When are you going to follow up on what you're supposed to be doing?
Because all you do is ignore it. Thank you. Janet Rogers, go ahead and unmute
yourself. We promoted you to panelists. Yes, I think the next slides. They'll be going
through fairly fast. I need to start at the beginning. Can you speak up for us Janet Rogers?
That's not the first slide. I need to start at the beginning. There we go. Okay.
I'm Janet Rogers with the Baccadero Coalition in San Diego. Next slide. This map shows the so-called
scenic views and view corridors in the port master plan update but most of them are lives.
Scenic views shown are eliminated. View corridors are shown that don't exist and won't be created.
This map is not true. Next slide. Three scenic views in the Embarcadero. Next slide.
The slides aren't changing. I can't get through my time. Okay. Okay. Three scenic views in the
The Embarcadero will be demolished.
Sea McView in the south Embarcadero, here today, gone tomorrow, 35 births will be eliminated
with luxury yachts or plans.
The central Embarcadero, next slide, is not in the plan, probably a coastal act violation
but it will destroy these views, 167 votes are planned.
slide. The major open water scenic view in the North Embarcadero is in front of the county building.
We're not on the next slide yet. Yeah. Okay. It'll eliminate that view with 85 transient
both slips and they'll be eliminated. View quarters show water for the full width of the
corridor, wire all the views down the middle of streets. Next slide. When the Navy leaves,
V Street will still have, won't have a view because of the building on the pier.
Next slide. EF or G Streets won't have view corridors. None today, none tomorrow. Next slide.
Broadway view corridors, none today, none tomorrow. See the bill forward.
seconds because of losing my time. Go ahead. C Street corridor. This is the Broadway corridor.
None today. None tomorrow. See the building on the pier. Next slide. C Street corridor. Also
is Lanefield hotels. There's no water view. Next slide. This is the last one. Public access needs
to be real, not fake lines on a map. You're going to vote on this amendment soon. If you let the
the port, destroy all the scenic views, and lie about the view quarters, and you aren't
protecting public access. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Janet. Okay, so next we have Ozzie
Sharif. Ozzie Sharif, you've been promoted. You should be able to unmute yourself. Yes,
hello. Good morning, commissioners. I'm Dr. Ozzie Sharif, Executive Director of Wildlife
Jewels. Last month, I shared the alarming number of fishing gear entanglements we talked
along the La Jolla coastline. Sadly, the crisis continues. Through our near daily
eyes monitoring, we're finding newly entangled birds on almost every survey,
particularly branch for branch but also pelicans and gulls. Recently, two
western gull fledglings we've monitored since they were eggs became entangled in
fishing gear. We're also documenting a growing number of California sea lions
entangled in fishing gear. These incidents are occurring amid a
devastating seabird mortality crisis. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife
has identified starvation as the primary cause of increased seabird mortality this year.
These birds are already struggling to survive. Fishing gear entanglements add another deadly
threat and one we can prevent. Many entangled birds remain inaccessible on cliffs, while others can
still fly and evade rescue. We cannot rescue our way out of a problem that continues creating
new victims. We also continue documenting fishing vessels inside or along the marine
protected area boundary and individuals entering the close points before rangers arrive or
after sunset. These ongoing threats to critical wildlife habitat demand coordinated preventive
action.
Wildlife Jewel supports the development of a comprehensive Natural Resource Management
Plan for La Jolla to establish a coordinated science-based approach to protecting coastal
wildlife and their habitats.
We urge the Commission to support stronger wildlife protections, effective enforcement
and preventive measures to stop fishing gear entanglements at Point La Jolla, before more
wildlife is injured or killed.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Thank you.
Next is Cor Bower, followed by Matt Cooler, followed by Noah Suarez Sykes, Walter Land.
Cor, you've been promoted panelists.
Go ahead and unmute and speak.
Thank you.
Good morning.
I was with you on Wednesday and watched the detailed presentations.
My son is a park aide at Doheny Campgrounds.
He's working there right now, and my daughter taught junior guards at Colapia Beach.
My family is fully invested in this area.
I think the Commission missed the biggest news about the desal plants.
The plant wants to move the uptake pipes in the picture to the public parking area on
the left.
They need to move because they couldn't find sand.
The plant needs sand so water can be drawn through it, mud isn't permeable like sand.
We're missing sand everywhere, a hundred yards south of the campground.
The parking lot falls off significantly to the beach.
A quarter mile south of that, Capo Beach has lost its historical basketball court, palm
trees, and more.
And just beyond that is Beach Road and a bunch of red-tagged homes.
There's no sand, and it's later than you think.
With all due respect, this Coastal Commission may be overseeing the largest loss of Coastal
Beach since its inception.
The OCTA and the desalinization plant seem to be getting their emergency permits.
While the rest of us wait for the destruction, that will definitely come this winter.
The mandate of the Coastal Commission is the California Public Trust Doctrine.
protects the coastline for the best possible use of all Californians. It is
not the managed retreat doctrine. We can be successful in saving the coast with
sand, but not without the help of the Coastal Commission that's faithful to
the public trust doctrine. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Matt Cooler followed
by Noah Suarez Sykes, Walter Lamb and Curtis Raynor. Please do not decline when
in the next two months. And
when we try to promote you guys
to panelists, we want to keep
it going. Thank you. Matt
Cooler. Good morning. Good
morning, commissioners,
Commission staff and thank you
for the opportunities to speak
today. My name is Matt Kohler
and I work for the Surf Rider
Foundation. I'm here to comment
on sable Off Shores, unpermitted
excavations and repairs in the
coastal zone sable offshore
restarted pipeline operations
and potential repairs despite Sable's initial assurances to the public and regulatory agencies
that the pipeline was fully repaired and ready to operate. The extensive work that Sable has been
conducting on this pipeline is occurring in the coastal zone and violates the Coastal Commission's
existing cease and desist order as well as a court judgment upholding the cease and desist order.
In addition to continuing work in violation of state law and court orders, Sable continues to
to violate the commission's April 2025 orders
by not paying the required penalty
and failing to complete the required restoration.
These actions by Sable Corp
are in willful violation of state law
and we respectfully request
that the Coastal Commission Enforcement staff
take steps to hold Sable accountable.
Thank you.
Thank you, Nexus Noah Sykes, Walter Lamb,
Curtis Rainer and Leah Yannanonton.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes.
tremendous. All right, good morning, commissioners. Great to see you all again. My name is Noah
Streisichs and I'm the lead organizer for Better Neighbors LA. The housing coalition focused on
regulating short-term rentals to preserve long-term housing. Hundreds of commenters have come to this
commission and detailed how the California coast is in a housing crisis. People are being forced
out of their homes in coastal communities, unable to afford their rent in neighborhoods where
existing housing gets snapped up by corporate entities used as luxury tourist lodgings.
And the state legislature has acted and declared this an issue of vital statewide concern.
They've given a clear legal mandate to California cities to address the housing crisis by building
new housing and preserving existing units. Coastal cities are now stuck, however, because
building more units in coastal areas is extremely difficult, and because the Coastal Commission
has repeatedly acted to remove municipalities' ability to preserve housing units that already
exist by passing strong short-term rental ordinances. Preventing communities from enacting
hosted-only regulations not only means encouraging the removal of housing units,
it means encouraging the spread of the most expensive forms of overnight accommodation
on hosted short-term rentals, instead of hosted short-term rentals which tend to be cheaper
and don't remove the housing unit. As Commissioner Jackson noted on Wednesday of this week,
continuing to gut reasonable short-term rental regulations serves
billion-dollar corporations at the expense of coastal Californians.
and it flies in the face of state mandates under government codes 65580, 65583, 65584,
65981, 65913.5, etc., etc. Addressing a housing crisis in the coast doesn't just mean building
new units, it also means making better use of the units that we already have, and the commission
cannot continue to defy the state legislature to prevent cities from doing so. So we encourage you
you all in the future when you see regulation that is hosted only and strong regulation
of that type that you approve it and encourage cities to adopt that regulation. Thank you
very much. Thank you, Walter Lamb. You've been promoted to panelists. Good morning,
commissioners. Walter Lamb at the Bino Wetlands Land Trust. I just wanted to visualize for
you a glaring discrepancy of water levels that we have right now in the Bino Wetlands
area. On the right is the Bionaw freshwater marsh, that's on land owned by the California
State Lands Commission and operated by a non-profit partner of the Playa Vista Development.
And it is full of water. It's actually overflowing with water. And on the left is
non-tidal marsh in southeast area B of the Bionaw wetlands ecological reserve
on land owned by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And you can see it's completely dried
out. If I can have the next slide please. And so this is the freshwater marsh and there's a couple
of different ways that water can flow out. These are two of the ways. On the top, the red is an
outlet out to the Biana Creek and in green is water flowing out through the spillway then go to the
wetlands. And the issue is that that lower one is mostly sort of dammed up. And so most of the
water, almost all of the water that leaves the freshwater marsh goes out to the creek. Next
Next slide, please, instead of through the wetlands.
And so sorry, I think you went maybe one too far.
Yeah, so this is a slide that was presented to you by staff
in 2019 showing the freshwater marsh outlet.
You can see that the water's flowing out
at a very low level there below the concrete.
Next slide, please.
And because of that, the water was not even getting
to this spillway.
Next slide, please.
And so now they have higher boards
and that's raised the water level
across the freshwater marsh, next slide please.
And so now we have the waters coming right up
against those boards, it's seeping through,
but the boards are still preventing water
from getting out into that non-tidal marsh.
Next slide please.
And you can see the little perspective here
of personal walking behind the boards.
If you were to lift just that board, the yellow arrow,
quite a lot of water would flow out through that spillway
and out to the ecological reserve.
Next slide please.
And this is what it looks like when it has water in it.
Next slide please.
And last slide is when it dries up.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We have about six or seven speakers left.
Curtis Rayner followed by Leah Yannonton.
Sorry, that was too many Nons last time.
And Komerov and then Linda Krop.
Curtis Rayner, go ahead and speak.
Yes, hello.
Good morning.
It turned out I'm glad that Mr. Suarez Sykes, two speakers
ago, had a chance to speak because what I want to say is
pretty much in support of what he was, what he was urging. My
name is Curtis Rayner. I'm an officer of the Santa Monica
Quaker meeting in Santa Monica and I requested to speak because
I know I think in the next month or so, there will be an agenda
item before the commission to approve Santa Monica's short-term rental ordinance, and
also to grant a permit for that to take effect.
Our meeting, our members of our community followed for a long time the discussions that
went into making that short-term ordinance and it really seemed to take all sectors of
the conversation into account.
Hosted properties really work best for us.
We have party houses that are owned by corporate interests that are non-hosted in terms of
the housing stock for a variety of reasons.
So we really think Santa Monica's ordinance,
which includes, which refers to hosted short-term rentals
is the way to go.
And we really urged the commission when it comes up
to approve that ordinance and to grant the application
for it to go into effect.
So that's really what I wanted to say.
Thank you so much.
It is, as you guys know, a real crisis, housing, affordability, all these things, and it makes
sense what Santa Monica did.
So thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next is Leah Yanontin, followed by Ann Komoroff, followed by Linda Krop, and Leslie Honda.
And Linda.
Lee Ginnanton.
Hi, good morning.
I'm speaking about the Pacific Palisades
recreational center baseball field.
And I'm speaking in opposition of the plan
to rip out and destroy a perfectly healthy,
beautiful grass field and install artificial turf.
I was there at the LA parks and recs meeting
approved this heist on September 17th.
I was shocked by what I saw with snickering men
in business suits, sneering at the concerns
of mothers and grandmothers who left this meeting in tears
when LA Parks and Recs approved this artificial turf plan.
I went last night to the Pacific Palisades
Recreational Center baseball field and it was beautiful.
It's a beautiful, huge natural grass field.
There's a plaque commemorating all the love
that the community put into the formation
of this beautiful natural grass baseball field decades ago.
It says it's the field of dreams.
And I walked barefoot on the grass in the park.
It was soft, it was cool, it was even.
And then I walked on the artificial turf
that is under the jungle gym.
It was hard, it was sharp,
it did not feel good under my feet.
And it's really sad to think
that corporate business interests
invested in artificial turf
could override the will of the community like this.
And I know there are many petrochemicals
that go into AstroTurf,
names that are hard to pronounce polyethylene, propylene, nylon, all kinds of PFAS, more PFAS
than they test for. The crumb rubber has heavy metals. Please maintain the natural grass and
there's a watershed into the ocean that's very close to the ocean. Thank you. Thank you. Next
This is Anne Komoroff, followed by Linda Krop, and Leslie Handa.
Anne Komoroff.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
This is Anne Komoroff, you copy?
Yes.
Okay.
So, greetings from Malibu, California.
I'm a journalist with the forex.news, forex.news or the forth estate.
So just calling in because we're having lots of issues along the coast and there's a lot
We're concerned that we keep dumping rocks to save homes,
but in reality, we should be evacuating those areas
because the sea level is rising.
One of the questions that we keep having is,
what exactly is the height of the sea level?
Is it two feet, three feet higher?
Because dumping all these rocks on the coast
might be problematic,
because it might not be able to save it
where we should be trying to give them new halls
to get out of there.
So maybe throughout, somewhere in your media,
you can't address this on public comments and stuff but you might want to address exactly what
is the danger of this high surf because as we see it on the news it's getting pounded up and down
the California coast including all the way to Point Magoo and stuff. You know the Vanneberg,
you know SpaceX and what do you call it? The secret rocket launches and stuff. You know
space shield, space force, that kind of stuff. So they're getting a lot of rockets up in the air,
and there's a lot of concern that those rockets are coming back down, contaminating our ozone and
stuff. And people don't talk about it much. But these rockets are made out of aluminum and
contributing to our, well, global warming and stuff. They say that. So I'm just a journalist.
I don't know. We read about it. The internet is your friend. Thank you very much. Have a good day.
Thank you. Linda Cropp, followed by Leslie Handa, followed by Margaret Malloy. Linda Cropp.
Linda, I see you are in panelists, if you can unmute yourself.
Okay, I see you have your video, but okay, see you on mute. Go ahead and speak.
Sorry about that. Good morning, Linda Cropp. Can you speak up some for us?
pardon? Can you speak up? Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Hi, good
morning. I'm Linda crop from the Environmental Defense Center
speaking on behalf of the EDC get oil out Sierra Club Santa
Barbara channel keeper and Santa Barbara County Action Network.
I'm here today to address Sables unpermitted work again, on its
onshore pipelines and its violation of the Commission
cease and desist order. Next slide please. The cease and
Event Assist Order was approved after Sable conducted unpermitted work on the pipeline
in 2024 and after the Commission staff issued multiple notices of violation.
The order prohibited Sable from undertaking work on the pipeline, including excavations,
removal of vegetation, and repairs without a Coastal Development Permit or approval of
an exemption.
Next slide, please.
In March of this year, Sable restarted the pipeline, claiming that all necessary repairs
had been made and the pipeline was safe to operate.
Just two months later, testing on the pipeline revealed several anomalies, including seven
in the Coastal Zone.
At least one was in an area where Sable had previously conducted repairs.
Sable approached the County of Santa Barbara for zoning clearance, knowing full well that
a judge had already ruled that Coastal Act authorization was required.
Notably, neither Sable nor the county notified the Coastal Commission.
When the Commission staff found out, they sent a letter to Sable confirming that Sable
must obtain Coastal Act authorization or an approved exemption yet Sable did neither.
Next slide, please.
These photos depict work within or next to the state's Gaviota tar plant reserve.
Next slide, please.
And this work, this photo shows work near the Arroyo Hondo Preserve.
Sable's violations of the Commission's April orders go beyond these unpermitted excavations
and possible repairs.
also has not paid the $18 million administrative penalty or completed all necessary restoration.
We appreciate all that the commission is doing to try to save our coast from the risk of another
major oil spill. Thank you. Thank you Leslie Honda followed by Margaret Malloy then Sabrina
Breenan and that'll conclude everybody. Leslie Honda. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you.
Honorable commissioners and the general public, my name is Leslie Honda, lead ornithologist at
the San Diego Bird Alliance. We support the statements by the Sierra Club Seal Society
made yesterday and today by Wildlife Jewels. As Southern California is scrambled to address
the impacts from the Super El Nino and the Calvin Wave in our coastal areas with increased
inundation over a foot of water that is expected to coincide with the highest highs of the year
over the next six months, I'd like to draw attention to the impacts on birds and sensitive
ecological areas along the coast. Federal and state endangered light-footed ridgeways rail
and state endangered gelding savannah sparrow that inhabit load of mid-level marsh are at risk of
being displaced by inundation and competition for space from other birds during fall and winter as
we anticipate large populations of wintering water birds returning to our bays and coastal
wetland areas. Sea birds and marine mammals with the unprecedented sea temperatures face challenging
conditions for survival evident from the uptick in mortality of branch cormorants,
loons, and grebes along the coast. I'd like to thank the commission for protecting our coastal
biodiversity. With the Super El Nino, I encourage prioritizing the birds and marine wildlife that
depend on coastal areas and to consider restoration may be needed to these sensitive ecological
habitats if damage occurs over the next six months. Areas such as are crown jewel for birds
in South San Diego Bay managed by the Port of San Diego is a major concern as its supports are
incredible irreplaceable bird biodiversity. In La Jolla, the city of San Diego's proposal to spray
Biocaps with the chemical ingredients bit and less that are heavily toxic to aquatic life
with long-lasting effects is an entirely inappropriate management measure that should
not be approved by the commission as wildlife in La Jolla face numerous environmental and man-made
challenges for survival including finding food with the unprecedented warmer water temperatures
and the uptick in seabird entanglement issues highlighted by wildlife tools. Thank you for
your time and propulsion. Thank you, Margaret Molloy, then Sabrina Breenan. Margaret Molloy
I see you moved to panelists. Go ahead and unmute. Hello. Hello, commissioners. Venice is a special
coastal residential community and the most popular public visitor destination in California.
The Venice Beach Business Improvement District is a private property and business improvement
district. I'm requesting a formal coastal commission enforcement investigation concerning the
existing Venice Beach Business Improvement District and its continuing implementation
together with the nine-year extension enacted by ordinance number 189012 specifically as it
relates to the VBID related activities, private security, clean and safe operations, the
inclusion and assessment of public coastal zone property including public beach access areas,
parks and recreational facilities which account for 30.83% of that private property owner's bid
and assessments for 2027 through 2035. You must look at the significant influence of the weighted
petitions submitted by the City of Los Angeles as a proponent of the private property owner's bid
in reaching the greater than 50 percent petition threshold, and impacts on public access,
recreational use, and historically restricted public property within the Coastal Zone
under the 1904 and 1906 Abbot-Kinney grant deeds. Those restrictions include, but are not limited to,
the requirement that the deed land obtain remain open and unobstructed for the use and enjoyment
of the public and is a pleasure park or beach and the express position provision that said
property shall be kept clean at said city's expense. Public resources code 30106 defines
development to include among other things a change in intensity or intensity of use of water
in the intensity of use of water or access there too.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Laz, Sabrina, Brennan, go ahead and speak.
I see you unmuted.
Hi.
Not sure why that graphic is showing up,
but that's kind of interesting.
That's an organization I formed years ago.
I am, hopefully you can hear me.
Or I'm in my car because the power's out right now, so I'm not in my typical situation.
We can hear you, ma'am. Please go ahead.
Okay, great. Good morning.
Okay, Sabrina, you muted yourself. We're gonna ask you to unmute and just speak.
Okay, if you're doing this by phone, dial star. Okay, so you're on. Okay, I see you unmuted.
Go ahead and speak.
Okay, great. Thank you for that. Here we go. Good morning, Seal Cove is a neighborhood in Moss Beach, where new development continues to be approved despite serious on land instability, one such development approval is on the on appeal before you today by a neighbor.
steel cove faces active landslides, sinkholes, chronic sewage leaks, and failed infrastructure.
Our neighborhood is sliding towards the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve and the Pacific Ocean.
San Mateo County's two extensive geotechnical reports document this instability and its
impacts on homes, roads, and utility infrastructure. Land movement is causing recurring water
and sewer pipe failures. The Montero Water Sanitary District has said it will no longer serve over
30 homes because of repeated pipe breaks. Affected neighbors are seeking to relocate their water
and sewer lines above ground. There is no storm water drainage system on any county maintained
roadways. Homes, roads, and utility infrastructure remain threatened by continued movement and
and landslides towards the ocean.
Construction materials including asphalt
are falling onto the beach
and emergency access is compromised.
The human cost is devastating.
Senior citizens have had their homes red tagged
by the county and been forced to leave
in some cases with nowhere to go.
Requests to the county board of supervisors
for a voluntary buyout program,
allowing homeowners to leave before their homes
to come unsafe have gone unanswered.
It is inconsistent to continue approving new development
in SEAL code while residents face displacement,
failed infrastructure and worsening geotechnical conditions.
New development increases risks to public safety,
coastal resources and future residents.
We respectfully ask the coastal commission
to oppose new development in SEAL code
until the serious geotechnical infrastructure
and public concerns are fully addressed.
We also asked the commission to support
a voluntary buyout program offering fair market value
before worsening conditions force out more residents.
Thank you.
No more speakers.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
And thank you to the public for your testimony.
I will return to the commission for any questions
Do you have any brief reactions to your reaction?
Commissioner Wilson, you look like no.
So, okay, I just wanted to mention that Commissioner Jackson and I had a chance to walk along the waterfront in San Diego and so I just wanted to, and there was, there was a question around, or there was a discussion around or someone mentioned something about the luxury yachts.
and we got to the section where there were the luxury yachts.
The fencing was just, I mean, it was like razor wire.
It was just so, it just became so uncomfortable
being in that public space
that you really felt like you shouldn't be there.
And it was shocking to us.
It was just a really weird vibe,
and I just wanted to put out there that it was noticeable
that there was just a very different feel in that space.
Like there was something there
be protected from the public in a way that was very uncomfortable so just
wanted to mention that in our observation and I want to make sure that
was put into the record thank you thank you okay and thank you again to the
public so we will continue on Oh Commissioner Kelly sorry thank you
chair Harmon I just wanted to make mention of a couple things that were
brought up during public comment one the handouts that we received just to share
for those who maybe weren't aware that there is some language regarding Newport
and the curfew and who's able to use the beach and who kind of whose beach is it
and beach access and I just am concerned about how we are characterizing youth in
the community, like the language basically being that Newport's beach
is only for Newport residents and we're creating some policies that keep others away, and I just want to
really underscore that the language and the intent feels very exclusive, feels
out of scope with what we believe is kind of the beach belongs to everyone, and this is California's
beach, and we want to share it with those and make sure that the community and those who don't get
get to live at the beach still have access to the beach and so really
concerned about some of the language that's being used here and and some of
the undertones and just want it remind me we had a great back and forth
yesterday about it so for those who who weren't tuned in really happy to hear
that staff is talking with the staff at the city of Newport and Newport Beach
and just trying to get a better understanding of what is happening and
that we don't believe that it's in line with our policies
and what we've approved in terms of prioritizing
access for all.
And I think just, it really is a great comparison
to the city of Oceanside, where we've had the opportunity
to gather for the last several days.
This community feels so welcoming, so family-friendly.
In a community where I'm coming from,
where unfortunately we have a massive decline
in the number of youth that can live in our community,
It feels like there's kids everywhere here
and it's a very family friendly and affordable place
to come and visit the beach
and getting to walk along the beach yesterday
and to see all the different recreational uses
that are happening here
and then the night market that we got to experience
here last night,
which I realize is every single Thursday in this town,
it's really a vibrant place to come and visit.
And I just wanna thank the community for welcoming us here,
for hosting us,
and to say that this has been a really wonderful place
And I look forward to coming back and having my kids join us and getting to access the beach and the ocean here
It's really a wonderful place to get to meet and to visit. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Jackson. Thank you, madam chair
I just want to thank Oceanside mayor Sanchez
City manager Borrego coastal zone administrator timber lake for the early morning Wednesday tour and the opportunity to see firsthand
the beach sand replenishment efforts
associated with the harbor dredging and also a second big thanks to the Orange County Sheriff's Department Harbor Patrol
County Supervisor Katrina Foley San Clemente mayor
Loeffler for the shoreline boat tour where we witnessed firsthand the destructive nature and
impacts of El Nino coastal erosion and shoreline
armoring and seeing these challenges firsthand certainly reinforces the importance of
coastal community collaboration
To find these sustainable long-term solutions to protecting our coastline though
Thank you, madam chair
Great. Thank you very much. And I echo my colleagues appreciation
It's been fabulous to be here in Oceanside
We had just a great time and I agree the night market is so awesome
And it's an idea that I'm going to take back to my own community because we had so much fun there
Last night and there were so many people it was just the vibe was on point. It was fabulous with that
we will close public comment and that brings us to those items removed from
the regular calendar to consent please. Item six are the items that have been
moved to consent for today and as I described earlier we moved four items to
consent calendar for today and I will quickly run through them. Item 9A this is
the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority's proposed vegetation treatment
program public's work plan in Marin County. Item 11B this is the
Santa Cruz County's LCP cleanup amendment. Item 11C, this is the time
extension for Santa Cruz County's replacement provisions LCP amendment.
Item 11D, this is the city of Santa Cruz's LCP code cleanup amendment.
And although we are in agreement with the applicants in each case identified,
and although we received several letters in support, we also received
correspondence objecting to portions of item 9A, the Marin Wildfire Prevention
Authorities proposed vegetation treatment program public work plan in Marin County.
Specifically, one individual submitted comments that they had provided to Marin
Wildfire on a different plan that is not before the Commission today.
Those comments suggest that the Marin Wildfire should prioritize home hardening
and defensible space efforts over vegetation management.
While Commission staff agree that home hardening efforts are also an important
part of the overall strategy to reduce the risk of wildfire statewide,
this PWP is only concerned with vegetation management work. There are efforts underway
across Marin County to implement home hardening, which will complement the vegetation management
and defensible space work that can occur through this PWP. As these comments appear directed
towards a different plan and are only the comments that oppose potential vegetation
management strategies, staff still recommends approval on consent. No other correspondence or
objections were received for any of the other consent calendar items, thus in each of the cases
for the items moved to consent, the applicants are in agreement with staff
recommendations. We have described known objectives and comments on these items
and we have made changes via addenda or explained why they don't change the
staff recommendations where applicable. Thus we continue to recommend that the
Commission approve these four items through the consent calendar. Okay, great
thank you. Are there any ex partes? None. Are there any public comments? Yes, we
We have Lillian Prince, who should be in person, and then on Zoom we have Anne Creelock followed
by Kaitlin Gilron, and Tyler Ford, and then one person available for question, which is
Clara Stanger.
We'll be moving the three to panelists shortly after Lillian Prince.
Thank you.
Just press the button on the base, please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Commission.
name is Lillian Prince and I'm a graduate student at Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, but I do not speak on behalf of the institution. I'm here to
support the approval of the modified Marin County Fire Resilience Public Works
Plan and give my own recommendations. I support the need for vegetation
management in response to a changing climate. By modeling management after
historical natural disturbances such as wildfires, we can improve ecosystem
health and mitigate the chances of unexpected wildfires which in turn keeps
communities safe. Due to Marin County's coastal location I would like to give
the opinion that additional consideration and research is needed in
this proposal to account for the unquestionable link of land and sea. The
current proposal outlines a plan of action in coastal zones including sand
dunes and wetlands but fails to mention any attention to marine species or
ecosystems. Thankfully, there are biological monitoring plans in place for these coastal
zones, but no accountability for wider impacts to the sea. Marin County is home to 14 major
watersheds, all of which eventually flow to the ocean. I also support additional and continued
consultation of the Federated Indians of Grand Rancheria. In the past, I've collaborated
with Indigenous and traditional owners while implementing marine management plans. From
On these experiences, I know their generational knowledge is invaluable.
Often they hold knowledge that scientists like me can only attain through years of costly
data collection and analysis.
I believe it is essential to the success of the Marine Management Plan to coordinate with
the tribal leadership and offer opportunities to not only consult, but to participate in
the stewardship of their traditional lands if they should like.
Thank you for the time to offer public comment on my support for the modified Public Works
Plan and continued consideration of marine areas and tribal cultural resources.
Thank you.
So just to clarify, Lilly and Prince, Anne Creelog and Caitlin Gillian and Tyler Ford
are for item F9A.
And Clara Stanger, who's available for questions, is item F11D.
We're going to go back to F9A.
Anne Creelog, I've already moved you to panelists.
You should be able to speak.
Great.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Anne Creelog.
on the Planning and Program Manager with the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority.
Coastal Commission staff recommended that the Commission certify our proposed Marin
County Forest Health and Fire Resilience Public Works Plan.
And we support this recommendation and would like to really thank Coastal Commission staff
for their guidance throughout the development of the Public Works Plan.
And that's it for me.
Thank you very much.
Kaitlin Gillian.
Okay, you declined it.
Let's try this again.
Promote you to panelists.
it. Let's try this again. Promote you to panelists. Okay, as he accepted it. Go ahead
and unmute and you can speak. Good morning. My name is Caitlin Gilleran and I am a senior
manager with Panorama Environmental, supporting the Moraine Wildfire Prevention Authority
on the PWP. I support the staff recommendation to certify the Moraine County Forest Health
and Fire Resilience PWP. And I would also like to thank the commission and staff for
for their time today and for the staff
throughout the entire process,
and I have no further comment, thank you.
Thank you, all right.
We don't see Tyler Ford.
Tyler Ford, if you can use your raise hand function,
we don't see you on Zoom.
Okay, that's it, no more speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
All right, with that, I'll return to the commission,
unless there's anything you'd like to add.
It's Ashley, no, okay, perfect.
Commissioner Kelly.
I'd like to make a motion to approve the items moved to consent.
Second.
Thank you.
Too late, Commissioner Wilson.
That's a motion by Commissioner Kelly, a second by Commissioner Friend.
Any objection to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Thank you.
Now we're on to item seven, please.
Item seven is the North Central Coast District Directors Report, and this month we're reporting
one LCP certification and one emergency permit
both for the city of Pacifica.
Neither of these require commission concurrence
and so unless there are any questions, we can move on.
That moves us to item 8A.
Item 8A is a TAFLA single family dwelling appeal
and I believe TEC has a presentation on that.
Item 8A is an appeal of a San Mateo County
coastal permit approval for a roughly 2,700 square foot
single-family residents with an attached two-car garage in the Seal Cove area of Unincorporated
Moss Beach in San Mateo County.
Slide 1 shows a rendering of the county approved project, as seen from the street.
And before we get going, I'd like to note that there was an addendum posted in response
to comments received on October 1st, however it does not change the staff recommendation.
Next slide please.
The project site, outlined in red on slide two, is a roughly 5,000 square foot parcel
with an existing developed neighborhood comprised almost entirely of single family residential
development inland of Seal Cove and the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve.
The site is well inland from the shoreline with a number of houses and streets in between
and is surrounded by other such development.
Next slide please.
Slide three shows another rendering of the project with the site noted by the red arrow.
This one intended to demonstrate the scale of the proposed project in relation to the
surrounding development.
As you can see, the project is consistent with such scale.
The Appellants contend that the project raises LCP consistency issues with respect to siting
and design as that relates to potential impacts to the Appellant's private ocean views from
their residents, which is located adjacent to the project site.
The Appellants specifically contend that the project was not approximated by story poles
and that it lacked any alternatives analysis
to evaluate whether the project could be altered
to protect their and other neighbors' views,
that the county's findings on view impacts and mitigation
were conclusory and unsupported,
that the applicant was never asked to demonstrate
whether a different project configuration
would lessen private view impacts for adjacent neighbors,
that they were not given an opportunity
to adequately assess the loss of their private ocean views,
and that the county's approval creates an adverse precedent
for future approvals in the county's mid coast region.
Next slide, please.
Slide four shows a different rendering of the project,
again, as identified by the red arrow.
This one's seen from the street
in relation to surrounding houses.
In analyzing the appellate's contentions,
it's important to note that while the LCP's
design review standards encourage efforts
to minimize impacts on neighboring views,
the LCP does not actually protect private views,
only public views.
Even so, the applicant's project was modified
to address potential private view impacts included
by citing the residents as far back on the lot as feasible.
In relation to the public views that the LCP protects,
there would be insignificant impacts to public views,
particularly given the distance from the shoreline
and that the intervening development was already present.
In the county made that determination
based on multiple site-specific analyses
and visual simulations,
which provided substantial evidence supporting that conclusion
despite what the appellants claim,
all of which was evidence that was available
for interested party review, including the others contrary to their contentions.
And lastly, regarding the contention that this approval creates an adverse precedent
for future approvals regarding impacts to views, the county appears to have appropriately
applied the LCP to the project, and any such adverse precedent seems non-existent.
Next slide, please.
In short, the appellant's private view contentions do not rise to the level of a substantial
issue.
Thus, staff recommends the commission find that no substantial issue exists with respect
to the county approved project's conformity with the LCP.
The single motion resolution to do so is found on page five of the staff report.
This concludes staff's presentation.
Thank you.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes to report?
Seeing none, we will open the public hearing.
I'll turn it to you, Simone.
We have the appellate Dominique Dorn, and then after that we'll go to the applicant
Art Tafola, and then we have three available for questions.
Dominique Dorn, I've already moved you to panelists.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Dominique Dorn, my wife of my M&I at 1847 San Ramon Avenue, directly adjacent
to proposed development.
Our concerns are whether the county adequately evaluated the project's impacts on the area,
as Sabrina Brennan mentioned earlier,
and whether we had meaningful opportunity
to understand and respond before approval.
I want to adjust two statements in the staff report
that do not reflect our experience.
First, the report suggests we had at approximately
three months to evaluate the impact on the view
that is not accurate.
At the April design review meeting,
the applicant presented architectural renderings
of the proposed home,
but nothing showing the impact of the view
from inside our home.
The first view cone analysis directly depicting the impact of the property was presented at
the August 12th hearing.
We requested story polls both in the April hearing as well as the August hearing and
were denied both times.
When we finally saw the analysis, it indicated that approximately two thirds or greater of
our dining room window would be obstructed.
We had no meaningful opportunity to evaluate that information or consider alternatives
before the decision was made.
Second, we disagree with the report's characterization
of our existing ocean view.
The report suggests that an existing neighboring deck
already obstructs approximately half of our view.
And as you can see from the photo illustrated,
that is not accurate.
We have used an AI rendering based
off the architectural plans to, on the photo on the right,
illustrate what the view impact would
be once the new home is erected. We understand that private ocean views are
not guaranteed or protected under the local coastal program. We are not asking
the Commission to create a protection that does not exist. However, the county
included that the project made a good effort to mitigate view disturbance. How
could we meaningfully evaluate that conclusion not available until the date
the project was approved? We also again want to acknowledge the concerns that
that Sabrina had mentioned earlier
with the geological hazards,
the inadequate storm water drainage,
the sewage infrastructure and emergency access to the area.
These concerns reinforce the importance of careful review
before additional development proceeds.
This lot has never been developed.
Once the home is constructed, the impacts will be permanent.
We are not asking that our neighbor be prevented
from building, we are asking whether alternative placement
or design could reasonably reduce the impact
and whether the question was adequately examined
through a fair and transparent process.
We respectfully request that the commission find
that this appeal raises a substantial issue
warranting further review.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The applicant, Art Tafola, we don't see them.
If you're available,
please use the raise hand function on Zoom.
Applicants know where to be found.
No more speakers.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
I will close the public hearing and turn to our staff
to see if they have any follow up questions, responses.
Sorry.
I would just note that most of those, all of those contentions
are brought up in the staff report.
So I recommend revisiting that.
All right.
Thank you.
We are available for questions.
OK.
Thanks very much to the commission.
Commissioner Pressiato.
I'm ready to make a motion.
Please go ahead, sir.
I move that the commission determine
that the appeal numbered A-2-SMC-26023 raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds
on which the appeal has been filed under 30603 of the Kelpstel Act and I recommend a yes vote.
Second.
Thank you.
That's a motion by Commissioner Presiado, a second by Commissioner Kelly.
They're asking for a yes vote.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing no objections, no substantial issue has been found.
Thank you.
We'll continue on to item 10, please.
Item 10 is the Central Coast District Directors report.
And this month we are reporting two waivers,
three extensions and one emergency coastal permit.
I did wanna highlight that one of the waivers
is for a true nature-based adaptation project
by state parks in Northern Santa Cruz County,
which is an exciting opportunity to see another
these types of projects in action. I say true nature-based projects and as much
as nature-based adaptation projects often have some underlying armoring
component and this one does not. Rather it's all natural materials where drift
wood and larger logs would form the base for a reconstructed and
revegetated dune. State Parks has had success with a similar project of this
sort in southern Santa Cruz County where that reconstructed dune has
functioned well including where it survived three separate 50-year wave
events and it's reduced erosion while protecting critical infrastructure and
enhancing back beach habitat values. Those objectives are similar here and
the project is designed to help create a back beach dune buffer for the Waddell
Creek State Beach parking lot and Highway 1 while also redirecting the
creek to its more typical southern orientation in a manner that can help
protect the sensitive lower creek environments just inland of the highway.
A true win-win project we wanted to thank State Parks for its vision and
conviction to implement these kinds of projects and for the collaboration with
our staff on this project in particular. The one comment we received was in
support and suggested that the project begins soon which is exactly what state
parks intends after today. So for that state parks project and the rest of the
DEDs report we're not aware of any objections or controversy and so the
question is whether three or more commissioners object the items in the
report and if not the Commission will concur. Okay thank you very much apologies
Any ex partes? Any public comments? Yes, we have Jeremy Sheffield and we also
have Catalina Foster. Jeremy Sheffield, I've already promoted you to panelists, and Catalina
Foster is available for questions only, excuse me. Okay, great, thank you very much. Do three
or more commissioners. No, no, no, no, Jeremy, Jeremy. Oh no, the first guy, Jeremy Sheffield.
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
Jeremy, I see you in Zoom.
If you can unmute yourself.
Hi.
Good morning.
Yeah, I don't really have any comments, but I'm just here to observe.
Oh, okay.
Good for you.
All right.
Thank you.
No more questions.
Great.
Thank you very much.
I'll return to the commission.
Do three or more commissioners wish to object?
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Thank you.
us to our last item for today. Item 11a please. Yes. Item 11a is the Pismo Beach
LUP update matter and Sarah McGregor from the Commission Central Coast
District in the lead effort on this will be presenting this item on Zoom. We do have
a PowerPoint for this item if we can bring that up. Otherwise, Sarah, I'm ready
when you are. And thank you. I just want to highlight also that this is Melissa's
first hearing and first presentation. She's doing a great job with two DDRs
and there'll be also a great job. I think the presentation might be the wrong one that's
pulled up. It should be for the Pismo Beach LUP update. Great thank you. Good morning Chair Harmon
and Commissioners. Agenda item 11A is the City of Pismo Beach Land Use Plan update, which is the
first phase of the City's comprehensive update to the LCP. This update was partially funded by
grants from the Coastal Commission's LCP Local Government Assistant Grant Program and has been
the subject of an extensive and inclusive community planning process which began in 2017.
Slide one shows you a view of the iconic Pismo Pier with the city's downtown just past that.
I would note that an addendum for this item has been distributed that responds to comments
received but does not change the staff recommendation which continues to be that
the Commission approve the proposed LCP amendment with the suggested modifications as identified in
the staff report. Next slide please. As you can see on slide two, the city of Pismo Beach is located
along the San Luis Obispo County coast between the unincorporated community of Avila Beach to the
north and the city of Grover Beach to the south, all of which is about halfway between San Francisco
and Los Angeles on California's central coast. The city extends along approximately six miles
of shoreline where approximately two-thirds of the roughly 13 square mile city outlined in yellow
here is located in the coastal zone noted by the blue line. Next slide please. And slide three
zooms in a little closer. Residential uses are dominant in the northern part of the city along
Shell Beach Road including the Palisades and Shell Beach neighborhoods as well as in the southern
and eastern foothills. Just up coast of downtown is the Motel District comprised of primarily
visitor serving overnight accommodations. The Pismo Beach-Pismo Marsh area is located at the
southern end of the city and is home to substantial open spaces including state parks, monarch butterfly
Grove as well as other facilities including state parks, north beach campground. Most of the city
is back dropped by steep undeveloped hillsides including the 880-acre Pismo Preserve open space
area providing a rather stunning land use mosaic where urban development is nestled between open
hills, coastal bluffs and sandy beaches. Next slide please. The LUP update process is centered
around provisions to better protect coastal resources, and to better reflect the city's
vision for its community as a visitor destination. Specifically, and as shown here on slide four,
the proposed LUP's guiding principles are to preserve the historic ambiance of Pismo Beach,
to support the visitor population while enhancing the quality of life for all residents,
to manage growth effectively, and to preserve and protect natural resources. Next slide, please.
As proposed, the LUP update would maintain the core policy content from the existing
certified LUP that focuses on concentrating development within existing developed areas
and protecting open space land uses, sensitive habitat areas, and public access.
At a broad level, the proposed LUP update is structured around creating a vibrant community
through developing new or enhancing existing visitor-serving areas,
including with new policies requiring lower cost overnight accommodations
to elevate Pismo Beach as a visitor node and coastal destination.
In addition, the proposed LUP contains numerous updated and new policies to address a variety of
coastal resource issues not explicitly covered in the current LUP, as well as to reflect new
understandings and improved planning techniques regarding various coastal resource concerns,
including those related to ESHA identification and protection,
wetland and riparian corridor protection, tribal and archaeological protection,
and environmental justice. Additionally, the LUP seeks to emphasize multimodal transportation
options and implement new mixed-use policies to encourage residential development, particularly
affordable housing, on upper stories. Furthermore, the LUP update would consolidate the existing 18
neighborhood planning areas into 10. While comprehensive, the update does not significantly
address coastal hazard provisions, but it does include a few policies that can be understood
as a phase 1 hazards update to lay the foundation for a separate LCP amendment process which is
expected to conclude sometime next year. And as previously mentioned, an addendum was distributed
that responds to comments from the Surfrider Foundation. Although Surfrider is supportive
of the proposed LUP update, they requested additional language to address coastal hazards
issues, namely to require new development to waive any rights for future shoreline armoring
and include a removal and site restoration requirement in lieu of such armoring.
However, while we agree with the substance, we do not believe any additional LUP changes
are warranted at this time, since such requirements are already in effect as binding precedent under
the Coastal Act and LCP. In addition, the city is pursuing a phase two LUP update that will
comprehensively update its coastal hazards policies and that is the city's preferred venue
to tackle these issues which we agree is appropriate. Next slide please. While the updated LUP
is the product of significant collaboration and refinement between city and commission staff,
staff does recommend several suggested modifications to ensure the proposed LUP
is consistent with the Coastal Act. The first modification would affect the LUP's land use
designation map by removing the mixed use designation for two parcels located at the
end of Addie Street with the approximate location of the parcels shown here on slide 6 because they
are located within the Commission's retained CDP jurisdiction where the LCP is not the standard
of review. These parcels are located on the beach directly adjacent to Pismo Creek and would raise
potential issues related to ESHA and ESHA buffers, coastal hazards, public recreational access,
and public views, where any future development proposals would be reviewed against the Coastal
Act, and it would be inappropriate to designate them for any sort of use that might conflict with
that analysis. Other modifications would revise two proposed policies to ensure that any restriction
on access along the shoreline for the purpose of preserving habitat is done in a manner that
balances habitat protection with that access, would clarify that the construction of new
public vertical coastal access ways must evaluate sensitive shoreline habitat site stability and
public safety concerns to ensure that new public access ways are being installed in places that
will minimize adverse impacts on habitat and ensure long-term stability, and would ensure
that short-term rentals are provided in a manner that balances overnight visitor serving accommodations
with protecting neighborhood character and affordable housing stock. City staff has
indicated that they are in agreement with the suggested modifications. Next slide please.
Commissioned staff very much thanks the city and city staff for their commitment here
to thoughtful long-range coastal planning and their open dialogue with both us as well as
the public throughout the LUP update process. We believe that the result of this overall
collaboration is a robust planning document that, as modified, should serve to ably guide
development and protect the city's coastal resources into the future. Thus, we recommend
that the commission approve the LUP update amendment as modified, where we strongly believe
that this recommendation is born from and is the fruit of the successful coordination between the
city, the public, and commission staff, which we want to recognize. The motion to implement staff's
recommendation is found on page 5 of the staff report and this concludes
staff's presentation. Great, thank you very much. Are there any ex partes? All
right seeing none we will open the public hearing and Simone I'll turn it
over to you. Yes, Scott Graham, Graham, excuse me, available for it. He's here.
Yes I'm here. Morning Commission, Scott Graham. I'm the community development
director for the City of Pismo Beach. I want to concur with the statements that
that Ms. McGregor made in her presentation.
I think we had a great process working with Coastal staff.
It's very collaborative.
They helped us actually,
the project had stalled in 2023,
and then I came on board in 2024,
was tasked with moving it forward
and immediately called Sarah and Ryan
and said, hey, can you help me move this forward?
What are some options to do that?
And we came up with a bifurcation of the process,
bringing forward what you see before you this morning.
And then phase two being the update
to the safety element with our hazard policies.
And we're well underway
with that component of the project as well.
We've had our revised vulnerability assessment is completed.
It's been reviewed by Coastal staff.
Well, we got some comments
and we're working on setting up a meeting
to go over those comments,
hopefully within the next month or so.
We also have had our first public workshop.
That was last week on Tuesday.
our neighborhood outreach meetings will start in November.
So again, we're well on our way with that process
and we'll be looking to bring it before you
probably towards the end of next year.
With that, I just wanna support
the recommendation from staff.
We are in concurrence with the proposed modifications
and I'll be here to answer any questions
if you have any of me, thank you.
Thank you very much, appreciate it.
No more speakers.
Okay, wow, all right.
Well, I'll return to the commission.
I'll be happy to make the motion as soon as I find it, but I just wanted to say that
it's very exciting to hear how well City of Pismo has been working with the
Commission, so I think this is a wonderful outcome that we've been able
to work out, so yay for everybody. And I don't know, does anybody have the motion
in front of the mic? Of course. Thank you. I'll just second those comments and I'll
make the motion at a moment but just wanted to share I think you know in
general when we see some of the holding really working in partnership with the
city on some of these parcels that are clearly going to become you know just
like a new a nuanced policy decision in the future depending on what development
comes and working in partnership to say let's not allow kind of folks to go down
a road with ideas around development potential or otherwise if we think that
Eventually that we're gonna come to that's gonna come to a head that maybe will not yield what what folks might be thinking
we're envisioning so really working in partnership with city staff to get out in front of some of those things so that we can
Ensure that everybody's on the same page before you know
we see something come up before us that is not in line with with the coastal actor our priorities or
You know that that maybe people were we're really going down a road that they've already
expended a lot of time and resources to get to that destination and then being told that they can't do what they want to do
with it, so
Just really appreciate the partnership with the city and I'd like to make a motion
So I think in these motions we're doing a recommended no vote for we certify the land use plan
And we're doing going through that process. Is that right?
okay, so I
Moved that the Commission certified land use plan amendment lcp3-psb-26
0 0 2 6 1 as submitted by the City of Pismo Beach and I recommend a no vote
second
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Kelly a second by Commissioner Escalante. Maybe we have a roll call, please
Yes, Commissioner Escalante
That was a no
Escalante no Commissioner friend. No
No friend no Commissioner Jackson. No Jackson. No Commissioner. Kelly. No Kelly. No Commissioner Lee
No, Lee. No Commissioner Calmyk. No
Calmyk. No Commissioner presidio. No presidio. No Commissioner Wilson. No, Wilson. No chair Harmon
No, Harmon. No, the vote is unanimous
And I move that the Commission certified land use plan amendment lcp-3-psb-26-0026-1
one for the city of Pismo Beach if it's modified as suggested by the staff
recommendation and I recommend a yes vote second it's a motion by Commissioner
Kelly a second by Commissioner Escalante they're asking for a yes vote any
objections to unanimous consent seeing none the motion carries congratulations
appreciate it okay and I think that means we are done for today so thank you
to my colleagues thank you so much to staff for your excellent work AGP you
You guys are amazing, as always.
Thank you.
Thank you to the city of Oceanside, and we look forward to seeing everyone next month
in San Francisco.
This meeting is adjourned.