Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "IssueOutcomeDescription" with value "Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the staff recommendation.". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 26 results starting with #1.

View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)


List of results

  • Issue:Navy 5-Year Training and Testing  + (Commissioner Steve Padilla put it well, sa
    Commissioner Steve Padilla put it well, saying that while the Navy’s activities are vital to national security and very much appreciated, they can and must do more to mitigate the impacts of their training and testing activities. National security and environmental protections are not mutually exclusive.
    al protections are not mutually exclusive.)
  • Issue:Wave Resort Dana Point  + (Commissioner Steve Padilla stated that he
    Commissioner Steve Padilla stated that he respects the Surfrider Foundation’s argument. However, he sympathized with the developer and stated that the hotel is a principally permitted use in the HDCP and he motioned to approve the permit. Commissioner Roberto Uranga seconded the motion stated that he supports the addition of a hostel to the hotel development as mitigation for the moderate- to high-cost proposed hotel.
    the moderate- to high-cost proposed hotel.)
  • Issue:Mirada Bridge Rebuild - Half Moon Bay  + (Commissioners Donne Brownsey clarified thr
    Commissioners Donne Brownsey clarified through a series of questions to staff that armoring the coastal trail in this location may not necessarily be precedent setting. Commissioner Carole Groom motioned for approval and Commissioner Katie Rice seconded the motion.
    mmissioner Katie Rice seconded the motion.)
  • Issue:Capistrano Shores Mobile Home Park - Vote  + (Commissioners Effie Turnbull-Sanders and S
    Commissioners Effie Turnbull-Sanders and Sara Aminzadeh expressed concerns over the potential for wave overtopping and coastal hazard impacts of the proposed development. Much of the discussion focused on the potential for removal and transportability of the mobile home. Commissioner Carole Groom motioned to approve the application and Commissioner Mike Wilson seconded the motion, and staff agreed to incorporate his suggestion to add in a removal plan as part of the permit’s special conditions to ensure the structure will be readily removable.
    e the structure will be readily removable.)
  • Issue:Batiquitos Lagoon Public Access Trail  + (Commissioners Erik Howell commented that,
    Commissioners Erik Howell commented that, “the developers are the villains here - not the homeowners.” Howell also questioned staff on whether there is a practice of requiring performance bonds. Executive Director Jack Ainsworth responded that the Commission does require performance bonds where appropriate; however the permit for this development is more than 30 years old and none was required at that time. Commission staff also responded that they took the homeowners’ accountability into consideration when factoring the penalty. Commissioner Steve Padilla moved to approve the orders and administrative fine. The motion passed unanimously.
    ative fine. The motion passed unanimously.)
  • Issue:Silver Shoals Development  + (Commissioners Groom, Luevano, Shallenberge
    Commissioners Groom, Luevano, Shallenberger, Bochco and Chair Kinsey voted against these changes, with Commissioners Groom and Shallenberger clearly stating their support for protecting as much of the viewshed as possible, not just some of it. However, Commissioners Cox, Howell, McClure, Turnbull-Sanders, Uranga and Vargas voted for the amending motion removing the building height restriction and the additional provision of parking. With the amending motion passed, a majority of the Commissioners then approved the project with Commissioners Shallenberger and Groom voting against it.
    Shallenberger and Groom voting against it.)
  • Issue:Dana Point Hotel - Cannon's  + (Commissioners Katie Rice and Mike Wilson e
    Commissioners Katie Rice and Mike Wilson encouraged additional energy efficiency measures which were ultimately incorporated into the permit. Commissioner Sara Aminzadeh noted the significant amount of staff time it took to negotiate and bring the applicant’s proposed project into compliance with the Coastal Act. She encouraged future applicants to start with consistent project proposals in order to save public resources.
    oposals in order to save public resources.)
  • Issue:Moss Landing Harbor 10-Year Dredging Operations  + (Commissioners Mary Luevano and Mark Vargas
    Commissioners Mary Luevano and Mark Vargas made a motion to continue the item to a future hearing and asked staff to investigate whether ongoing sampling was feasible. Commissioner Vargas also raised the question whether other options of the harbor may benefit from the dredged materials and should be considered, such as portions of the harbor where subsistence farming takes place.
    bor where subsistence farming takes place.)
  • Issue:Gaviota State Beach Pier Repair  + (Commissioners Shelly Luce and Mike Wilson
    Commissioners Shelly Luce and Mike Wilson expressed support for the staff recommendation. Commissioner Caryl Hart motioned to approve the staff recommendation and Commissioner Steve Padilla seconded the motion. Commissioner Erik Howell expressed concern that the Commission was unnecessarily micromanaging the boat hoist program and that State Parks should be redesigning this pier to better withstand sea level rise.
    s pier to better withstand sea level rise.)
  • Issue:Monterey Bay Shores Resort  + (Commissioners Turnbull-Sanders, Bochco and
    Commissioners Turnbull-Sanders, Bochco and Zimmer questioned the developer on his inadequate Habitat Protection Plan. The Commission voted 10-2 to give conditional approval for a Coastal Development Permit, with Commissioners Shallenberger and Duclos (Garcia alternate), opposed. The Commission did add a condition to require the developer to revise his Habitat Protection Plan (HPP) to address the many concerns in an April 7th USFWS letter that critiqued the HPP. This revised HPP will be submitted to the CCC Executive Director for his review and approval. During the discussion, Commission staff suggested that the revised HPP be submitted to the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife and USFWS for their comments and advice. The developer indicated his displeasure with that suggestion. Commissioner Mitchell immediately intervened to eliminate that staff suggestion from the final motion that eventually passed.
    m the final motion that eventually passed.)
  • Issue:Solana Beach Land Use Plan Amendment  + (Commissioners Zimmer, Bochco, and Shallenb
    Commissioners Zimmer, Bochco, and Shallenberger were concerned that if the 20 year provision were removed, impacts from seawalls to public access, recreation, and sand supply would not be thoroughly analyzed or appropriately mitigated in response to changing conditions such as sea-level rise. Commissioners Zimmer and Bochco suggested that language be added to clarify that '''any''' improvement or '''any''' additional square footage to the bluff top structure would trigger a new review of the seawall and require suitable mitigation. Commissioner Shallenberger suggested that section 4.17 of the LUP include all relevant policies under the Coastal Act that protect public access. After extensive debate, the Commission agreed on clarifications to language and unanimously approved amendments to the LUP.
    nanimously approved amendments to the LUP.)
  • Issue:Ontario Ridge Trail Relocation  + (Commissioners agreed that the property owners did not have a right to relocate the trail and urged them to work with Coastal Commission staff to find an appropriate location for their residential development.)
  • Issue:Capistrano Shores Mobile Home Park - Unit 54  + (Commissioners agreed with the Surfrider Foundation that this new development is precariously situated and warrants a full hearing. The Commission voted to remove this item from the consent agenda. It will return for a full hearing in the coming months.)
  • Issue:Solana Beach Erodible Concrete Seawall  + (Commissioners engaged in a substantial dis
    Commissioners engaged in a substantial discussion about this item and the concept of erodible concrete. The applicant proposed their project as an ultimatum – either permit this erodible concrete seawall or see the bluff collapse and have to permit a larger, permanent seawall. Many Commissioners did not see it as so black and white. Commissioner Sara Aminzadeh pointed out that despite the applicant’s claims that this is not a preventative measure, we won’t be able to avoid the ultimate harm of sea level rise. If erodible concrete does not erode it becomes a seawall, if it does, the home will eventually be threatened. Commissioner Donne Brownsey admitted that the proposal is not a perfect solution and then motioned to approve staff’s recommendation and conditions. Commissioner Steve Padilla seconded the motion. Commissioner Aaron Peskin turned the tide by stating that he would vote against this motion, stating, “What we’re doing here is furthering this opportunity to move toward shoreline armoring and more obtrusive shoreline armoring.” Commissioner Mary Luevano also astutely noted that we don’t have much time to adapt to sea level rise. Commissioners voted to deny the proposed development.
    rs voted to deny the proposed development.)
  • Issue:Sharp Park Beach Condominiums in Pacifica  + (Commissioners expressed concern about the
    Commissioners expressed concern about the safety of the proposed development, especially during storm events, as the proposed design lacked an escape route. Commissioner Donne Brownsey mentioned during deliberation that she is reluctant to approve something where specific plans do not yet exist. Commissioner Mike Wilson agreed and mentioned he is anxious about the location and safety concerns. Other Commissioners were less concerned with the risks of the site and the perpetuation of the shoreline armoring. Commissioner Steve Padilla mentioned that, “what is relevant are the existing circumstances. Applicant doesn’t have control over shoreline armoring.”
    n’t have control over shoreline armoring.”)
  • Issue:Trafalgar Canyon San Clemente  + (Commissioners expressed concerns that the
    Commissioners expressed concerns that the city did not yet fully evaluate or approve the project at the local level, and that it was premature for the Commission to rule. Commissioner Linda Escalante also asked that staff look into alleged illegal vegetation clearing and use of weed killers to eradicate sensitive habitat. She also noted that this fight is worth fighting, casting doubt that there was actually a valid takings claim at this property.
    ly a valid takings claim at this property.)
  • Issue:Cease and Desist Order OceanAire Apartments Pacifica  + (Commissioners expressed their concern with
    Commissioners expressed their concern with the nature of the violation and the respondent’s initial failure to respond to Commission’s attempts to resolve the violation. Commissioner Carole Groom motioned to approve the cease and desist order and Commissioner Aaron Peskin seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
    econded the motion. It passed unanimously.)
  • Issue:Public Recreation Fee - Solana Beach LUP - Vote 2  + (Commissioners first voted on Commissioner
    Commissioners first voted on Commissioner Cox’s motion to amend the wage rate to 50% and it failed on a vote of 3-9. Next, Commissioner Aaron Peskin motioned to amend the staff report to 100% wage rate - which would increase the public recreation fee considerably. Commissioner Peskin stated that given sea level rise and the importance of adaptation, this is a precedential issue. Commissioner Mary Luevano seconded the motion. Commissioner Turnbull Sanders said that she was not comfortable with the amendment without a more tangible explanation for using the higher figure. Commissioner Cox also stated that we would prefer a compromise using staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Shallenberger spoke in support of the amendment. Commissioners then voted on this proposed amendment and it failed 3-9.
    this proposed amendment and it failed 3-9.)
  • Issue:Big Lagoon Park  + (Commissioners followed staff recommendatio
    Commissioners followed staff recommendations of denying the application as submitted but approved with modifications as mentioned above. The sentiment of approval and appreciation for the collaborative and forward thinking nature of the project was expressed.
    nking nature of the project was expressed.)
  • Issue:Marina Gateway  + (Commissioners found a Substantial Issue an
    Commissioners found a Substantial Issue and approved the CDP with additional conditions that limited the non-visitor serving use to 10 years and provided $25,000 to fund an environmental education plan and making the space by making an event center available when the college is not using the space. Some Commissioners felt that the appropriate process would have been for the City to submit an LCP amendment.
    n for the City to submit an LCP amendment.)
  • Issue:Civil Penalty Administration - the Lents  + (Commissioners resoundingly took offense at
    Commissioners resoundingly took offense at the egregious violation at hand and agreed that staff’s recommendation of a $950,000 fine was insufficient. Deliberation focused on determining an appropriate fine. The Coastal Commission had administrative authority to fine the Lents up to $8.4 million based on the long amount of daily penalties that have accrued. Commissioner Bochco asked about methodology; staff explained that while there is a methodology to determine the maximum applicable fine codified in legislation, it is up to the Commission to review the circumstances and use their own discretion. Commissioners noted it was important to send a clear message to violators - 19 of 29 coastal easements in Malibu remain closed today - that the beach is not their private backyard, it belongs to the public. Commissioners also noted the importance of the location of this violation. The access point at issue sits in the middle of an approximate three-mile stretch of coastline across several Malibu beaches with no public access: the nearest currently open access is at Carbon Beach, 1.7 miles away. The easement is one of only three potentially developable beach access points in this longer stretch of coast. As such, this is a really important access point, especially for communities from the San Fernando Valley. Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the Cease and Desist order and administer a $4.1 million fine.
    order and administer a $4.1 million fine.)
  • Issue:Cayucos Sanitary District Chevron Outfall Repurposing  + (Commissioners shared concerns with Surfrid
    Commissioners shared concerns with Surfrider and explored options for moving the project forward. Commissioner Mike Wilson suggested the addition of a special condition that would prohibit any additional uses of the ocean outfall in the future in order to avoid delay of the ultimate goal of zero ocean outfalls in San Luis Obispo County. Commissioners agreed with this condition and the project passed unanimously.
    dition and the project passed unanimously.)
  • Issue:Enforcement - Marin Wetlands Fill  + (Commissioners unanimously approved the consent enforcement orders and settlement.)
  • Issue:Solana Beach Defacto Seawall Reconsideration  + (Commissioners unanimously denied the request for reconsideration without remarks.)
  • Issue:Newport Banning Ranch Revised Findings  + (Commissioners voted to approve staff’s rec
    Commissioners voted to approve staff’s recommended revised findings. The revised findings are meant to reflect the Commissioners’ decision made at the September 2016 hearing. In September, Commissioners voted to deny the project as proposed. Staff had recommended approval with suggested modifications to significantly scale down the proposed development. During deliberation, Commissioners expressed concern with staff’s modifications, noting that more information on potential environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) was needed as well as more information on potential impacts to cultural resources. They found that the project was inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Although the applicant expressed concern that the findings will preempt any future development, Commission staff attorney advised that this is not the case. The Commission would have to consider any future modifications including new information.The revised findings reaffirm that the project as submitted is substantially out of conformance with the Coastal Act and Commissioners denied the applicant’s project as well as the staff’s proposed modifications.
    ell as the staff’s proposed modifications.)
  • Issue:Pismo Beach Seawall – Army Corps of Engineers  + (Commissioners were concerned that the Corp
    Commissioners were concerned that the Corps proposal for more narrow language would undermine the Commission’s “original intent.” Commissioners reinforced their decision that any future review of the seawall will consider all of the Coastal Management Program policies, and not just its physical need to protect the pump station. That means any future review must also consider how the seawall affects public access, recreational use, impact on sand supply, and other biological impacts. The Commissioners voted unanimously to add specific language to the findings saying, “the Commission intends and expects that the assessment of the ‘utility’ of the seawall will go beyond a mere assessment of the physical need for the wall to assess its consistency, to the maximum extent practical, with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program.”
    he California Coastal Management Program.”)
  • Issue:Cojo Jalama Ranch  + (Commissioners were supportive of staff’s r
    Commissioners were supportive of staff’s recommendation, noting this as a monumental decision that will improve coastal access and stewardship. During deliberation, Commissioner Donne Brownsey expressed concern over the number of wells and potential future planned uses.Commissioner Mary Luebano motioned to approve both the cease and desist order and the consent order. Commissioner Mark Vargas and Commissioner Eric Howell seconded the motions, respectively. The motions passed unanimously.
    pectively. The motions passed unanimously.)
  • Issue:Sharp Park  + (Community members have been working for ne
    Community members have been working for nearly a decade to restore and protect the sensitive habitat and coastal resources located within Sharp Park. The area contains federally endangered species and is precariously located near to flooding wetlands and the rising ocean. Despite overwhelming evidence that the wetlands around the course will continue to flood and waves will continue creep onto the golf course links, the Commission unanimously approved the CDP.
    e Commission unanimously approved the CDP.)
  • Issue:Malibu Parking Restriction  + (Due to the precedential nature of this dec
    Due to the precedential nature of this decision, Commissioners found Substantial Issue with the city of Malibu’s parking restriction. If Commissioners were to authorize the parking restrictions, it could set a precedent for future misinterpretation of the cities LCP by restricting access in other locations and for other cities are also considering similar limitations. Commissioner Vargas motioned to deny the city’s CDP and Commissioner Peskin seconded the motion. Commissioner Vargas noted that clearly there are significant public access in Malibu and this would in effect be an overnight ban to Surfrider Beach for the public. Commissioners unanimously denied the parking restrictions.
    animously denied the parking restrictions.)
  • Issue:Sharp Park Coastal Armoring  + (During deliberation, Commissioner Sara Ami
    During deliberation, Commissioner Sara Aminzadeh expressed concern about the message that approving this ATF development would send to current and future violators. Commissioner Donne Brownsey mentioned that it is worth considering that the County Recreation and Parks Department may continue to violate the Coastal Act. Commissioner Carole Groom spoke fondly of the golf course and added that it is an important economic driver for the City. Commissioner Dayna Bochco voiced concerns about flooding for nearby development if the armoring is removed. Commissioner Aaron Peskin motioned to approve the staff recommendation to permit the ATF seawall. Commissioner Mark Vargas spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation, noting that the Commission battled to approve the Sea Level Rise Guidance plan the concludes that armoring is not the solution to climate change adaptation. He remarked, “A seawall is a seawall is a seawall.” Commissioner Aminzadeh motioned to have the applicant to renew their permit in 10 years as opposed to the 20 years as recommended in the staff report. The motion would also require a monitoring report in 5 years instead of 10. The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Padilla. The amendment passed 10-2. The main motion, to approve the seawall, was initiated by Commissioner Peskin and seconded by Commissioner Groom passed 9-3.
    seconded by Commissioner Groom passed 9-3.)
  • Issue:Cayucos Del Mar Hotel  + (During deliberation, Commissioners general
    During deliberation, Commissioners generally agreed that the project is not consistent with community character and that the applicant needs to work with staff and the community to significantly redesign and scale down the project. Commissioners denied the project with some reluctance, agreeing that low cost visitor serving use is a priority for this location. Commissioner Peskin motioned to deny the permit and Commissioner Aminzadeh seconded the motion. The project was denied 10-2.
    d the motion. The project was denied 10-2.)
  • Issue:Public Recreation Fee - Solana Beach LUP - Vote 3  + (Finally, commissioners voted on the main motion, to approve staff’s modifications and a 67% wage rate - the motion passed unanimously. *See also "Public Recreation Fee - Solana Beach LUP - Vote 1 and Vote 2 for more information.)
  • Issue:Dunes Development (Venice)  + (Following a comprehensive presentation by
    Following a comprehensive presentation by Deputy Director Steve Hudson outlining why the project didn’t meet Coastal Act Standards and explaining how staff had determined the minimum number of additional parking spaces (22), discussion from Commissioners began. Commissioner Vargas strongly questioned Staff’s findings and the need of parking spaces with comments such as “Sometime we get stuck in this idea that parking is everything,” pointing out the photos submitted by the appellants showed “a lot of people riding their bikes” and stating that “… A restaurant in the Coastal Zone is access to the coast.” Commissioners Uranga and Luevano also thought public transportation was sufficient in this case. Commissioner Shallenberger pointed out that the Commission’s standard “is Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act” – in other words, the question isn’t how Commissioners feel about providing parking, the question is whether or not the project complies with the Coastal Act. Commissioner Shallenberger also noted that people’s access to visitor services such as a restaurant “isn’t the same as public access to the beach.” Even acknowledging the burden that such a decision would place on staff, Commissioner Vargas moved for a continuance with McClure seconding, stating more “studies” were needed. Commissioners voted 6 - 5 to continue the item.
    ssioners voted 6 - 5 to continue the item.)
  • Issue:Sea World Orca Enclosure Expansion  + (Following an initial proposed condition by
    Following an initial proposed condition by Commissioner Cox, asking that a cap be placed on Sea World’s current population of 15 orcas, Commissioner Bochco proposed a more restrictive condition that was well received by other members of the Commission. After being informed by counsel that the CCC was not pre-empted by other federal and state agencies, Commissioner Bocho proposed a condition prohibiting the breeding and transferring of orcas, which was seconded by Commissioner Shallenberger and approved by all Commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Cox. The condition was approved by a majority and the CDP was then voted on and approved unanimously.
    as then voted on and approved unanimously.)
  • Issue:AB 2002  + (Following discussion and a robust round of Q&A with Staff and Commissioners, Commissioners decided to take a vote to decide on whether or not to support the bill. With a vote of 8-3 the Commissioners gave their support to the bill.)
  • Issue:Solana Beach Sea Cave Fill-in  + (Following discussion that circled from Com
    Following discussion that circled from Commissioner Cox acknowledging that a “real time” test was needed to see how “erodible” the erodible concrete actually is and how it would affect the bluff to Commissioners Bochco and McClure agreeing there should be a test, but on a significantly smaller scale in order to minimize potential impacts, the CDP was denied in a 9:2 vote.
    impacts, the CDP was denied in a 9:2 vote.)
  • Issue:SFPUC Ocean Beach Temporary Erosion Management  + (Following public comment and feedback from Staff, Commissioner Groom moved to approve the CDP and it was followed by unanimous approval.)
  • Issue:SB 1190  + (Following the Staff presentation and discussion Commissioners voted 6-5 to support the bill.)
  • Issue:Titans of Mavericks Surf Contest  + (Given that the original permit amendment w
    Given that the original permit amendment was wholly inadequate to meet the Commission’s intent to have more women involved during the 2016-17 season, as it merely promised to watch for and invite qualified women in the future for the contest to be held in 2017-18, the Commission and public remained skeptical of the applicant’s intentions. Commissioners agreed that staff’s recommendation for a four year permit was not appropriate with the prior history of public exclusion at the event and the significant impacts to public access and public recreational use that the event poses. They agreed that a one year permit could be granted and - provided that the event is carried out as conditioned - a longer term permit may be considered in the future.
    rm permit may be considered in the future.)
  • Issue:City of Dana Point LCP Amendment - Strands Beach  + (In 2005, a residential development was con
    In 2005, a residential development was constructed with 125 single family units. The city closed the Mid-Strand and Central Strand access ways in the evenings purportedly in order to protect their privacy and prevent potential criminal acts. The six-year battle has come down to this one issue for the Coastal Commission to decide: Gates, or no gates? Commissioners Robert Uranga, Mark Vargas and Steve Kinsey spoke in favor of the City’s application to use retractable gates in order to improve public safety. They pointed out that there are several other access points in this area that do not have gates and that the city accommodated requests to extend the hours of access to accomodate surfers and other beach goers. Commissioners Carole Groom, Effie Turnbull-Sanders, Eric Howell, Olga Diaz and Dayna Bocho all countered that the gates are an unnecessary obstacle to access that much of the population may see as a deterrent for access. Furthermore, gates often lead to enforcement issues. The Commission vote 8-4 to approve staff’s recommendation and require the City of Dana Point to remove the gates all together.
    na Point to remove the gates all together.)
  • Issue:Brown After-the-Fact Permit  + (It was heartening to hear discussion aroun
    It was heartening to hear discussion around the loss of public access and resources due to private property owners trying to protect their assets. However, starting off with a line of inquiry from Chair Kinsey, “If the wall is constructed beyond the mean high tide line, what loss to public access really exists?” the initial proposed access mitigation fee was removed. Interim Executive Director Ainsworth clarified that the seawall impacts the existing lateral easement and the beach fronting the wall, meaning, it impacts the amount of beach the public can access. Staff documentation showed that during high tide, the water line goes all the way up to the wall itself. This means a loss of public access. Interestingly enough, while Commissioners seemed to accept that the wall would inhibit sand resupply to the beach, transferring this knowledge to understand that the beach would then thus diminish over time as a result was not conceivable and thus not grounds enough for the access and recreation mitigation fee proposed. In the end, claiming fairness of how past permits were issued to neighboring properties – while not taking the difference between the proactive neighbors and the latently reactive applicant, the public access and recreation mitigation fee was dropped from $154,662 to $5,833. These fees will be reassessed once the 22-year permit has expired.
    essed once the 22-year permit has expired.)
  • Issue:Marin County LCP Update  + (Marin County is one of the first coastal j
    Marin County is one of the first coastal jurisdictions to perform a comprehensive update to its LCP that was certified in 1982. Environmental organizations that testified at the public hearing raised concerns about the wholesale changes to existing agriculture policies, especially the definition of ‘agriculture’ that now includes several kinds of development. As one example, the updated LCP as modified by Commission staff allowed “agriculture” to be defined so that a variety of new development on a farm tract falls under the definition, including up to 8,500 square feet of residential development, a 5,000 square foot processing facility, a retail farm stand, and one “intergenerational” house even if the person(s) living there had nothing to do with the farm. Additionally, all this development was determined to be “necessary for” agricultural production despite that no findings were presented by the County or Commission to support this conclusion. Because almost all of these types of development are currently a conditional use under Marin’s Certified LCP and thus require a public hearing with an ability to appeal to the Coastal Commission, the LCP update lessens the public’s ability to weigh in on new development in the Marin coastal zone. Additionally, the LCP reduces ESHA buffers down to 50 feet from 100 feet without scientific findings to support the change. It also limits scenic and visual resource protections so that only “significant” public views are protected despite that most of the agricultural lands are either right across from Tomales Bay and Point Reyes National Seashore or are near Golden Gate National Recreation Area lands. The Commission staff undoubtedly made some policies and development standards better, like for stormwater and groundwater testing. The Sierra Club testified that while the LCP process is exempt from CEQA chapters 1 and 2, it is not exempt from chapters 3 and 4 which require an alternatives analysis as well as analysis of individual and cumulative impacts. The Commission staff did not perform an alternatives analysis or a cumulative impacts analysis as part of the staff report. The Commission had an active discussion about how much flexibility agriculture should be given, with some commissioners supporting more flexibility if potential and real adverse impacts were analyzed and addressed. Commission Chair Kinsey wanted that position to go a step further. He made a motion to alter the definition of “ongoing agriculture” so that an intensification in the use of agricultural lands – like changing from grazing to row crops – would not require a coastal development permit or even a de minimis waiver permit. This seems to directly conflict with the definition of “development” in the Coastal Act that requires that any intensification of use obtain a CDP. Regarding the Environmental Hazards (EH) chapter, Marin County strongly objected to the modifications made by the Commission to bring the policies and development code language into conformance with the Commission’s past practices and SLR Guidance Policy. Marin County wants property owners to be able to elevate their homes indefinitely without any evaluation of compliance with community character, scenic resource or public access protections. The County also wants existing shoreline armoring to count toward the amount of setbacks for new development, despite a direct conflict with the Commission’s SLR Guidance Policy. After significant discussions among staff and Commissioners, Acting Executive Director Ainsworth stipulated to some of the changes the County wanted, but not others. Because not all of the disagreements could be resolved at the hearing, the Commission directed staff to hold the EH chapter for further negotiations with the County. The Marin County LCP update cannot be implemented until this chapter is finalized and certified by the Commission. Vote 1: Approve the Marin County LCP update as modified by the Commission staff. Unanimous approval. This was a complex vote, and as a result will not be scored. Vote 2 (scored): Amendment to motion 1 that deleted the words “existing legally established” and “conversion of grazing to crop production” from the definition of ongoing agriculture. Mary Shallenberger was the only "Good" vote.
    ry Shallenberger was the only "Good" vote.)
  • Issue:Huntington Beach Poseidon Desalination Proposal  + (Most Commissioners were concerned about ma
    Most Commissioners were concerned about major damage to marine life caused by an open ocean intake. They also objected to Poseidon’s refusal to use less damaging subsurface intakes or available diffuser technology to reduce the impacts of the plant’s brine discharge. In the face of a Commission denial, Poseidon withdrew its application and agreed to study other subsurface technologies that avoid or reduce the plant’s adverse impacts before resubmitting its application.
    pacts before resubmitting its application.)
  • Issue:Amending Clause to Interim Executive Director Appointment  + (Not wanting to exclude someone from applyi
    Not wanting to exclude someone from applying to the position of Executive Director purely on the basis that they are in a position to support Commission Staff while acting as the Interim Director, Commissioners voted 6:5 against the amending motion. This means that Mr. Ainsworth will be able to both fill the position of interim Executive Director and apply for the position as well should he choose to do so.
    osition as well should he choose to do so.)
  • Issue:Setbacks in Solana Beach - Harris  + (Robust discussion amongst commissioners an
    Robust discussion amongst commissioners and driven by Chair Dayna Bochco was focused on concern over consistency of decisions especially with regard to perpetuating non-conforming uses that does not necessarily make a structure more vulnerable or unsafe to coastal hazards. Commissioner Sara Aminzadeh motioned to approve the denial as staff recommended and Commissioners unanimously approved the motion.
    issioners unanimously approved the motion.)
  • Issue:Santa Cruz Beach Curfew  + (Several Commissioners expressed concern ab
    Several Commissioners expressed concern about the proposed beach curfew, which the City justified as necessary due to safety concerns, especially among the area’s unsheltered population who often spend time at the beach at night. Commissioner Zahirah Mann noted that “safety concerns” are often used to sometimes exclude different populations. Commissioner Erik Howell, who was among those voted against giving the city its permit, said curfews should be set in a way that is the least restrictive way possible. Some Commissioners also noted that creating a police state on the public’s beach could set a poor precedent for the rest of the state.
    poor precedent for the rest of the state.)
  • Issue:Solana Beach Pacific Ave seawall  + (Since this project was essentially a resub
    Since this project was essentially a resubmittal of the original project that included 245 Pacific Ave, that property should still have been included as an applicant. It fundamentally defies logic that a seawall be proposed where it will result in the primary protection of a threatened property that is not listed as an applicant, especially given that the property at 245 Pacific Ave was included in the project and explicitly denied a seawall as originally submitted to the city of Solana Beach (the city) and the Commission. A more appropriate response would be requiring removal of the endangered portions of 245 Pacific Ave. to abate the current emergency per the agreed-upon deed restrictions placed on the property by the Coastal Commission.
    on the property by the Coastal Commission.)
  • Issue:CEMEX Cease and Desist  + (The Agreement serves multiple purposes, in
    The Agreement serves multiple purposes, including: 1) it provides interim operating conditions necessary to limit the scope of the operation and protect coastal resources while the unpermitted development is phased out; 2) it establishes a finite date for the sand extraction operations to cease, by December 31, 2020; 3) it establishes a maximum amount of sand that may be removed during the cessation period in any given year to 240,000 tons/year (approximately 177,000 cu yards/year); 4) it requires CEMEX to undertake restoration and reclamation activities to restore the habitat values of the Property; 5) it provides an additional three year period to wind down operations on the upland portion of the property and to begin reclamation and restoration activities, and provide for a period of time for transition of employees (no additional mining of sand will occur during this period); 6) it requires CEMEX to transfer the Property, at a reduced purchase price, to a non-profit or governmental entity approved by the Commission; 7) it requires as part of any sale, a deed restriction be put in place to protect the property and limit the potential uses of the property to conservation- related purposes, including but not limited to public access, conservation, low-impact passive recreation, and public education, which will improve public access and habitat on the site in the future; 8) it provides for CEMEX to withdraw its Vested Rights Claim and Statement of Defense and agree not to sue the Coastal Commission over the issuance or enforcement of this Agreement; and 9) it provides for monitoring reports and significant penalties for violations of the agreement.
    penalties for violations of the agreement.)
  • Issue:Local Coastal Program Grant Awards for Fiscal Year 2013-2014  + (The CCC received 28 grant applications req
    The CCC received 28 grant applications requesting a total of $5,292,007. Because the Commission only had $1 million to distribute, Staff determined that it could only fund 11 grant requests. The City of Los Angeles was a major focus of the deliberation. Some Commissioners were disappointed that L.A. only received $100,000. Other Commissioners mentioned that for nearly 40 years, L.A. has made little progress in developing an LCP for certification, while many other cities have been actively working on their LCPs—and thus should be rewarded for their efforts. Staff reminded the Commission that every grant application needed to meet funding criteria and that L.A. did not do so as well as some other jurisdictions. After extensive debate, the Commission voted 9-2 to approve Staff’s proposed grant allocations.
    pprove Staff’s proposed grant allocations.)
  • Issue:AB 1129 – Coastal Access and Preservation Act  + (The California Coastal Protection Network
    The California Coastal Protection Network (CCPN), , testified in support of the bill on behalf of the Nature Conservancy, the bill’ sponsor. CCPN also requested Coastal Commission support for the bill. Commissioner Brownsey expressed concern for calling out seawalls specifically as eligible for administrative penalties and leaving out other equally important subject matters. Enforcement staff responded that the bill’s language intends to clarifying existing law in order to make it easier to move forward. Commissioner Carole Groom made a motion to support the bill and was seconded by Commissioner Aaron Peskin. Commissioner Erik Howell spoke against the bill stating that he is concerned that this will discourage seawalls that may bring public benefits. Ultimately, commissioners voted to support the bill 11-1.
    missioners voted to support the bill 11-1.)