The Coastal Commission had plenty to worry about this month but the big-ticket item, the Santa Monica Mountains Local Coastal Program (LCP), was at last not problematic. After 28 years of difficult stop-and-start negotiations, the final Local Implementation Plan (LIP) approval session sounded like a Thursday morning at the Oscars. [This article was updated July 30.]

The first "I'd like to thank..." litany of gratitude came from Jack Ainsworth, senior deputy director for the Ventura-based district office with responsibility for LA County. That was after he'd announced full agreement between the County and Coastal Commission staff on the 600-odd suggested modifications to the original LIP, which he termed "nothing short of a miracle."

Then it was the turn of termed-out LA County Supevisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who drove the LCP to completion as his legacy project. And then more mutual thanks: to Yaroslavsky, the Coastal Commission staff for long hours against tough deadlines; County Planning Director Richard Bruckner and his staff; the Commission, the public, homeowners' associations, equestrians, voters.

A unanimous vote of the Commission that day gave the plan its last substantive approval. It now goes to the County for re-endorsement as amended, then back to the Commission for endorsement, then becomes fully final.

The plan covers 50,000 acres of steep canyonlands above the City of Malibu's coastal strip: a territory of fragile habitats, expensive houses, organic farms and vineyards, parks -- and locally traditional horse corrals. Per the program's last and toughest negotiations, new farming is discouraged, new vineyards are banned outright, and the horse corrals will be either helped toward compliance or, if that's impossible, allowed to phase out, even allowing limited nonconforming uses to continue a while after sales to new owners. (For more background see http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-3474.)

Susan Jordan of the California Coastal Protection Network used her public comment minutes to recall, by contrast, the 2002 conflict when the Legislature required the Coastal Commission to draft and certify an LCP for the city of Malibu. "What went down during that fight was -- I can't even describe really what it was like but it was terrible. It was contentious. There was anger on all sides. And it finally got done but it was -- it left everyone really bruised." Whereas this time -- she professed herself "nothing short of amazed" to see letters of support from Malibu City Council members. She said, "This is a very progressive LCP -- well, it's not there yet, but almost."

Consultant Don Schmitz spoke as he had in April for the Coastal Coalition of Family Farmers, a group formed this spring in alarmed response to the planned restrictions on agriculture. Schmitz's group had especially fought the LCP's moratorium on new vineyards. He made two last appeals at the July meeting: first, to let farmers add a little more growing space in the ten-foot "fuel modification zones" required along roads, and, second, to let them install more solid barriers than the required wildlife-permeable fencing around organic farmland. He lost on both counts.

Heal the Bay's last-ditch effort, less insistent, was to call for more mitigation during the "temporal loss" created by the temporary grandfathering of nonconforming horse properties. The group also called for more careful monitoring of stream impacts. Again, no changes were made to the addendum worked out between county and Commission staff before the meeting. At last the deal was done.

The main July agenda document at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/7/Th15a-7-2014.pdf includes as attachments the LCP's two now-completed parts: the Land Use Plan, approved in April, and the Local Implementation Plan, approved in July. The main document starting at Page 141 includes richly textured maps showing the new patchworks of land use categories, followed by categorizations of potential land uses, from "Arboretums and horticultural gardens," to "Convents and monasteries, stand-alone," to bait and tackle shops, tasting rooms, union halls, youth hostels, and "Wild animals, the keeping of, either individually or collectively for private or commercial purposes."

Agenda materials for this and all July Coastal Commission items, with votes noted, are at http://coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-mm14-7.html.

San Diego port district plan withdrawn over visitor affordability

The Port of San Diego withdrew a proposal to rezone East Harbor Island, which it owns, after the Port, Commission staff, and the Commissioners themselves could not agree on rules for lower-cost visitor accommodations on the site.

The case drove the Commissioners to renew discussion about the meaning, purpose and appropriate quality of "lower cost" accommodations, and to ask whether Commission staff were making policy on the subject backhandedly in negotiating mitigation fees case by case.

Current zoning on East Harbor Island calls for a single 500-room hotel. The property's long-term lessor, Sunroad Marina Partners, LP, proposed to divide those 500 rooms among three different hotels. The Commission found that troubling because it would take up more space, crowding out other possible lower-cost visitor accommodations such as campgrounds or a hostel.

The Port's proposal called for the developer to "develop or designate its fair share of on-site or off-site lower cost visitor accommodations or pay an in-lieu fee based on a study conducted by the District." But the Commission found that short on specifics. By contrast the Commission staff were calling for a very specific, and rather steep one-third of the hotel units -- 166 rooms -- to be lower-cost overnight accommodations.

Asked where the one-third fraction came from, a staff member  explained late in the discussion that the proposal called for three hotels, the one-third proposal was made at "the beginning of our negotiations with the port," and discussion on the subject hadn't gone farther.

The port district and developer were seeking to push back more specific commitments on low-cost visitor accommodations until it could complete a study on the subject. Randa Coniglio, Executive Vice President for Operations at the Port, described the study as investigating demand, location and types of lower-cost accommodations "that will be successful and [will] drive visitors to San Diego Bay." The study would come back to the Commission as a Port Master Plan Amendment, she sad.

Speakers supporting the staff recommendation for one-third affordability included a UNITE-HERE union representative and a hotel worker who said he was paid minimum wage and had student loans to pay off, so he looked for low-cost public amenities to enjoy with his fianceé -- as someday he would look for ways to take his kids to the coast.

Commissioner Jana Zimmer argued that as owner of the island the Port, as a public agency, had a duty to maintain public access: "When a public agency like a port is acting as a property owner and looking to maximize the revenue from that publicly owned land," she said they should consider whether they had complied fully with Coastal Act objectives. She didn't want to wait to receive the study "as a fait accompli".

Commissioner Gregory Cox, the local San Diego County Supervisor on the board, asked for a broader conversation about "this whole concept" of lower-cost accommodations, but also wanted to see the Port's study results for a practical sense of what would work on the site.

Others asked for clarity on the distinction between "lower cost" and genuinely low-cost accommodations; on whether an equally pleasant and comfortable vacation experience should be made available to the lower-budget public in compensation for high-priced coastal uses; on what becomes of "in-lieu" fees; on the proper percentages of hotel units to be held at lower rates or compensated for through in-lieu fees.

Commissioner Martha McClure, a Del Norte County Supervisor, was also bothered by the meaning of "lower cost," which she said had a different meaning "in my part of the world" than in San Diego. Considering "the average family of four that might be on their way to Disneyland or might be on their way to Sea World or somewhere on the California Coast," she asked if they would really want to stay in a campground or hostel. While supporting approval for the Port's project, she asked for a study of what accommodations count as lower-cost and where they should be. "I'm thinking that some of these in-lieu fees go to the developer who agrees to develop and run a low-cost hotel for the next 45 years," as "a Holiday Inn Express or I don't know what."

Commisison Chair Steve Kinsey of Marin agreed with her: "We shouldn't push every lower-cost accommodation into a tent."

It was Kinsey who pursued the question of why Commission staff had asked for one-third of the units to be set at lower costs or compensated. He said he was uncomfortable with the answer, and wanted "a more specific way of getting there."

Coniglio withdrew the application, saying "We absolutely understand your concerns and have the same concerns ourselves." With the application withdrawn, it was left that the Port would return after making progress on the study.

It wasn't clear when the Commission would next discuss or draft general rules governing lower-cost accommodations but the pressure for such a discussion appeared to have risen.

Ventura's 'Triangle Site' primed for development

A relatively easy affordability discussion wrapped up what Ainsworth called a "long hard negotiation" in Ventura on the so-called "Triangle Site." The long-debated site, also known as the "Promenade Parcels," is an undeveloped bluff-top area isolated by railroad tracks and the inland side of Highway 101 but close to Ventura's beach and pier. It was before the Commission for approval of a requested LCP amendment to allow a promenade and other development including potentially houses or hotels.

The essential term of the city-Commission agreement provided that any future proponent of residential development on the site would need to pay a $1.8 million mitigation fee to support lower-cost visitor accommodations, presumably elsewhere. The fee was based on the calculation that a 210-room hotel could be built on the site under the zoning sought, imposing a fee based on 25% of those rooms at an in-lieu fee of about $34,000 (inflation-adjusted from a 2007 study that recommended $30,000 per room).

Plans under the new zoning called for construction of parking and a bluff-top promenade more strongly linking the site to the waterfront. Requirements called for parking areas accompanying new development to install infrastructure from the start for electric car charging stations, but with plans held in reserve to build the charging stations themselves only when they become needed.

The city was seeking the amendment at the initiation of owner Lloyd Properties, which was seeking to either develop the property or sell it to a developer. Larry Bucher, chair of the Lloyd Properties board, offered support from the owning family for the agreement. He said the family had owned the property 75 years "and I personally have been involved in trying to do something with it" for 30 years. "We're not developers, this is something that we've owned for 75 years and we're attempting to find a solution. With this amendment I think we're on the right path."

The Commission granted approval to the LCP change, but with a revision sought by City of Ventura representatives: adding the city as a party to the Memorandum of Understanding for administration of the fee, along with the Coastal Commission itself and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Ainsworth accepted the three-party structure reluctantly, saying he didn't want disputes about state parks management within the city to "somehow get mixed up" with the new MOU discussion.

Possibilities for use of the money included improvements to existing campgrounds. One possible site the city had recommended was the Emma Wood State Beach group camping area. But State Parks District Superintendent Rich Rozelle said the site was unsuitably located in the river flood plain and the whole $1.8 million could be used up running a sewer line there.

The only outright opposition was in a complaint letter to the Commission by the Pacific Legal Foundation, questioning the legality of the $1.8 million fee. (Commissioner Zimmer said PLF's client wasn't clear; PLF's @TheCoastWatch Twitter feed clarified within minutes that the letter was "submitted on behalf of PLF only.") At Zimmer's suggestion, the attorney for Lloyd Properties committed on the record to making it a condition of sale for the purchaser not to contest the in-lieu fee in future.
The agenda materials are at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/7/Th15b-7-2014.pdf.

Donald Trump's flagpole issue still unresolved

For now, a 70-foot flagpole will continue to fly a large U.S. flag next to the clubhouse at the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes but the flagpole's future isn't resolved. First set up in 2006, the pole was locally approved in 2007 but never got Coastal Commission approval. In this month's Coastal Commission session, the Trump organization sought retroactive approval of the flagpole together with permission for less debated improvements such as a driving range.

In a two-hour debate July 9, members of the Coastal Commission more and less stoically received edification on the national flag's symbolism by Trump counsel Jill Martin and a parade of ardent public commenters. Commissioner Jana Zimmer delivered a lecture of her own on national values attached to the rule of law.

But the discussion's real sticking point was unmoving insistence by Commission staff that the flagpole was restricted by a 26-foot building height restriction in the local municipal code, which is part of the Local Coastal Program. Rancho Palos Verdes town officials testified that the 26-foot limit had been intended to limit the heights of houses, whereas a flagpole was more like a radio antenna and shouldn't be regulated as to height at all.

The hearing ended in an understanding: the proponents withdrew the flagpole portion of their proposal while the Commission approved the other proposed work on the property. It was left that the proponents would seek local approval -- which was clearly likely to be popular -- for a proposed Local Coastal Program revision legalizing the flagpole. The Commission would then consider waiving or reducing the filing fee -- otherwise potentially $500,000 -- to come back with the proposed LCP revision and the request to have the flagpole approved.

With all eyes on the flagpole, it became a side issue that the golf course does not use recycled water and does not now have infrastructure to do so. Martin told the Commission it was "something that we are actively exploring," and an area where the company wanted to improve because it was "incredibly expensive to maintain our golf course with the water resources we have now."

Also at the Coastal Commission:

  • The Commission issued a notice of violation and a cease and desist order to Robert and Judith McCarthy, who had upset neighbors by fencing off a hiking trail in Avila Beach. The San Luis Obispo Tribune has details at http://bit.ly/1jvIUa0. The news account also describes the Commission's rejection of a county plan to add paving and a restroom to the visitor areas at Pirate's Cove Beach. After hearing from local opponents, the Commission granted only limited approval, for a coastal trail to be built linking the area to Pismo Beach.
  • The Commission agreed to hold a separate public hearing about proposed major renovations to the former Aliso Creek Inn and Golf Course in Laguna Beach. The project proponent said the planned work would not increase the buildings' square footage but appellant Mark Fudge presented environmental, public access and affordability concerns. See http://bit.ly/1slwtR9 and http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/coastal-panel-ropes-ranch-another-review/
  • The Commission easily approved a movie theater conversion in the third floor of the Santa Monica Place Bloomingdale's and an office remodel by Google in the city of Venice.
  • The Commission gave permanent approval to a temporary revetment of boulders placed to stop erosion at Port Hueneme Beach. For details see the city's own site at http://www.ci.port-hueneme.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=1000.
  • Governor Jerry Brown has signed AB 474, broadening requirements for disclosure of Commissioners' ex parte contacts. Prior law required Commissioners to report who spoke or wrote to them and what was said. Now they must also report who if anyone the speaker was representing in making the ex parte contact and who else was "present during the communication," and must provide copies of "all text and graphic material that was part of the communication". See http://bit.ly/1jvQaTj and http://bit.ly/1sluhcc.
  • The August Coastal Commission meeting will be a four-day session, Tuesday through Friday, rather than the ordinary three-day monthly meeting. The agenda, already available at http://coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html, includes a major proposal: the I-5 expansion from San Diego to Camp Pendleton. See http://bit.ly/1zoq0FS for a preview. Other expected agenda items include the perennially debated future of the Children's Pool seal haulout area in La Jolla.
  • At its July meeting the Commission approved, with modifications, a revised map of the eternally debated sites of public beach access areas in the city of Malibu. The maps are at the end of the agenda item's document PDF, which is at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/7/Th15c-7-2014.pdf, but if you're actually looking for a place to sun yourself, it may be wise to study up on the disputes and modifications mentioned earlier in the same PDF.