2017/May
From ActCoastal
| Year | 2017 |
|---|---|
| Month | May |
| Location | San Diego |
| Description | The Coastal Commission reconvened in May in San Diego after a short hiatus after the April meeting was canceled due to budget constraints. The May hearing was eventful, with important issues ranging from water use, coastal access, recreation valuation and more – resulting in six vote charts. |
Issues voted on at this Meeting
Click on an issue to read full description
| Issue | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| AB 1129 – Coastal Access and Preservation Act | This bill would amend PRC 30235 to define “existing structure” as structures built prior to January 1, 1977, and to specify that shoreline protection devices must be approved consistent with the Coastal Act policies protecting public access, shoreline ecology, natural landforms and other impacts on coastal resources. The bill would specify that emergency permits issued for shoreline protective devices are intended to allow the minimum amount of temporary development necessary to address the emergency situation. The bill would also amend PRC 30821 to allow for the imposition of administrative penalties for unpermitted shoreline protective devices.
Staff recommended support of the bill and the need for close analysis of seawalls, especially given the extremely pressing issue of sea level rise and the need to appropriately address its impacts while preserving public resources. Commissioners approved support of the bill on a vote of 11-1. |
|
| City of San Diego Secondary Treatment Waiver | The City of San Diego submitted a consistency certification for the reissuance of its secondary treatment waiver for the municipal discharges from its Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The waiver reissuance would be needed to allow San Diego to continue to discharge effluent receiving less than full secondary treatment in terms of total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). If no waiver were granted, the City would be required under the Clean Water Act to implement upgrades meeting secondary treatment requirements, which would mean removal of 85% of both TSS and BOD. With a waiver, CWA Section 301(h) and (j) require, among other things, removal of 80% of TSS and 58% of BOD.
Other coastal municipalities that had sought past waivers have now upgraded to secondary treatment. San Diego is pursuing a different approach: as an alternative to upgrading to secondary treatment, they propose to reduce wastewater flows to the plant, through water recycling, which then reduces flows (and pollutant loads) into the ocean. On December 9, 2014, the City of San Diego expanded and updated its commitments to water reuse, in a Cooperative Agreement with San Diego Coastkeeper, the San Diego Chapter of Surfrider Foundation, the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, and the San Diego Audubon Society. This agreement commits San Diego to a compliance schedule for initially implementing at least 15 million gallons per day (MGD)of potable water reuse by end of 2023, at least 30 MGD by the end of 2027, and ultimately achieving at least 83 MGD of wastewater reuse by the end of 2035. The Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Order incorporates the City’s commitments to continue to pursue and implement its recycled water program, converting wastewater into potable water, under a program called “Pure Water San Diego.” The US EPA, San Diego Chamber of Commerce, Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Coastkeeper and Coast Law Group all testified in favor of the waiver. A representative from the US EPA testified pointing out that the associated discharge empties into federal waters – thus prompting this agenda item. The EPA has the sole responsibility of acting on the waiver. They pointed out that the City has already met very stringent requirements that do not adversely effect the ocean environment. The performance of the facility has improved over the past 20 year and meets permitting authority requirements by a wide margin. The opposition, Steve Ray, claimed that the same amount of wastewater would be discharged in 2050 than there is today, even with Pure Water, due to rapid population growth that will result in more wastewater discharges and therefore the waiver should not be granted. During deliberation, Commissioner Shallenberger highlighted that Pure Water San Diego proves that “there is affordable technology that can truly answer water supply problems. We don’t need anything fancy or detrimental if we don’t want to” – apparently in reference to the benefits associated with wastewater recycling when compared to costly desalination and other similar infrastructure projects. The waiver concurrence was approved unanimously. |
|
| Montecito Well Appeal - Ornamental Landscaping | The proposed project consists of construction of a new private water well for supplemental irrigation of extensive, ornamental landscaping on a 1.71-acre residential property.
Santa Barbara County continues to experience drought conditions with extraordinary water supply shortfalls and the Montecito Water District has mandated strict water conservation measures. Surfrider Foundation strongly supported staff’s recommendation of denial for this project based on its failure to conform to water resource use provisions of Santa Barbara County’s certified LCP Additionally, the LCP specifies that “to protect water resources from overuse and preserve water resources for priority land uses such as agriculture and coastal dependent land uses,” urban, residential development is to be served by water district services exclusively where available. The property currently receives municipal water service from the Montecito Water District; the proposed well is an attempt to circumvent State, County and water district mandated water rationing to provide supplemental water for ornamental residential landscaping. There was no dispute regarding the appealability of this project among Commissioners. Commissioners unanimously denied the permit. |
|
| Public Recreation Fee - Solana Beach LUP - Vote 1 | The city of Solana Beach has been working to develop a method to mitigate for the impacts that coastal structures and non-erodible seacave/notch infills have on public access and recreation since 2007. Policy 4.50 of the existing LUP required that the City
complete a fee study to mitigate for the impacts that coastal structures and nonerodible seacave/notch infills have on public access. In January 2014, the Commission awarded Solana Beach a $120,000 grant to complete the mitigation method, which required that the City submit an updated Fee Study and an LUP amendment to the Commission. At the May hearing, Solana Beach proposed their Fee Study – now nearly ten years in the making. The Fee Study is a modification to its LUP Hazards & Shoreline/Bluff Development Policy 4.50. The method for calculating a fee to account for the impact of shoreline armoring to public recreation (i.e. Public Recreation Fee) varies widely statewide and has resulted in ongoing study. The City of Solana Beach has developed a mitigation methodology, known as the travel cost method, which it is proposing to incorporate into its certified LUP through this amendment. Staff proposed a number of modifications to the city’s proposed LUP amendment – most included adjustments to the travel cost method equation. There was one main point of disagreement - the wage rate used to calculate the opportunity cost of a day at the beach. Solana Beach recommended using a low wage rate in the travel cost methodology of 33%. Staff argued, and were supported by San Francisco State University economist Phil King, that using a low wage rate in the equation as proposed by Solana Beach would lead to a drastic undervaluation of the beach and instead recommended that 67% of wage rate be used in the equation, which would double the public recreation fee. They also recommended increasing the number of LIDAR data points used to calculate the beach width, for a more accurate snapshot of the beach width over time. Commissioners voted on two amendments, both of which failed. Ultimately, staff’s recommendation of using a 67% wage rate passed unanimously. |
|
| Public Recreation Fee - Solana Beach LUP - Vote 2 | The city of Solana Beach has been working to develop a method to mitigate for the impacts that coastal structures and non-erodible seacave/notch infills have on public access and recreation since 2007. Policy 4.50 of the existing LUP required that the City
complete a fee study to mitigate for the impacts that coastal structures and nonerodible seacave/notch infills have on public access. In January 2014, the Commission awarded Solana Beach a $120,000 grant to complete the mitigation method, which required that the City submit an updated Fee Study and an LUP amendment to the Commission. At the May hearing, Solana Beach proposed their Fee Study – now nearly ten years in the making. The Fee Study is a modification to its LUP Hazards & Shoreline/Bluff Development Policy 4.50. The method for calculating a fee to account for the impact of shoreline armoring to public recreation (i.e. Public Recreation Fee) varies widely statewide and has resulted in ongoing study. The City of Solana Beach has developed a mitigation methodology, known as the travel cost method, which it is proposing to incorporate into its certified LUP through this amendment. Staff proposed a number of modifications to the city’s proposed LUP amendment – most included adjustments to the travel cost method equation. There was one main point of disagreement - the wage rate used to calculate the opportunity cost of a day at the beach. Solana Beach recommended using a low wage rate in the travel cost methodology of 33%. Staff argued, and were supported by San Francisco State University economist Phil King, that using a low wage rate in the equation as proposed by Solana Beach would lead to a drastic undervaluation of the beach and instead recommended that 67% of wage rate be used in the equation, which would double the public recreation fee. They also recommended increasing the number of LIDAR data points used to calculate the beach width, for a more accurate snapshot of the beach width over time. Commissioners voted on two amendments, both of which failed. Ultimately, staff’s recommendation of using a 67% wage rate passed unanimously.
|
|
| Public Recreation Fee - Solana Beach LUP - Vote 3 | The city of Solana Beach has been working to develop a method to mitigate for the impacts that coastal structures and non-erodible seacave/notch infills have on public access and recreation since 2007. Policy 4.50 of the existing LUP required that the City complete a fee study to mitigate for the impacts that coastal structures and nonerodible seacave/notch infills have on public access.
In January 2014, the Commission awarded Solana Beach a $120,000 grant to complete the mitigation method, which required that the City submit an updated Fee Study and an LUP amendment to the Commission. At the May hearing, Solana Beach proposed their Fee Study – now nearly ten years in the making. The Fee Study is a modification to its LUP Hazards & Shoreline/Bluff Development Policy 4.50. The method for calculating a fee to account for the impact of shoreline armoring to public recreation (i.e. Public Recreation Fee) varies widely statewide and has resulted in ongoing study. The City of Solana Beach has developed a mitigation methodology, known as the travel cost method, which it is proposing to incorporate into its certified LUP through this amendment. Staff proposed a number of modifications to the city’s proposed LUP amendment – most included adjustments to the travel cost method equation. There was one main point of disagreement - the wage rate used to calculate the opportunity cost of a day at the beach. Solana Beach recommended using a low wage rate in the travel cost methodology of 33%. Staff argued, and were supported by San Francisco State University economist Phil King, that using a low wage rate in the equation as proposed by Solana Beach would lead to a drastic undervaluation of the beach and instead recommended that 67% of wage rate be used in the equation, which would double the public recreation fee. They also recommended increasing the number of LIDAR data points used to calculate the beach width, for a more accurate snapshot of the beach width over time. Commissioners voted on two amendments, both of which failed. Ultimately, staff’s recommendation of using a 67% wage rate passed unanimously. |
|
