2019/May
From ActCoastal
| Year | 2019 |
|---|---|
| Month | May |
| Location | Oxnard |
| Description | The Coastal Commission’s May hearing took place in Oxnard at the Oxnard City Council Chambers on Wednesday, May 8 through Friday, May 10. The agenda featured important coastal issues including an enforcement item addressing low cost overnight accommodation in Santa Monica, public access at Hollister Ranch and a comprehensive local coastal program update in Santa Barbara. The meeting resulted in 3 vote charts. |
Issues voted on at this Meeting
Click on an issue to read full description
| Issue | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Hollister Ranch Parcel 36 Appeal | Commissioners Carole Groom and Steve Padilla appealed a Santa Barbara County approved coastal development permit for the construction of a swimming pool and in-ground spa on Parcel No. 36 on Hollister Ranch. The parcel contains an existing home, guest house and barn. This appeal is part of an ongoing effort to restore long overdue public access to the coast at Hollister Ranch. Staff recommended approval of the development with the condition that a $5,000 public access in-lieu fee be assessed – one that the County did not assess based on their interpretation that it only need be applied per parcel, rather than per permit, as intended in Coastal Act sections 30610.3 and 30610.8. The Gaviota Coastal Trail Alliance urged the Commission to deny this development on the grounds that the $5,000 fee is insufficient to find the development consistent with the Coastal Act. The County’s local coastal program prohibits new development in Hollister Ranch unless public access is provided. The Commission unanimously agreed and denied the permit on the basis that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act and Santa Barbara County LCP’s public access provisions. With this action, the Commission sent the message that until public access is provided at Hollister Ranch, new development is not allowed. | 
|
| Shore Hotel Coastal Development Permit | As a separate matter, the Commission heard an after-the-fact coastal development permit (CDP) for the Shore Hotel. In 2009, Sunshine Enterprises obtained Commission approval to replace two lower-cost motels with a lower-to-moderately priced hotel. However, that permit expired before the developer began construction making the subsequent construction was unpermitted. The present CDP application covers demolition of two separate lower-cost motels and construction of a high-cost hotel and two restaurants. The existing project as constructed varied considerably from what was originally approved, including, the requirement for a lower-to-moderate cost structure for the new hotel. This violation is also addressed in a cease-and-desist order that was issued at the same hearing. Coastal Commission staff recommended approval of the CDP along with an $8,288,312.00 in lieu mitigation fee for the loss of low cost accommodations. Commissioners expressed concern that the mitigation measures would be insufficient to truly replace the loss of lower cost accommodations in this prime location and may send a message to developers that they can buy their way out of Coastal Act violations. Commissioners directed staff to work with Sunshine Enterprises on finding a more equitable solution. This item was unanimously approved for continuance to a future hearing. |
|
| Shore Hotel Enforcement Action | In 2009, Sunshine Enterprises obtained Commission approval to replace two lower-cost motels with a lower-to-moderately priced hotel. However, that permit expired before the developer began construction making the subsequent construction was unpermitted. Additionally, the original permit approved the hotel redevelopment on the basis that it would preserve affordable overnight accommodations on the site, but the actual hotel constructed is being operated as a luxury hotel and restaurant. Coastal Commission staff recommended approval of the consent cease and desist orders, and administrative penalties that would result in a $15 million fine to the developer for the ongoing violation since the first Notice of Violation was issued in 2014. Commissioners debated whether this was sufficient to replace the loss given the disappearing supply of lower cost overnight accommodations lost in Santa Monica. Ultimately, Commissioners unanimously approved the consent orders and administrative fine with an amendment that the fine must be paid in large part ($13 million) within 90 days and the remainder within 18 months. |
|
