Transcript Item 18a MarciaHanscom-WetlandDefenseFund - CAL

Parcel 9U
Marina Marsh
Postpone De Novo Hearing
Noticing requirements for the de novo
hearing were not met as required under
CCR §13063 and §13054
– Signed Declarations provided
– Staff Mailing List shows limited mailing
– Relevant Public Agencies not notified
Postpone De Novo Hearing
Staff Report fails to properly describe the current
project and changes to the original project
– Dual Purpose use of Fire Lane not disclosed
– 24 feet of the fire lane now outside the
1.46 acre park boundary not disclosed
(previously all 28ft were within 1.46 acres)
– A key map which identifies critical boundary
information not included
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Project is consistent with the MdR LCP
• Project is for restoration purposes
only, not development
• Wetland lost beyond 1.46 acre border
will be mitigated with newly created
wetland to the south at 3x the amount lost
DENY CDP APPLICATION
Project is inconsistent with the MdR LCP
Chapter 13a Land Use Plan
– 28 ft fire lane will fill existing wetland
(not allowed use under §30233)
– 10ft buffer from hotel building edge
will fill existing wetland (not allowed use
under §30233)
– Wetland Park Project is really for development
purposes (not allowed use) versus restoration
Project is for Development Purposes
1. 28 ft fire lane/10ft hotel buffer located over
existing wetland
2. Developers paying for cost of wetland park
construction
3. Wetland park is mitigation for loss of open
space on Parcel FF (apartments)
4. Emails from developers show their projects
dependent on wetland park
5. Project would not happen if development
around it did not occur
Inconsistent with MdR LCP, Coastal
Act and Case Law
1. Based on the above, project is
inconsistent with MdR LCP Chapter 13
section (a)
2. Project is inconsistent with Coastal Act
Section 30233
3. Project is inconsistent with Case Law Bolsa Chica Land Trust et al., v.
Superior Court of San Diego County
Not Allowed to Exchange
Habitats, Harm Imperiled Species
• Altering a woodland wetland to make it a
tidal marsh, which was not on the site
historically is not restoration and,
therefore, is not allowable
• Wetland species like the rare South Coast
Marsh Vole have not been surveyed for
• Coastal Commission is not supposed to
use Army Corps 3-parameter rule, yet that
is what is being referred to inconsistently
in the reports
No evidence that a tidal salt
marsh is better - just opinion
• Seasonally flooded, fresh-brackish wetlands, not
open to the sea year-round is what was present
on this site, according to the historical ecology
reports and maps compiled for the State Coastal
Conservancy by Dr. Travis Longcore and Dr.
David Jacobs.
• CCC staff’s opinion that a tidally influenced salt
marsh would “create a higher habitat value and
higher functioning ecosystem” is not backed up
by any evidence; it is an uninformed opinion
A tidal salt marsh does not
support imperiled species
• Some of the rare and imperiled species that
would be helped by a more historically correct
restoration would be:
• South Coast Marsh Vole
• Tidewater Goby
• Ventura Marsh Milkvetch
• Southern Tarplant
• Orcutt’s Yellow Pincushion
A tidal salt marsh does not support
the imperiled species
historically present on the LA coast.
At the very least the CA Dept. of Fish & Game and
US Fish & Wildlife Service ought to be consulted
with to determine which endangered, historically
present species could be assisted by a wetland
restoration on this site.
They were also not noticed as required by the
noticing requirements for this de novo hearing.
In Conclusion
1. Postpone Hearing to allow required
noticing
2. Deny CDP as inconsistent with MdR LCP
and require any future project move the
28 foot fire lane and 10 foot hotel buffer
zone north of the existing wetland such
that they would not fill/replace existing
delineated wetland
3. Require a historically accurate restoration
that helps imperiled species.
Parcel 9U
Marina Marsh