1. Parcel 9U Marina Marsh

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. Parcel 9U Marina Marsh