1. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION HEARING JUNE 12, 2013 ITEM W17A A-6-PSD-13-005 SUNROAD ENTERPRISES EAST HARBOR ISLAND, SAN DIEGO Reuben E. Lee (REL) Restaurant Replacement

2. East Harbor Island, San Diego 2

3. Project Location 3

4. Previously Existing Conditions 4 Reuben E. Lee Restaurant 1968-2003

5. Approved Project (2008) 5

6. Project Modification (2012) 6 Port granted minor modification in March 2012 regarding location of barge Barge reduced in size and relocated entirely within Port jurisdiction, no longer in CCC original jurisdiction Fault line setback

7. Project Modification (2013) 7 In response to comments from CCC staff, applicant revised project in April 2013 to add a new continuous, contiguous walkway around perimeter of restaurant Walkway to be open dawn to dusk + restaurant hours, whichever is later Fault line setback

8. Public Access Plan 8 Plans Revised: April 2013 Continuous Public Walkway Signage

9. Renderings 9 View 1-From Bay toward restaurant, walkway and barge Note: Not to scale due to water level fluctuation

10. Renderings 10 View 2-From parking lot toward restaurant

11. Renderings 11 View 3—From bayside walkway/front of restaurant

12. Renderings 12 View 4-From walkway looking toward Downtown skyline and Coronado

13. Renderings 13 View 5—From bayside walkway toward Downtown skyline and Coronado (farther east)

14. Renderings 14 View 6—From marina side walkway toward Shelter Island/Pt. Loma

15. Walkway and Barge Cross Section 15

16. Special Condition 13 (Barge Access) 16 Reasons for deletion of Special Condition 13:  Sunroad’s voluntary addition of new walkway around perimeter of restaurant fulfills public access need;  Unnecessary requirement, as no additional public views would be provided from barge than from walkway;  Liability resulting from public use of unsupervised private space;  Security and public safety issues; event space is not visible from the restaurant or parking lot; and  Furnishings, fixtures, property at risk of theft and/or damage.

17. Appealability 17 APPEAL OF AN EXEMPTION AND APPROVAL OF A CDP WITH CONDITIONS Coastal Act Section 30717:  “ Appeals shall be filed and processed by the commission in the same manner as appeals from local government actions as set forth in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 30600) of this division.” Coastal Act Section 30625: “... [A]ny appealable action on a coastal development permit or claim of exemption for any development by a local government or port governing body may be appealed to the commission by an applicant, any aggrieved person, or any two members of the commission. The commission may approve, modify, or deny such proposed development....” (Emphasis added.)

18. Appealability 18 A STANDALONE RESTAURANT IS NOT APPEALABLE In Coastal Act Section 30715, the Legislature designated specific developments as appealable, including:  “(4) Office and residential buildings not principally devoted to the administration of activities within the port; hotels, motels, and shopping facilities not principally devoted to the sale of commercial goods utilized for water- oriented purposes; commercial fishing facilities; and recreational small craft marina related facilities.” Staff incorrectly argues that restaurants are appealable because they constitute “shopping facilities not principally devoted to the sale of commercial goods utilized for water-oriented purposes.”

19. No PMPA Required 19 PMP amendment is not required here because:  Coastal Act Sections 30717 and 30625 authorize an appeal from an exemption determination and permit the Commission to approve the development with conditions, as here.  The restaurant project is not a project listed as “appealable” in Section 30715.  Coastal Act Section 30711 states that a Port Master Plan must include: “(4) Proposed projects listed as appealable in Section 30715 in sufficient detail to be able to determine their consistency with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of this division.” (Emphasis added.)

20. No PMPA Required 20 PMP amendment is not required here because:  As a practical matter, the specific project is now before the Commission, has been fully analyzed, and is subject to review and comment in a full public hearing;  It would make no sense to remand the Project back to the Port for a PMPA, then submit back to the Commission to certify a PMPA for the same project; a CDP then approved by the Port and an appeal back to the Commission, again, for the very same project.

21. Appellants’ Hazard Claim 21 Appellants contend that proposed restaurant would be located in a fault zone and that there is insufficient data to accurately determine location and width of faulting on the project site. Staff fully analyzed issue and states: “ However, the Commission’s geologist, Dr. Mark Johnsson, has reviewed the appeal and substantive file documents and has determined that, in his opinion, that the project will be free of hazards to the health and welfare of the public. Staff Report, page 57

22. Conclusion 22 Applicant requests that the Commission approve the project with deletion of Special Condition #13. Thank you

23. 23 -------

24. Shelter Island/Pt. Loma Views 24 Coronado/Bay Bridge Downtown

25. Views 25