Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 31587 PCH home after debate over whether onsite drainage is an ESHA, adds Fish & Wildlife notification and fencing limits
Summary
After extended testimony and technical debate about a drainage/stream determination, the commission approved a coastal development permit for 31587 Pacific Coast Highway subject to conditions: mitigation for unpermitted ESHA impacts, notification to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for future fuel modification or planting, and a fence view‑permeability clarification (slat width limited to 1 inch).
The Planning Commission approved the proposed single‑story home at 31587 Pacific Coast Highway on Nov. 17 after weighing conflicting biological opinions over whether an on‑site drainage feature qualifies as a stream under the Local Implementation Plan (LIP).
Staff introduced the item and described the range of choices: find that the watercourse is not a stream and adopt the draft resolution; determine it is a stream and require a variance and a reduced development area; or continue the hearing for further information. The city review included input from the Environmental Review Board and multiple biological assessments.
Applicant Rodney Ackerman and his team presented extensive biological and technical materials, saying independent consultants (including wetland experts) and correspondence from state agencies indicated the feature did not meet the city's stream definition. Ackerman described mitigation measures, drainage design to ensure post‑development runoff is no greater than predevelopment runoff, and a planting plan to stabilize and screen development. He also disclosed an area of unpermitted ESHA impact the owner proposed to mitigate by in‑lieu fees to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
During deliberations commissioners focused on the November/October agency letters and ERB findings. To balance caution and the applicant’s evidence, the commission added conditions requiring notification to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife if fuel modification or planting in the mapped feature were proposed and restricted grading only to the approved building pad/access unless the state were notified. Commissioners also clarified fence view‑permeability rules, limiting slat width to one inch above the required view‑permeable height, to prevent side‑angle slot fencing from blocking views.
After amending the resolution to reflect these conditions, commissioners voted to approve the CDP. The resolution and conditions will be memorialized in the staff report and recorded in the project file.
