Good morning everyone. Welcome to the August hearing of the California Coastal Commission.
We're very happy to be here in the Santa Monica Mountains, and thank you to MRCA for having us.
We will begin, please, with a roll call.
Give me a second to bring that up. Okay, Commissioner Bosco, Commissioner Dummlow.
here commissioner esquanti uh commissioner heart commissioner jackson here commissioner kelly here
commissioner lopez present commissioner nathoff here commissioner presciado
commissioner turnbull sanders commissioner wilson present and uh chair harman here
We have quorum
Wonderful. Thank you. And now we'll move to the virtual meeting procedures, please
Good morning. This coat this Coastal Commission meeting is occurring both in person and through zoom
This meeting is also being webcast and can be viewed online at Cal
Spam org if you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak on the item
We recommend you use the Cal span website
Those who wish to address the commission today can do so in person through the zoom platform or by phone
The speaker's request form may be found on the commission's webpage paper forms and a scannable qr
Code for paper and submittals are available on the commission staff table just outside the meeting room
For those on zoom we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the commission's agenda webpage
Which is a guide on providing comments via phone via zoom or by phone
Members of the public speaking during general public comments may be given up to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair
Requests to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. Of on each day of the meeting
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation
You may speak on a specific topic one time only each month
Those speaking on an agenda item that is not general public comments are typically allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair
We will accept a request to speak on a regular agenda item up until the chair opens the hearing on that particular item
If you have internet access, please go to the Commission's web page and click on the link to fill out a speaker
requests. If you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone, please call the
commission staff at 562-477-9089. Again, that number is 562-477-9089. Staff will provide you
with a phone call in number and instructions for how to participate and provide testimony
by phone. We will manage speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a
meeting organizer. When it is your time to address a Commission, the organizers
will invite you to turn on your video and microphone or provide instructions
on how to unmute the phone. Madam Chair, that concludes the virtual hearing
procedures. Thank you very much and that will bring us to the agenda changes for today please.
Yes. Good morning Chair Harmon, commissioners. Item 3 is the agenda
changes and the agenda changes memo that was posted is still accurate. All told
there are eight agenda changes for today and I'll run through each of those. The
first item is item 11A. This is the Sonoma County LCP amendment that adds a
zoning administrator position and modifies CDP duration terms. That item
has been moved to consent. Item number 13A is the Gruden-Wazow CDP application
for a single-family residence in Seadrift in Marin County. That item has
been moved to consent. Item number 15B, this is the City of Santa Cruz LCP
amendment to expand their downtown plan area and add additional development
parameters. That item has been moved to consent. Item number 16A, this is the
the north coastal San Luis Obispo County
notice of impending development
for their regional ecological strategy
for northern San Luis Obispo County.
That item has been moved to consent.
Item number 18A, this is Caltrans CDP application
for retaining walls supporting Highway 1
near Big Creek and southern Big Sur.
That item has been moved to consent.
Item number 18B, this is the Lebaron
CDP application for a relatively minor revetment re-stacking in the unincorporated Pleasure
Point area of Santa Cruz County.
That item has been moved to consent.
Item number 18C.
This is the Zollars CDP application also for a relatively minor revetment stacking in the
Pleasure Point area of Santa Cruz County.
That item has been moved to consent.
And then lastly, item number 18D.
This is the City of Capitola, CDP application for its annual fireworks display.
That item has been moved to consent.
And unless there are any changes, that concludes the agenda changes or questions, excuse me.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
And now we will move to general public comment, please.
Okay.
For members of the public, I will be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite
you to speak when it is your turn.
speaker will be allowed two minutes during general public comments at the
discretion of the chair. In order to allow for live video testimonies on
Zoom, we will be bringing you in as a panelist. As we bring you in, your Zoom
will reload. This may take a moment to speed up this process. We will bring
several people in at a time. Please remain muted and keep your video off
until we ask you to speak. After your time is up, you will be moved back to
attendee mode. For members of the public present in the room, I will call your
names in the order that they appear on our sign up list. When we hear your name,
please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you approach to
speak. There is a raise hand function that will help us find you in the
attendee list if you are using a phone for audio. You can raise your hand by
dialing star 9. If you are participating by Zoom you should see a button on your Zoom screen.
If you have signed up to speak for this item and are able to do so please raise your hand now.
When it's your time to speak we will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on the phone by dialing star 6. First up we have Tally Robinson,
Tina Catterall and Frank Angel they are attending in person.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your May 9th decision approving the
development at 501 Sandpoint Road in Carpentaria.
Slide one. Thank you. My name is Tally Robinson. I'm a longtime Carpentaria
resident and I strongly oppose this project. For decades, I've walked to the
eastern end of the sand spit where carpentry assault marsh meets the sea, a
breathtaking convergence of ocean wetlands and mountains. It's one of the
most biologically rich and visually stunning places on the southern
California coast. Having lived on the California coast my whole life, I've
trusted the Coastal Commission's commitment to protecting our last
remaining wild places. Regardless of outside pressure, this decision
undermines that trust. The carpentry of salt marsh is more than a scenic spot.
Slide two please. As you can see, it's a vital habitat for birds, fish, and marine
life. It's a research site, a teaching ground, and a refuge for both wildlife
and people. There is no justification under the Coastal Act or under conscience
for allowing the development in such a vulnerable and irreplaceable site. I
I stand with the friends of the Carpenters of Saltmarsh scientists, artists, birders,
nature lovers across the country who are fighting to protect this one-of-a-kind ecosystem.
Please reconsider your decision and do due diligence.
Stand with the coast, with the community, and your legacy depends on it.
Thank you. Thank you. Next is Tina Calderon followed by Frank Angel. Tina.
Good morning commissioners. My name is Tina Calderon. I'm a Chumash and
Gebelina Tongva Culture Bearer and I work for Sacred Places Institute for
Indigenous Peoples as the director of Ocean Protectors Program. Sacred Places
Institute for Indigenous Peoples or SPI is a California indigenous led grassroots environmental
justice organization based in the unceded ancestral homelands of the Tongva people also
known as Los Angeles, California.
Our mission is to build the capacity of native nations and indigenous peoples to protect
sacred lands, waters, and cultures.
Through our work, we support native nations and their ability to reestablish relationships
with their ancestral homelands and waters.
Our focus is on creating systems that prioritize indigenous knowledge and protocols grounded
in intergenerational respect, reciprocity, and connection.
We at SBI thank all of you for your good works that you do to protect our California coast.
We were pleased when the Coastal Commission voted to enforce a cease and desist order,
restoration orders, and impose a steep financial penalty for Sable Offshore Corps' illegal
activities in the coastal zone.
We are still concerned, however, that Sable seems to continue activity in order to restart
the Sanénez unit.
very same line that devastated our village area of Casio in Chumash
territory in 2015. For that reason we urged the Coastal Commission to stay
vigilant and escalate enforcement to the best of your ability. Specifically please
require a coastal development permit for restart. Thank you so much for the
opportunity to comment. Okay next is Frank Angel followed by Eileen Bochen
followed by Lucia Castellanuevo and followed by Connor Filson. If you guys
can raise your hand those that are on zoom so we start moving you guys over
Frank Angel. Again I'm actually I'm not Mr. Angel he's on route so I don't know
if it's possible to call him at the end of public comment otherwise if you have
Okay, so moving on we're going to go to Eileen Bochen.
Eileen Bochen, Eileen Bochen Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods speaking on my
own behalf.
On August 4th, an email was sent to the Ocean Protection Council, the State Lands Commission,
the Coastal Commission, and the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary regarding the discovery
of the cause of sea star wasting disease.
I would urge all the agencies to work collaboratively
to restore the sunflower sea star,
control populations of sea, of purple sea urchins,
and restore kelp forests, new subjects.
On December 16th, 2021, the Coastal Commission
on a split vote upheld the federal consistency
to drop thousands of pounds of poison on the ferrelons to eliminate invasive house mice.
I would strongly urge the Commission to revisit this issue.
Rodenticide is a retro.
A more state-of-the-art approach would be to use drone-based lidar
to map the mouse burrows, then use carbon monoxide in the burrows as outlined
in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Title III,
California Code of Regulations, Section 6695.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Lucia Casanuevo, followed by Connor Filson, followed by Mimi Chan.
Lucia, Lucia, if you can unmute yourself.
Okay. I did it.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Good morning, everyone. Aluchea, Casalinoaba, Oceano Beach Community Association. But this morning,
just for the sake of the following comments, I also speak for Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife,
Concerned Citizens for Clean Air, Ecologistics, San Luis Obispo, Coastkeeper, Center for Biological
diversity, moral, coast, other-born society. We want to speak about our concerns for the
ODSV array, Dunes and Oceano Beach. Although the courts have concluded that you cannot ban
driving on our beach in Dunes in the manner that you attempted, still that doesn't mean that you
you can recommend the changes to mitigate the odds
we are raising negative impacts
on our communities and the environment.
So we respectfully request that you promptly schedule
a yearly review of the Chiano Dunes State
Vehicle Recreation Area.
The last one was held in 2021.
A review is due, courts or no courts.
we want you to have an annual review.
You have found that the LCP
doesn't conform with the Coastal Act,
so we respectfully request that you develop,
that your staff develops a recommendation
for submission to the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisor
to ban driving on local beaches and dunes
according to your unanimous resolution of 21.
Please act as soon as possible.
We do not expect our county
to take corrective actions on its own.
We believe it never will.
You can and should lead the process.
A yearly review-
and thinking the answer to.
Thank you very much for listening.
Thank you.
Next is Connor Filson, followed by Mimi Chan,
followed by Joy Kobayashi, followed by Marcia Hascom.
Connor, are you gonna unmute yourself?
Yes, thank you very much for having me.
I am Dr. Connor Filson.
I'm the executive director
of UC Santa Barbara's Natural Reserve System,
which is a network of field research laboratories
and outdoor classrooms across the state,
including the Carpendria Saltmarsh Reserve.
That reserve serves over 1,500 students and researchers
annually and is home to numerous unique
insensitive plants and animals, including three federally listed and state-listed endangered
birds and plants. I'm speaking today in relation to the Friends of the Carpinteria Saltmarsh
v. California Coastal Commission. As a trustee agency of the state of California, it's the
UC Natural Reserve's legal requirement and constitutional duty to hold and protect our
lands and trusts for the people of California for the explicit use of research and education.
And as executive director of the Division of the State Trustee Agency, it is my duty
to speak up when our ability to protect the public's natural reserves for research and
education is at risk.
The development approved by the Coastal Commission at 501 Sandpoint Road at the mouth of the
Carpentry Assault Marsh would be a direct and negative impact to our ability to hold
the Carpentry Assault Marsh Reserve in trust for the people of California.
Development in this sensitive habitat is not recommended.
Despite the active litigation of the Friends of the Carpentry Assault Marsh vs. California
Coastal Commission and a stop work order, the landowners continued efforts to remove
vegetation and grade this parcel does not signify the owner will operate in good faith,
and faith is how much of the Coastal Commission's environmental mitigation plans were approved.
An explicit and detailed environmental review of the removal plan required from the Coastal
Commission should be required before any construction can begin. 501 Sandpoint Road
would violate the UC Natural Reserve's ability to serve our mission as a state
trustee agency and for this reason I recommend the development not go forward
as currently planned because the environmental and wildlife protection
imposed by the Commission are not sufficient. Thank you. Thank you. Next is
Mimi Chan followed by Joy Kobayashi followed by Marcia Haskong followed by
Robert Jan van de Hope. Hello my name is Mimi Chen and I have a home in Pacific
Grove. Thank you for letting me speak on behalf of homeowners and STR licensed
hosts. If passed this restriction would require hosts to pay a $14,000
permit fee for hosts that limit the number of. I believe this is on the
agenda today as item 15 a okay thank you okay thank you next is joy Kobayashi
you can unmute yourself yes okay good morning commissioners my name is joy
Kobayashi and I represent earth alert earth alert is a 41 year old
environmental organization that has been involved with Ormond Beach in Oxnard
California for 23 years. Last week we had our attorney Douglas Carson's write a letter
to your south central coast office about an evolving situation at the Arnold Road access
point to Ormond Beach. Mr. Walter Fuller has been the unofficial guardian at Arnold Road
for almost 30 years. In 2014 the city of Oxnard recognized his contributions by donating a
trailer so that he could live there full-time. In the 11 years that Mr. Fuller
has been at Arnold Road 24 hours a day, he estimates that over 150,000 people
have passed through to reach Ormond Beach. One of the major reasons that the
Arnold Road entrance is so popular is that Mr. Fuller's presence is a major
deterrent to car break-ins and vandalism. Many current visitors have told Mr.
Fuller that they would not feel comfortable parking their cars there if he was not present.
Unfortunately, the city of Oxnard is planning to evict Mr. Fuller sometime later this summer.
The city has not announced their plans for Arnold Road after he is forced to leave.
Through our attorney we requested that the city provide us with that information,
but our letter was not even acknowledged. Earth Alert is now asking that the Coastal
Commission forced the City of Oxnard to tell the public about its future plans at Arnold
Road. We further asked that the Commission require the City to obtain a coastal development
permit if they reduce safe access to Ormond Beach. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
to you this morning. Thank you. Next is Marsha Hanscom. Hello, honorable coastal commissioners
staff, Marsha Hanskin, I'm representing the Coastal Lands Action Network. And I'm, first
of all, I want to object to something that staff said before general public comment.
I wasn't able to speak, but I did raise my hand because I object to 18D from the Capitol
of Fireworks being moved to consent. There are a number of people who have signed up
to speak at that, and I don't know why it would then be moved to consent. So please
reverse that and announce that that is going to be a hearing item today as it should be.
I've never seen something moved to consent when you have speakers signed up.
Secondly, I want to support everything that Tina Calderon said earlier.
We're very grateful for her leadership in the indigenous region of Los Angeles, the
occupied territories and lands here and we're very grateful that she's speaking
related to the Sable oil pipeline, which I also want to say a few things about.
First of all, we're very grateful for the Coastal Commission's
enforcement action there. However, we have evidence that we have seen that
the company is doing work out there and we would like to really underscore what
the Center for Biological Diversity has submitted to you. We are in coalition
with them with numerous other groups throughout the state at the Last Chance
Alliance and we would like to ask that you as soon as possible move this item
to being required to have a permit and to stop the piecemealing of the work
that they are doing out there. Thank you very much. Thank you, next is Robert Jan
Vanderhoek. Good morning, Madam Chair, President Chair of the Coastal
Commission and all the Coastal Commissioners. I'd like to reflect, okay
My name is Roy and I'm Robert Young-Fundahook, and I'm a wildlife biologist and environmental
biological scientist.
I'd like to reflect for a moment that 25 years ago, in 1999, I spoke to the commission for
the first time.
Rusty Areas was the chair, president, and it was good.
I got up three minutes, and…
Mr. Van Der Hoek, this is Anthony from AGP Video.
You're really crackling.
Is there something you can do with your audio so we can hear a clean signal?
We obviously want to hear you, but we can't hear you clearly because there's a bunch of
static.
If you want to fix your microphone, that would be great, please.
Thank you.
Can I come back, then, later in the public comment?
I took it off video.
Does that help at all?
sadly not we're still getting a lot of static in between your words and while
you're speaking mmm darn it okay I'm trying to find I'm gonna be holding
things up so that actually did the trick right there whatever you're doing go
ahead and I'll go ahead and continue your clock okay I muted myself and then
unmuted okay okay there you go thank you thank you I have that extra minute I
And I lost a minute in all that crack.
Please don't hit.
Thank you.
I paused your clock.
Go ahead.
Oh, okay.
Now I'm gonna unpause it.
So, okay.
So, 25 years ago I spoke at the Coastal Commission and Rusty Arias was the chair and he nicknamed
my talk on the Blue Cranky, which is a nickname he used for the Great Blue Heron.
And then since then I've been testifying over the last 25 years.
And I'd like to speak and Master Organizer Marsha Hanscom, who just spoke for a moment
to say that I'm one of the people to speak on AT&T, please take it off of consent.
And also, thank you to Tina Calderon, and reminds me to say that I'm speaking from
unceded land adjacent to the Chumash area in the San Fernando Valley, the Fernandeño
Titovian Band of Mission Indians, who recently the County Board of Supervisors sent a letter
to have it recognized as a federal tribe. I want to talk about that I'm a plaintiff
in a lawsuit, which is heavy for me to do this. I'm in two lawsuits against the Coastal
Commission, both related to the Biono wetlands and the Coastal Commission is who is being sued.
We have two lawyers on two lawsuits and I put myself down as an individual citizen professional
scientist on that. And parties, and real parties in interest are Sempra, Phil Calgas company,
Chevron and Edison indirectly and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
for attempting to destroy the Biono wetlands and being linked to the fossil fuel industry
With all the and you will learn more about it in the lawsuit
There's important September and then again in January 2025. Thank you
Okay. Thank you Frank Angel. Are you here?
Frank Angel's here.
Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
Frank Angel.
When it comes to LCP policy,
coastal advocates and defenders of the Commission, and I count myself
among them since the early 90s, are faced with a strange mantra
that has gained steam in most recent years. It is local government balanced all relevant interests, or
therefore the Commission should defer to this county or that city's policy
dictates or wishes or desires? Should you? The answer is no, you should not. What
has been balanced by local government does not substitute for what must be
balanced by the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Act created the Commission as a
state agency with primary responsibility for the implementation of
of the Coastal Act to account for broader public interests
of large groups of diverse stakeholders,
much larger and far more diverse than those
crowding local hearing rooms.
Local boards mostly balance no more than local interests.
This point was driven home by an early landmark ruling
in a challenge by the city of Chula Vista
to the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications
of an RCP submittal where the Court of Appeal rejected
the very argument that the commission must not
upset the balance of interest struck by local government.
The court and many courts since emphasized the commission's
coordinate powers at a later stage in the process,
and they emphasized that the construct
of shared legislative powers between different agencies
may not make for swift and smooth rulemaking,
but it is not inherently impossible.
The court instructed that local government is to be included, but statewide standards
are to be formulated, and it noted that statewide interests are not always well represented
at the local level, and therefore an agency is needed which promulgates statewide rules
and statewide policies.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
So we have three speakers on Zoom, but we didn't find them.
I'm just going to call out their names to see if they'll put their hands up.
Milton Allen Northrup, Bichoy Bibawi,
and Christopher Clark.
Okay, no hands up in Zoom.
So that concludes our general public comments.
Great, thank you very much.
And now we will move, sorry, there's a little feedback here.
Now we will move to Director Hucklebridge
and the executive director's report, please.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners, Madam Chair.
My published executive director report
can be found on the commission's website,
but as usual, I'll spend a few minutes
going over several of the items.
First, I would like to offer our collective congratulations
to Commissioner Dunlough for being selected
as the new Executive Officer of the State Lands Commission.
We as an agency, yep.
We as an agency work incredibly closely
with the State Lands Commission,
and we could not be more thrilled
that you will be at the helm.
And we are also crossing our fingers
that you may be able to join us in your new role
on the dais.
And we'll look forward to working with you in the future
in that new role.
Congratulations.
Next, in line with the Adapted LCP Grant Program Guidelines,
I approved two LCP grants this past month.
The first was to the city of Redondo Beach for $500,000.
This grant would update its sea level,
will update its sea level rise vulnerability assessment,
develop sea level rise and resilience policies and generally work to update
and clean up the LCP. So deliverables for this grant include an existing
conditions report which identifies policy and organizational content gaps
and then an update to the previous 2019 Harbor Focus sea level rise
vulnerability assessment to reflect the most recent state sea level rise
guidance and to expand its geographic reach to the city's entire coastal zone
and then finally an updated LCP.
The second is a grant to the city of Half Moon Bay,
also for $500,000 to comprehensively update its IP.
The proposed comprehensive IP update
would bring the IP into alignment
with the recent 2020 LUP update,
which includes priority subject areas
for the LCP grant program like climate,
sea level rise, and environmental justice,
As well as SB 272 and new state laws related to subjects like housing.
So next up, staff participated in a series of workshops and seminars that I wanted to
bring to your attention.
I will briefly mention each one but wanted to note there are additional details available
in my written report for those who are interested.
Staff participated in a Noyo Beach restoration workshop hosted by the city of Fort Bragg related
to the city's efforts towards its blue economy visioning,
resiliency, and implementation plan.
Also in the North Coast, staff participated
in a Mendocino Coastal Planning webinar hosted
by the Grassroots Institute that focused
on coastal planning, permitting,
and land use in Mendocino County.
Coastal Commission staff from the statewide planning unit
were invited to speak at the League of California Cities,
Coastal and Bay Cities Quarterly Forum in July
to provide a refresher on the requirements of SB 272,
which requires local governments to develop
a sea level rise plan as part of their LCP by 2034.
And finally, three of the commission's summer interns
join staff from our Central Coast District
and our geoengineering team
on a Santa Cruz coastal adaptation tour
to discuss coastal processes, adaptation strategies,
ongoing adaptation planning efforts,
and what it means to check the coast.
My written report includes a couple of pictures
of this fabulous group,
so I definitely recommend taking a minute to check it out.
I would like to take this opportunity
to thank all of the folks that joined us
for internships this summer.
We are fortunate to have welcome summer interns
in many of our programs spread throughout the state.
And as many of you know,
staffing resources are always a challenge,
and so we are incredibly grateful to these folks
for dedicating their time and energy,
often on a volunteer basis,
to help us fulfill our mission of protecting the coast.
So a huge thank you to all of our interns.
There are several announcements
from the public education department
that I will not go into in the interest of time.
However, I do recommend you check them out
in my written report.
There is one announcement that is not in my written report.
As you know, plastic pollution remains an issue
of great importance to the commission.
So for the past several years,
commission staff has been developing guidance
for staff and local governments
on how to reduce plastic pollution within LCPs
and coastal development permits.
The draft guidance will be available
on the Commission's website for 30 days of public review
starting early next week.
And we anticipate bringing the guidance
to the Commission for Formal Adoption
at your November hearing.
Next, I have a couple of personnel related items
to share with you all.
First, I ask you to join me
in congratulating Linda Loughlin,
the Commission's Public Access Manager
who recently became the Commission's longest tenured employee
at a whopping 48 years of service.
An incredible achievement.
And we're grateful to have Linda with us.
And last on the personnel front,
it is with very mixed feelings
that I would like to announce the retirement
of the Commission's human resources director, Melanie Wong.
To celebrate her incredible Commission career
and service to our Coast,
I would like to read a proclamation that we wrote
honoring Melanie on the occasion of her retirement.
Whereas Melanie Wong began her distinguished career
with the state of California as a staff services analyst
for the California Coastal Commission on January 1, 2001,
and continued to serve with the agency for 25 years
as an essential member and leader of the human resources unit,
helping our agency achieve its goals
of protecting the coast for all.
And whereas Melanie worked her way up
associate personnel analyst beginning on January 1, 2002, and later a staff services manager
too beginning on December 2, 2010, and whereas Melanie came to be relied upon by her fellow
commission employees as part of the very heart and soul of the agency, guiding staff, management,
and leadership through all aspects of human resources and being there through everyone's
big life events.
And whereas Melanie made a career long habit of initiating, organizing and implementing
all manner of party planning and community building across the San Francisco headquarters
office and statewide.
And whereas Melanie was a founding member of the Coastal Commission craft circle and giver
of special handmade treasures from gorgeous handmade blankets to baby Yoda's to minions
beloved by all and whereas to her fellow employees she became more than a
co-worker but a beloved member of our Commission family and whereas Melanie
Wong retired on December 31st 2025 after 25 commendable years of service to the
state of California now therefore be it resolved that the California Coastal
Commission extends its deepest gratitude and appreciation to Melanie for her
decade of exemplary service and wishes her a happy, healthy, and fulfilling retirement filled
with family, K-pop concerts, crafting, and trips to enjoy the California coast and ocean that she
has worked so hard to protect. Thank you, Melanie. And now finally, as the last item of my executive
director report, I would like to turn it over to Madeline Cavalieri, Commission's Deputy Executive
Director for a status update on the Commission's budget. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners.
So, we wanted to provide a brief update on the Commission's budget for fiscal year 2025,
which began July 1st and extends through June 30th, 2026.
We have a memo at the end of the executive director's report that outlines the key elements
of the Commission's budget, highlights the changes to the budget made in fiscal years
24 and 25, and provides a summary of the Commission's funding history, along with projected estimates
for the next five years.
And I have some slides for these.
There are a lot of details and complexities in the state budgeting process, also the budget
change proposal process itself is confidential until the budget is released and there are
often adjustments that are made throughout the year.
So we wanted to provide just a high level overview today, but we'd be happy to provide
more detailed information in the future if that would be helpful.
The commission's budget can be broken down into two main parts, state operations funding
for internal operations and local assistance funding for grant programs to support outside
entities. I'll spend most of my time today on the commission's state
operations budget. Next slide. You can see that the majority of the
commission's state operations budget is made up of its baseline annual
allocation from the state's general fund, which provides $27 million or
about 60% of the commission's $45 million budget for this year. In 2025,
the commission also has a sizable allocation made above one time general
fund dollars that will be expiring in 2026 and 2027 federal funds and reimbursement contracts
are also significant fund sources followed by a number of special fund allocations next
slide table 2 seen here and in the memo shows the one time allocations the commission received
between 2021 and 2024 the column on the right shows the estimated amount of the one time
funds that will be spent in 2025.
Next slide.
Table three in the memo includes descriptions
of each of the special fund allocations
and just those amounts are shown here.
And next slide.
So in addition to state operations funding,
the commission has budget allocations for local assistance.
The commission's local assistance funding provides
for grant programs to distribute grants,
administer the programs and provide assistance to grantees.
The commission has two grant programs, the LCP grant program and the Whaletail grant
program.
For the LCP grant program, between 2013 and 2019, the commission was allocated approximately
$7 million, and in 2021, the commission was allocated $30 million for the program.
That funding is almost fully distributed, and no further funding has been identified
at this time.
Regarding Whaletail grants, since the program began in 1998, it has awarded almost $24 million
to over 1,000 projects.
In 2021, the Commission received a one-time general fund allocation of $10 million for
the program.
In addition, as noted in Table 3 in the memo, the program is generally allocated about $600,000
per year through the California Beach and Coastal Enhancement Account and the Protect
Our Coast and Oceans account.
Additional one-time funding sources for the Whaletail grant program have not been secured
at this time.
Next slide.
Each year the Commission's enacted budget is modified through the state's annual budget
process.
In 2024, the Commission, like most state agencies, was subjected to ongoing cuts to its core
operations.
Also in 2024 and 2025, the Commission received new one-time funding allocations, new baseline
funding allocations, and new position authority to address specific new workload items.
So starting with the funding cuts, they included an operations cut of 7.95%, which in 2024
amounted to a $2.8 million cut to the commission's core operations budget.
In 2025 the cut was reduced to avoid certain special funds and the resulting cut for 25
and ongoing is 2.4 million.
The second cut was a sweep of existing vacant positions.
This cut identified 10 positions for elimination and reduced the commission's budget by $1.9
million in 2024.
Similar modifications were made to this cut in 25 to avoid certain special funds and the
resulting cut for $25 and ongoing is $1.4 million. So altogether the cuts are about $3.8 million in
2025 and ongoing which is a little less than 10% of the commission's core budget excluding the
one-time allocations. The positions for elimination include seven newly established general funded
positions to implement SB 272 related to sea level rise planning and three positions that support
wailtail grants, statewide planning, and federal program activities.
The positions were not ultimately eliminated in the commission's 25 budget as anticipated,
but instead departments are directed to keep the positions vacant pending their final elimination,
which will be subject to a final determination in the 26 budget process.
So regarding funding for new workload obligations, Senate Bill 272 requires local governments
to update their LCPs to address sea level rise and then keep them up to date into the
future. It also requires the remaining 12 uncertified local jurisdictions to
complete their LCPs on all by 2034. This requirement will lead to significant
additional workload for the commission to provide technical assistance and to
review and process LCP amendments and certifications. The commission received
18 positions to implement this new law, including the nine in 2024 and nine in
2025. As I mentioned, seven of the nine positions established in 2024 are now
subject to the state's vacancy sweep and may be abolished in the state's 26 budget.
Also in 2024, the Commission received the one-time general fund allocation of $6.8 million
for temporary staff and two permanent positions to support implementation of SB 286 related
to permitting offshore wind facilities, as well as to assist with offshore wind call
area planning and management.
This funding is one-time only and must be expended by June 30, 2027, after which the
temporary staff support and two permanent positions that were established will no longer
be funded unless other funding is identified.
Regarding housing in 24 and 25, the commission received additional funding and positions
to carry out new responsibilities related to housing that were established in AB 3093,
SB 423, and SB 1077.
These laws establish new requirements to facilitate housing production along the coast.
AB 3093 requires coastal local governments to amend their LCPs to reflect new rezones
in the coastal zone identified within the housing element by the same deadlines currently
mandated by housing element law.
SB 423 requires coordination with local governments and streamlined review of certain multifamily
housing projects, and SB 1077 requires the commission to complete new guidance related
to accessory dwelling units.
These new laws create additional workload for the commission, and the commission received
additional funding and positions to account for that. The new funding allows the Commission
to establish dedicated housing staff phased in over several years and funded on an ongoing basis.
Finally in 2024 the Commission received authority for three additional Coastal Program Analyst
positions to expedite processing priority projects such as projects for habitat restoration,
climate resilience, and wildfire fuels reduction. These positions were not funded through specific
budget allocations that are intended to be funded through future interagency agreements
that haven't been established yet.
So slide 7 or sorry next slide.
This graph shows the Commission state operations funding history and projections from 2020
through 2030.
The projections shown here are rough estimates based on the most up to date information but
are subject to change.
As seen on the graph, the Commission has experienced some growth in overall state operations funding
due to funding increases that address new workload obligations, including an influx
of funding from one-time funds that will expire in 2027, but the Commission is also facing
the significant cuts to its core operations funding that were made in 2024.
So just to wrap up, the Commission's budget is always evolving. In addition to managing
cuts to its core operations, the Commission is also facing several additional budget challenges.
First, the Commission has been utilizing the one-time funds for the last several years
That are set to expire in 26 and 27 if these funds are not replaced in the next two fiscal years
The agency will need to make adjustments to operations and staffing levels
Second there are ten positions that were subject to the 24 vacancy sweep drill that will potentially be abolished in the 26 budget
Seven of these were newly created to address sea level rise planning work that will be generated by two by SB
272 in the coming years if they are ultimately eliminated the Commission will not be able to adequately address this new workload
And finally, there's ongoing uncertainty in the commission's federal fund allocation,
given the unanticipated changes in federal funding that have been made across sectors
and throughout the country.
So again, we wanted to provide a broad overview of the commission's budget today, but we're
also happy to provide additional details in the future.
We're planning to provide a budget update at the commission's February hearing after
the governor's proposed budget for 26 is released on January 10th.
Thank you.
So that concludes the executive director's report and we're here to answer any questions you have
Thank you very much before we go to Commissioner questions. I'd like to ask if there are any public comments on the executive directors report
Good morning, and I apologize for my lateness today. I seem to have found Pepperdine University easier than
this facility, but
This is the third time that I've heard our unique challenges
from a budgetary point of view.
And I don't know if it is appropriate,
but I think the commission needs to formulate potential
policies or policy recommendations to the staff
to pursue new revenue, revenue activities.
It was explained to me offline that philosophically
we don't want to get involved with developers
from the point of view that they would be funding our work.
But it seems to me that every year
with the slate of legislation that is trying to encourage us
to work faster and be more efficient,
it seems that we are in need to pursue efforts
to be in partnership with all individuals
trying to develop their part of the coast.
I find it incongruitous to state policy that we were grant funded
to help local communities plan for sea level rise
and that that funding is almost expired or almost gone.
And so it seems to me that we have a huge responsibility
as a commission but that we haven't,
we are not projecting out as a commission.
maybe the staff does through their legislative advocacy,
but the commission needs to take a hard stand position
and make some choices because we will continue to be beholden
or criticized for slowness or, you know, the inadequacy
of our review process in terms of time and space.
But it seems that there has to be ways for us to support,
just like any other local agency, the counties
and the municipalities, when there is development,
it's full-cost recovery, and it's based
on our professional standards, not the developer's standards.
And so, I'm just putting it out there to the chair.
Maybe at the next meeting, if our budgetary problems continue,
I may have to pursue a motion with colleagues
to either pursue a task force or a subcommittee
to create some sort of policy statement
that we can direct the staff to start examining
how we are going to bridge this gap
between what we're funded to do,
what we're expected to do,
and the reality of the perception the public has
of what we do.
I was very happy to see that two positions
were posted this week,
a Coastal Program Manager position,
and a program, or a Coastal Analyst position,
I may be mistaken or my LinkedIn may be out of date,
but I saw those positions posted, so that brings joy,
unless we're trying to backfill people, vacancies.
The hardest thing that I go through as a city councilman
in my locality is when everyone is trying
to get their development project moving,
and that time and time and time is a delay.
So I understand the tension,
but I don't understand our limitations
with the scale of our job responsibility.
We have influence over everything
from the Mexican border to the Oregon border,
and it seems like we're funded to,
I don't know exactly how we're funded
or how this turned out,
but I encourage our partner agencies
to recognize that our staff should not be stressed.
they are already working 100%,
and what we're asking many of them to do
is to work 200% or 300%
or explain that we're not able to,
and I think that bibs against the professionalism
of the staff that goes against the expectations
the law has for our commission,
and so enough of my TED talk,
but I know everybody would want to have received more money,
but I think we need to make it a priority for us
to find ways to support our staff
to carry out their work, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Preciado,
and I'm gonna suggest here,
I think you bring up a lot of good points
as well as, excuse me, hearing some feedback.
As well as just the complexity around our budget.
It's, you know, it is a little bit of a black box
in some ways in the sense that
it's just very challenging to understand
and really appreciate our staff taking us through it.
What I'm gonna suggest is that we consider,
perhaps you can work closely with our staff
to consider setting up an ad hoc budget committee
of commissioners to really dig into the details of this.
So what I will ask is for our staff
to connect with you in the coming weeks
and maybe bring this concept of an ad hoc committee
back to the commission to understand our budget,
understand the challenges and the opportunities.
I think that could be a good thing.
Madam Chair, if I may, I'm not really seeking to become
the very efficient commissioner of evaluating
how to spend $28 million.
What I'm interested in is seeing if we can create
an ad hoc committee to develop policy
where our income can grow
and maybe through new partnerships.
I think the staff does a really good job
of tracking their $27 million
and some of the other federal dollars that come in.
But I'm concerned the federal government is up,
who knows what the federal government is doing.
They change very frequently.
And I really also appreciated seeing on LinkedIn
our new t-shirt sales, which are wonderful ways
of raising money for some of those grant programs
that we love and support.
But I'm just getting to that.
I'm not interested in evaluating the budget.
I'm interested in figuring out policies
that can help us generate more resources.
I fully understand.
My point simply is that in order to create good
and effective policy, we must first understand
that upon which we are opining.
So I think it is a critical step to do a deep dive
and then to create policy with my personal perspective.
Ms. Sheehan.
Director, I'll go ahead.
Thanks for the chair.
I think I just want to thank Commissioner Preciado
for your comments and I welcome those discussions
about new ideas, about how to bring in
what options we have.
I think as staff, we look at these kinds of things
the time and it's a balancing of different benefits and challenges, right?
So I think I really would look forward to talking more about that with you and looking
at what options we have.
It's the complexity of how we run this agency is, you know, as you've seen, it is a lot,
but we're constantly looking for ways to reduce uncertainty and it's really hard to do that
right now and as everyone is aware we're all struggling through a state budget
and then a federal budget uncertainty and so part of the part of what we're
experiencing now is not dissimilar from any I think state entities and so I just
you know it but I also want it you know through that we are working really hard
to to meet that moment if you know with this is this is our lot that we have
these are the staff resources we have now this is the workload we have how do
How do we adjust ourselves internally and through process and prioritization to make
sure that we are meeting the needs of the agency and meeting our mission of the Coastal
Act and doing that in a way that does not overburden staff to the maximum extent possible.
So it is a constant discussion we're having and so I really welcome your thoughts on that
and thinking through different ways to approach it.
So, you know, we'll welcome that and we are, again, we'll have a lot more to talk about
I think later this year, we're going through a strategic planning process right now.
We'll be bringing that draft to you, I believe, at the October hearing.
And this is part of that effort too.
That's, at least as I'm thinking through this strategic plan is how are we, again, with
the resources we have, how do we think about new resources but also adjust to what we have
and do the best we can with what we have.
So really looking forward to continuing this conversation and just for your support from
all of you.
We really appreciate a staff, we really appreciate that and then we want your feedback as we
continue with prioritization and discussions around budget, how we do that.
So just want to thank you and look forward to those discussions.
Thank you.
Commissioner Nada.
Thank you.
Thank you, and I just wanted to, a couple of things,
pointing out, we do have a legislative committee
that Commissioner Hart and I are on,
and certainly budget and how we keep the agency going
and through the budget process is part of the conversation
and our responsibility on that legislative committee.
Some of the good news I heard in the report is,
it's great to see that we're gonna get some funding
for housing staff, that's great.
And I, when Commissioner Presiado mentions that, you know,
people are concerned about timing, once again,
I see in the consent items just for today,
20% of the consent items are about housing.
So we're moving things through efficiently
and getting things done as best we can
with the resources that we have.
A 10% cut is of concern,
but I think that the staff does a really good job
prioritizing what we need before us.
I guess the big concern I have
is the Whale Tail Grant Program,
which has been such an effective and joyful program
that the Coastal Commission is able to do
and get so many people engaged in coastal issues
that would not have otherwise been able to.
So that is a particular concern that I have
that I would like to add to the mix
about how do we make sure that we grow that
and keep it going.
Thanks.
Thanks through the chair.
Thank you for those comments.
I agree with you completely on the whale tail grant program.
We are actively working through several potential options
for additional funds for that program.
So as soon as we have any additional information,
we'll absolutely provide it nothing.
As Madeline said, we don't have anything secured
at this point, but we are exploring multiple avenues.
I also want to point out in the same vein the LCP grant program has been enormously successful and
We basically are out of funds at this point. We have a little bit left
There are potential other funds available through sp1 grants at the OPC and others
So it's it's not that the tap isn't completely off. But again, we're looking at a 2034 deadline
for a series of new LCPs plus
You know substantial updates to many you know many lcp's up and down the state and and yes
We talk about our own resource needs to do that
But local governments are in desperate need of those resources as well to do this planning and so I
I view those that lcp grant program and funds to do that kind of planning work is also
Incredibly important and you know it's
Hopefully, we we end up in a different budget situation and we can replenish those coffers or you know, and again, we'll be relying
I think sending will governments to SB 1 that that program to hopefully bridge the gap until we can get more funds
But just wanted to point that one out again
Thank You Vice-chair Hart and then Commissioner vodka
Thanks so much. I just first wanted to acknowledge Linda Lachlan
I've been lucky enough to work with her and
It's it's one thing to say that the number 48 years
It's another thing entirely to dedicate yourself to the coast of California in the way that she has in
Her accomplishments. There's just no way
She can never retire because we would have to set aside the entire three-day meeting to talk about her accomplishments
And of course, we do have the trail named in her honor the access point Malibu, which is so fantastic
I just wanted to acknowledge her.
I also just wanted to share with my colleagues,
and I kind of missed a little in my transition
from the car to the,
and I was not driving in case anyone was concerned.
But just share my concerns about the LCP grant program,
particularly what we're seeing up and down the coast
of California in terms of the impact of sea level rise
to not have the funding to work with local governments
on their approach is gonna have huge ramifications.
So I really hope that we can focus
with our legislative partners and the governor
on helping us to get funding going forward
for the LCP grant program as well as everything else,
but particularly that, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Bacheco.
Yes, I too wanted to follow up on the LCP grant program.
I do know how important it has been to us
and to the local governments.
I mean, they suffer as much as we do
when the workloads become so intense
and they have even smaller staffs.
So I was going to ask,
since we didn't get our allotment of that money,
but we did get some staff positions
under the legislation,
is there a way to work with the local,
I'm sorry, the local governments
And see if perhaps they can get the allocation,
you know, rather than having to funnel it through us.
And then, just a thought.
So through the chair, I think there's different ways
to look at options moving forward, right?
So as I mentioned, there are these SB1 grants
that could be a bridge.
I mean, the resources that we have gotten through
for the SB272 work, again, we did have several
those positions that were swept.
So we're not sure if we're gonna get
all of the resources we need.
So that's just one thing to note.
Also, it's a different, you know,
we desperately need that money for local governments
and their staff to work with us to get through these things.
So whether it's a, there's different ways
that could be allocated, I suppose,
through the state process.
It's, what has worked really well
is when it has gone through our LCP grant program,
our staff worked very closely with local government staff
in designing the grant and talking through deliverables
and process and all these things so that we're all
on the same page from the very beginning.
And that has proven to be invaluable.
And so we work, for example, with OPC on their SB1
grant program to try to create a little bit of that
as well to make sure that they're checking in with us
because what we're worried about is if, you know,
there's funding out there and local governments take
that and go a direction and then we're not involved
and come to us at the end.
just if we spend more time trying to figure out how to get on the same page.
So I think that can be dealt with in a number of ways it doesn't have to be necessarily
through an LCP grant program but we'll be looking at any option that we can figure out
that's available but just want to put the word out in whatever funding is available
we are just we want to be engaged from the very beginning so we can again it's it's also
also just making sure it meets the needs of, you know, when you submit an LCP application
to us that, you know, we know exactly what that looks like, most of the local governments
too, but rightsizing it for SB 72 is going to be really critical.
Making sure that all the elements are covered, that we can all agree that we have met the
requirements of SB 272 and that we have a new LCP that will be, you know, bring this
local government into the next 50 years.
So.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez?
Yeah, I'll be brief.
Madam Chair, I just want to say I support your recommendation and Commissioner Preciados
in setting up a subcommittee of some sort ad hoc, however it needs to be phrased, but
agree also as a new member wanting to understand from an education basis what the history has
been and what those controls or potential bumpers are where we are and aren't allowed
to go.
But I'd like to volunteer for that at the appropriate time.
It's a space that I've already had discussions with staff about.
long-term would appreciate being there allowed to do some of that work on behalf of this body.
Thank you. Thank you. Noted. Seeing no further comments before we move on I was remiss in not
asking whether there were any commissioner comments or questions related to public comment.
Okay seeing none, let's take care of that. So we'll move on to item 6c the legislative report please.
Good morning Chair Harmon and commissioners this is the legislative report for August.
The legislature has been on its summer recess since mid-July, so while work has been continuing
as usual at the staff level, bills have not been officially moving for the past few weeks.
Staff is not bringing any bills to you today for positions, but we have just a few updates
on the Commission's priority bills. First, AB 462 by Assemblymember Lowenthal, which would shorten
the amount of time that the Commission and local governments have to process coastal development
permits for ADUs was amended in the Senate Housing Committee last month.
The amendments would require local governments that don't have certified local coastal programs
to notify the Commission when they receive a complete building permit application to
build an ADU in their coastal zone, so that the Commission can do its CDP review at the
same time that the local government is doing its building permit review.
While staff don't have concerns with the Commission and local governments coordinating
their respective reviews of ADU permits, staff and the author's office are in conversation
about potential cleanup amendments to clarify that the Commission does need to receive a
complete CDP application in order to process a permit for an ADU. That bill is now in the
Senate Appropriations Committee. Moving on, this year's legislative conversation
about billboards is continuing. Over the past few months, staff have been tracking and providing
updates on the bill AB 770, which would have exempted projects to structurally fortify
old billboards from all state and local permitting requirements.
Last month, staff reported that that bill had been amended to remove the problematic
exemption language.
Well, that language has now been incorporated into another bill, SB 364, by Senator Tony
Strickland from Coastal Orange County.
The bill is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and staff are in communication
with the committee to share the commission's previously expressed policy concerns from
AB 770.
A couple of the commission's priority bills didn't meet the July deadline to pass out
of policy committees, and so they won't be moving this year.
The first is SB 675 by Senator Padilla.
That's the bill that would create a special abbreviated coastal react review process just
for the proposed Seaport San Diego project, and the Commission took an opposed position
last month.
In the days following last month's Commission meeting, the Commission finalized an MOU with
the developer of Seaport San Diego project that commits both parties to specific timelines
for when project-related documents will be submitted, reviewed, and acted on.
This MOU will provide for the efficient processing of the Seaport San Diego Project without
altering the Coastal Act's resource protections or the Commission's standard of review.
As a result of this agreement, Senator Padilla decided to park his bill in the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee until next year, at which point he could continue to move it or could
amend it to address another topic.
SB 741 by Senator Catherine Blake-Speare will also be a two-year bill.
That bill would have amended the Coastal Act to expand the existing exemption for emergency
highway repair projects so that it would also apply to the railroad tracks of the Losan
Rail Corridor in Southern California.
Senator Blake-Speare has decided to park the bill on the Assembly Natural Resources Committee
until next year.
Lastly, a quick follow up on AB1470 by Assemblymember Matt Haney which deals with restaurants.
Last month, staff reported that the author would be amending the bill to remove the provision
that would have exempted the construction of restaurant patios from the Coastal Act.
That amendment did go into print on July 14th, so that resolves staff's concerns with the
bill.
Looking ahead, the legislature will return from its summer recess on Monday.
Throughout the rest of August, the appropriations committees will be holding hearings to determine
which bills will move onto the floor and which will be held until next year.
Next month, staff will report out on the results of those hearings.
The legislature will then have until September 12th to pass bills.
With that, Chair Harmon, unless there are any questions, that concludes the legislative
report.
Thank you, Mr. Drake.
Are there any public comments on the legislative report?
None.
Thank you. Commissioner Preciado. I wonder if staff can speak to AB 130, the
Committee on Budget and Housing. I'm just trying to understand the implications if
that trailer bill moves forward or if it already moved forward. Oh, because it
says chapter to stats 25. So what does that mean for our agency and given that
permits could move forward. I'm just curious about the impact on future
projects. If those projects move forward, for example, and they have a higher
height than what we usually like, will they set the new height for the area or
how will that work? Through the Chair, if I may respond briefly, in terms of the
status of Assembly Bill 130, since as you observed it as a budget trailer bill,
Well, once it was signed by the governor on June 30th, it took legal effect immediately.
So the provisions of that bill are now current law as of July 1st.
The changes that that law makes are more procedural than they are substantive in terms of impacts
on the commission's program.
You'll see those are summarized in the written legislative report, but to kind of review
them briefly. Certain projects, certain types of housing projects, now the Commission along
with other permitting agencies must act on complete applications for those housing projects
within 90 days as opposed to 180 days. The process for when a permitting agency, state or local,
does not take action within that deadline have also been altered. And then specific to the
the Coastal Act, certain types of multifamily housing projects now have, I would describe
it as a smaller universe of bases for which they may be appealed. And so of the prongs
upon which projects may be appealable in the coastal zone, there are certain housing projects
for which several bases of appeals have been taken off the table.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Commissioner Wilson.
Thanks. I feel like this bill 770 has become a zombie.
We dealt with was dealt with and then it read
that language came back in Senate. Three, six, four.
I just want to point out a few things.
And I know that we have a framework and a sort of
a movement towards or or popularity around deregulation.
Many much of which I agree with.
But this is not housing.
It's not affordable housing.
It's not renewable energy.
It's not transit.
It's for the reconstruction, or even the rebuilding,
and actually new construction.
And what I mean by that, I'll get to in a second
around outdoor advertising in the form of billboards.
You can't hear me?
I'll speak a little louder.
I'm always so loud that I can come back off a little bit
sometimes.
Some of you know this.
Anyways, so it's not housing.
It's not all the good things.
So we're talking about a fundamental deregulation
of these structures.
Now, these structures occur along our highways,
but they also occur on buildings,
on top of buildings, on the sides of buildings,
and those sorts of things.
The way this language is written is that
if you replace any structural element,
including the entire structural element,
but do not change the square footage dimension
of the advertising itself,
it would be, you would not require uniform building code,
inspections, any of the safety regulations
that you might have.
So this includes, on top of buildings,
it's no other structure in the state of California
would actually have this kind of exemption.
You couldn't have this exemption for your shed.
Okay, so this is really, it's really bizarre.
But going further than that,
when you replace those structures,
if you were in sensitive areas like wetlands
or cultural areas, or tribal areas.
Again, no regulation from any agency.
So we're talking about nothing from Cal Fish and Wildlife,
nothing from Coastal Commission,
nothing from your local jurisdictions,
your local building departments,
nothing from Cal OSHA, all of those things.
So this is not just like,
these are some very large structures
we're talking about along the sides of highways
that can blow into roads and they have done that before
or can fall down.
So this exemption is dangerous in a lot of ways.
And I think it's time that we shed a little light on that
and that folks really understand that this is not
the direction we should be going for these kinds of mostly
fairly unpopular structures.
I mean, if you poll the public, they're universally unpopular.
And so it seems weird to me that as a legislature,
we would stretch ourselves in a deregulatory process
towards something that's not very popular,
not very productive.
And so, anyways, those are my comments on this.
Senate Bill 364, please let your local labor unions
inform them of the potential danger to their workforce,
as well as your local environmental groups, thanks.
Thank you very much Commissioner Wilson.
Any further comments or questions?
Okay, seeing none, then we will move to item 60.
I believe Annie Frankel, there she is.
Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
The staff report from the Public Education Program
is for this year's targeted whale tail grants.
The slides show photos
from some of the previous year's projects.
Next slide, please.
This year's targeted grants would be funded by revenue
from voluntary donations to the protect our coast
and oceans fund on the California state tax return,
as well as the last of a time limited general
fund budget allocation made in fiscal year 2021,
which you did hear a little bit about earlier.
Next slide.
Annie, this is Anthony from AGP video.
I'm just stopping you just for a moment.
Are you able to turn down your volume
just a little bit for us, please?
You're starting to overdrive just a little bit,
just a little bit.
about that? How's that? Any better? Any better? A little bit more if you can. Any
better? Hello? Let's just move forward. We'll try to EQ it over here. Thank you.
Go ahead. I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm so sorry. Okay, so continuing targeted
grants are non-competitive grants based on staff recommendations for high
priorities that are linked to the commissions existing programs and goals.
We expect to come before you at the April meeting for your approval of the
grant recipients from our next competitive grant round which will open
up for applications in October. Next slide. Today there are six projects being
recommended for funding. The first is the Kids Ocean Day Adopt-a-Beach school
program which is divided into seven different grants serving thousands of children from
all around the state.
Next slide.
This annual program engages children in learning about marine life, their own connection to
the ocean and how to prevent ocean pollution.
Next slide.
The project includes classroom presentations.
Next slide, please.
Classroom presentations and a field trip
to play at the beach,
participate in a beach cleanup or restoration activity,
and create an aerial art display
to spell out an ocean conservation message.
Next slide.
The 2024 theme, so this past spring,
the theme was restore.
Here's what the kids in Humboldt made.
Next slide.
Here's the aerial artwork from the San Francisco project.
Next slide, please.
Then here's a wider view of that one.
Next slide.
The next grant is for Justice Outside
to offer capacity building trainings
to our competitive Whale Tail Grant recipients
as they continue work toward increasing equity and inclusion
in their environmental education efforts.
Justice Outside will conduct a brief survey
of the grantees' interests and needs
and offer a series of trainings based on the responses.
Stipends will be available for the grantees who participate.
Next are grants for the adopted, back please.
Next are grants for the adopted beach programs
of Heal the Bay, Isle of a Clean San Diego
and Save our Shores.
Adopted Beach is one of the foundations
of our public education program
and it's specifically mentioned in the Coastal Act.
These three projects have large numbers of participants
and innovative components.
Next slide please.
We're also recommending funding. Next slide please. We're also recommending funding for the
Tide Center Marine Education Programs Project Grow Program for supporting ongoing community-based
habitat restoration and education. Next slide. Their work includes an environmental leadership
internship program which helps build critical skills for emerging environmental professionals
through the restoration of rare coastal habitats in Upper Newport Bay. Next slide.
If staff identifies a need for
that money later in this fiscal
year, we'll return to the
commission for approval. If
that doesn't happen, it will
revert to the fund and be
available for future grants.
Next slide, please. Also, staff
is requesting that if any of
these funds end up not being
needed by the designated
grantees, the extra money can
be received from the commission
as we do every year, and the
staff will return to the
commission for approval. If
that doesn't happen, it will
revert to the fund and be
can be added to the reserve or the competitive grants budget to be allocated at a future meeting. Finally, staff is requesting that if any of these grants end up being slightly smaller than the grantees need, we have permission to allocate some of the reserves so their projects can be completed successfully as long as the reserve funds are not otherwise needed. Next slide please.
employees. In closing, I would like to encourage everyone to support ongoing funding for a
grants program by one, purchasing a whale tail license plate, which provides the core
of our public education programs funding. And two, donating to the protect our coast
and oceans fund on your California tax form. October 15 is the tax filing deadline for
everyone in Los Angeles County this year, as well as for late filers throughout the state.
So if that applies to you, please consider a tax deductible donation of any amount when you file.
The Protect Our Coast Notions Fund is found in the voluntary contributions section of your state
tax form. I'll also note that thanks to the state controller's office, we are also able to accept
donations to that fund via check at any time separate from the tax return. We
haven't quite reached our required minimum of $200,000 yet, but with your
help we can meet and exceed the cutoff and continue our important work. So thank
you very much. The motion and resolution are on page 2 of the staff report.
Thank you. Are there any public comments? Yes, we have one in person. Jennifer Savage.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, Commissioners, Jennifer Savage, California Policy
Associate Director with the Surf Rider Foundation. I know that you have many
complex and perhaps controversial items coming up in the next few days, so I
didn't want the whale tail grants to just be a distant memory at the end. I
really wanted to take a moment to celebrate them and to emphasize how
important they are. Before I worked for SurFider I worked at a very small
nonprofit in Humboldt County and I'm still close to a lot of people who work
in similar small size nonprofits and I know how important these small grants
are. You know they don't if you are at a small nonprofit you don't apply like for
an OPC grant or these big grants because the burden of applying for them and
managing them is so huge. But these small you know what we would consider a small
grant can make an incredible difference to small organizations and you know
they're simple they're accessible it is such a wonderful program and these the
grants that are provided introduce people largely that to the ocean and
coast in a way they would not otherwise get and in addition to of course
supporting staffs recommendation for the grants today I was curious I don't know
you have a formal strategy to advocate and support these grants in Sacramento
with the legislator with you know appropriate people of influence who can
help to make sure that the grants continue that more funds can be coming
in if there's creative ways to do that if there are people who are championing
these I would strongly encourage that kind of strategy and obviously surf
rider would be willing to support those kind of efforts as well as numerous
coast and ocean focused and environmental justice NGOs so I just would
love to see this program continue to be a shining beacon of goodness in this
world that we're living in. Thank you. Thank you. No more speakers. Thank you
very much. Any comments? Vice Chair. Thanks so much you know I'm just I'm just so
happy that now we can make donations and I just wanted to thank the controller
for the effort and it was a significant effort to get to that point but now we
have an opportunity that we can that people can make donations to the funds
the real estate grants so what I was thinking about is if there's a way to
get this information to large foundations that might be interested in
including in its port including this group where we've already done all of
of the work to come up with the groups that would benefit.
So I'm just curious if we're doing any outreach at all
to the large foundations to potentially get them
to include this in their portfolio
or their recommendations to their donors.
Do you know, through the chair, I'm not,
oh, sorry, Annie, go ahead.
You're better to answer the question than I am.
Well, I very much appreciate that suggestion
And that avenue is not something that we had considered before.
So that is something that we'll look into, certainly.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I just want to echo those comments
and give gratitude to the controller's office
for allowing donations to be able to come through this program.
And I do think that there are several both community
foundations located in jurisdictions along the coastline,
as well as other private philanthropic foundations
that have this type of programmatic work
squarely within their mission.
So I do think that that's a great idea
to do some of that outreach to foundations and otherwise.
I'm happy to help give recommendations on that.
And I wanna just echo the comments
and really these programs and what it is doing,
especially in engaging the next generation
engaging youth and really creating those avenues for people, young people, to have a relationship
with the coast.
So many of the millions of residents of California do not yet have a relationship with our coastline,
and I think the key mission of what we're trying to do and to continue to uphold the
Coastal Act really relies on the fact that people know that the coast exists and want
to do something to protect or preserve it.
And in order to do that, they have
to have a relationship with it.
And so I think getting these young folks
and the next generation to the coast
and creating those opportunities to build that passion
that we all have, and many of the folks in this room have,
will ensure that the work that we do
will continue in perpetuity.
And so I just want to thank our staff who
are working diligently on this program
and for all the organizations who continue to apply
for these funds and do the work out in community,
to me that's what it's all about.
So, thank you.
Thank you.
Make the motion?
Commissioner Preciado.
Thank you for, I'll try to be very,
it's been my experience in the grant making process
that many of the usual collaborators are always funded.
And so there might be opportunities to broaden
how we target who is served.
And I'll say this in this regard.
Just in my community, there are organizations
that support student youth, student development,
environmental justice,
but it never focuses on the natural resources.
It actually focuses on the impacts from diesel engines
going by and things of that nature.
So I'm just wondering, as part of the process to do outreach
or to broaden who becomes interested in these,
if it's possible to work with schools
or other organizations that have more of a comprehensive
curriculum and probably work with more diverse students.
And by diverse, I mean, they could be all income levels,
they could be all areas.
What I'm concerned about is that coastal resources
It may not be a core mission of many of the organizations
that work on environmental justice,
that work on poverty alleviation strategies,
on food insecurity,
and there might be opportunities to just reach out.
Now I realize that you could hire
like three or four or five outreach firms
and spend all your money and have no grants to offer,
but I'm just proposing to you that there are people
who live a mile from the ocean, two miles from the ocean.
And they're not aware other than going the day
that it's really crowded on a holiday
that there are ways to support the ocean's continued beauty
and continued existence.
And so I just wanted to offer the opportunity to examine,
to acknowledge the success and to,
and I could see it just in the six projects
that were highlighted today,
but there may be a way to cast a broader net
to see who's interested.
And trust me, there are really entrepreneurial people
out there looking for funds.
If they are aware that they're available
and that they can get them.
At the County Water Authority in San Diego,
I used to support the Special Districts Outreach Fund.
And that was to encourage youth in schools
to understand what a special district was.
And so you'd be surprised how many people came out
to apply for the limited funding.
So I just want to share with you that, of course,
all of the wonderful ocean-centered organizations
are wonderful.
There may be others so that we can really broaden
those interested in the ocean
and protecting the natural resources.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Dr. Hucklebridge, would you like to respond?
Through the chair.
Again, thank you for those comments, Commissioner Preciado.
We, I think, could not agree with you more,
and one of the things I'm most proud of about this program
is our continued, we have made so many efforts
to try to analyze our process,
see who we're missing, how we could find new grantees,
pull them in, and there's more,
there's so much more to be done in this space.
I think it's a continued effort
and would definitely welcome recommendations of groups.
I think one of the cool features of this program,
as Jennifer Savage mentioned,
is our competitive grant program
is these micro-grant opportunities.
So we often can provide small grants
to small organizations that are just starting,
or who maybe have not run a program on the beach before,
or have some other, you know,
and so I think that's been
an important feature of our program,
And part of that continued interest in those micro grants came out of an environmental
justice analysis that we did do of our grant program and the kind of continual learning
that we're getting from our grantees about what they need.
So again, there's a lot to do in this space, and when we bring up the next competitive
grant cycle, we can go into more depth about how we've approached it and get, again, additional
feedback on how to how to reach new and different groups because again I the
comments about you know this is our opportunity to create new relationships
between youth and folks that don't get to enjoy the ocean on a regular basis
and create that relationship and so then we have invested youth and and new ocean
and coast advocates and folks you know to to kind of continue the mission as we
go forward so thank you thank you commissioner nada I'm prepared to make
the motion and just to say that I think if you look over the last few years
especially of the whale tail grandpa I mean you'll see that we've reached new
voices and new people and we can always do more but there's there's really a
pretty healthy dispersal so I move that the commission approved the funding
allocation set forth and the staff recommendation and would urge an aye vote.
Second.
Apologies.
Okay, are there any, is there anyone who would like to speak to the motion?
It was a motion by Commissioner Notoff, a second by Commissioner Crociato.
Okay, are there any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the motion is so adopted.
And now we will move to item 6E, the 2026 meeting schedule.
Thank you, chair Herman the next item is to consider and
approve I believe the the 2026 meeting schedule and I did have a slide if we could pull that up
Just it it's in the staff report. It's real simple. Just wanted you to have a chance to take a look
As we have for the past several years. We're not scheduling a meeting for January in 2026
And then again, we've just spread out our meetings across
across the state so it's it's fairly well spread out so unless there are any
questions we're looking for a motion to approve the 2026 meeting schedule move
to approve okay that was the motion by Vice Chair Hart a second by Commissioner
Jackson um any opposition to unanimous consent to the meeting schedule the
meeting schedule is so approved I should ask are there any public comments on the
meeting schedule. There's no comment. Thank you very much. And I'm going to suggest that
we take a quick break. If you could all be back at 1055 please. OK. I'm going to try
to speak more loudly for folks in the audience. But if I get too loud please give me a signal.
All right, so we will return to session please
and we are now on the consent calendar.
Yes, thank you, Chair Harbin.
So on item seven, the agenda is consent calendar.
There's nothing on that calendar.
But item eight, the items move to consent.
As I described earlier today, we have eight items
that have been moved to consent for today.
I'll run through them quickly.
Item number 11A, this is the Sonoma County LCP Amendment
that adds a zoning administrator
and modifies CDP duration terms from two to four years.
Item 13A, this is the Gruden-Wazow CDP application
for a single family residence in an ADU
in Seedrift in Marin County.
Item 15B, this is the city of Santa Cruz LCP amendment
to expand the downtown plan
and add additional development parameters.
Item 16A, this is North Coastal San Luis Obispo County's
notice of impending development
for their regional ecological strategy
for northern San Luis Obispo County.
Item 18A, this is the Caltrans CDP application
for a retaining wall supporting Highway 1
near Big Creek and Big Sur.
Item 18B, this is the Liberian CDP application
for relatively minor revetment restacking
in the unincorporated Pleasure Point area
of Santa Cruz County.
Item 18C, this is the Zollars CDP application,
also for relatively minor revetment,
restacking and pleasure point.
And then finally item 18D,
which is a city of Capitola,
CDEP application for its annual fireworks display
in October.
So I'd note we'd receive some comments
and objections on some of these
and so I'll walk through that next.
First, with respect to 11A,
this is the Sonoma County LCP amendment.
We did receive some comments raising questions
the role of the zoning administration position that's being created and as is
described in the staff report the ZA will have coastal decision-making
authority just like any other coastal decision making permit body at the
county we don't think the observations change anything with respect to the
proposed amendment it's actually a fairly straightforward procedural
amendment from our perspective and we continue to support it on consent for
item 15b this is the city of Santa Cruz's downtown plan expansion
LCP amendment we did distribute an addendum yesterday make some minor
clarifications and that responds to the one objection that was received where
that objection was basically disagreeing with staff's assessment that the downtown
area in question was an appropriate spot for infill development particularly of
the type that would be engendered by this amendment so we continue to believe
the downtown area is exactly the type of place where you would increase densities
and allow for more development in a way that doesn't result in significant
coastal resource impacts. Especially as this one's structured to accommodate a
range of housing types where affordable housing is prioritized as it is here. In
a lot of ways actually this could be seen as a model of sorts for other
coastal communities to direct infill development in areas that can
accommodate it just as is envisioned and directed by the coastal act. So we
We continue to recommend approval on consent for that item as well.
As to 16A, this is the notice of impending development by the Upper Salinas-Lestavas
RCD for forest health and fire prevention work in San Luis Obispo County.
I'd note that staff received a comment from the Northern Chumash Tribal Council requesting
to participate in design and implementation of the proposed fuel treatments, and the RCD
is in contact with tribal representatives and staff firmly believes that the
noise requirements adequately reflect that collaboration and
account for it. We address this in the addendum that was published on Monday. In
addition, last night we received an objection where the commenter suggests
that the project would lead to adverse ecological impacts, that project
activities are more akin to commercial harvest, and that the project might
actually increase wildfire risk. While the project covers potential activities
over a large area, RCD will actually be scheduling more discrete treatments
during the next six years and not that entire area, so they're going to be much
smaller projects. And as to ecological function and fire safety, the
Commission's ecologists have reviewed the project materials and agree that the
project will actually benefit habitats, and we do believe that the project will
improve ecological resilience to fire. So approval of the NOID today would result
and coastal authorization for the work across the northern half of San Luis Obispo County but again
through discrete projects. We'd like to thank the RCD for their partnership in developing this fire
prevention project both enhance forest habitat and protect communities in the region. We continue
to recommend approval of that one on consent. And finally as to 18D this is the City of Capitola's
proposed fireworks in October. We received multiple letters of local support and no local
opposition but we did get an objection from the Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force in Southern
California suggesting that a drone show should be required and that in general these kinds
of fireworks shows shouldn't be allowed due to their biological impacts.
As we describe in the staff report, we agree that these kinds of displays can lead to biological
impacts but we also note that this particular project at this particular location has not
led to these types of impacts, that over 10 years of monitoring has not identified
any sort of significant coastal resource impacts that would suggest that we need to alter course
with this event.
The project includes a number of BMPs that have been added over the years, it includes
thorough clean-up measures, and it includes strict biological monitoring.
The wharf itself is not constructed in such a way that would facilitate significant use
by marine mammals or birds and the same is generally true for the surrounding area.
Importantly, this event takes place in October outside of marine mammal breeding and bird
nesting seasons. On those points, I'd note that the objections that we received have been very
generalized objections to fireworks and not so much objections focused on the specifics
of this event in Capitola. Staff's assessment here for this event though, while acknowledging these
types of general issues is derived from the effects identified for this event,
and it's supported by extensive biological monitoring of the event
itself over a decade. And that history and evaluation shows that the event has
been authorized by the Commission for many years, has been operating
efficiently without significant coastal resource impacts, including as evidenced
by the required cleanups and marine wildlife monitoring reports. We continue
to believe that this event can continue to provide a fun and free, family-oriented entertainment
and local fundraising opportunity without leading to any sort of adverse impacts that
would suggest we do something different.
That is not to say that all fireworks events should be understood in this way, but we continue
to believe that this one should, and I'd also note that if you have any questions about
potential biological impacts, our staff ecologist, Dr. Rachel Pausch, is sitting right next to
me here, and she can answer questions as well.
So to wrap on the consent calendar items in each of these eight cases, the applicants
are in agreement with the staff recommendations.
We've described the known objections in the comments on these items.
We've made changes via Denda or explained why they don't change the staff recommendations
where applicable, and thus we continue to recommend the commission approve all eight
of these items through the consent calendar.
Thank you very much, Mr. Carl.
Are there any commissioners who have any ex partes to report on any of these items?
Vice Chair Hart.
I just want to note, I have an ex parte on, I think it's 15B, and it's on file.
Great.
Thank you.
And I believe we have some members of the public signed up to speak.
Thank you.
Yes.
We have a number of speakers signed up to speak on items that are moved to consent or proposed
to be moved to consent.
For item 11A, we have two speakers.
We have Nancy Okada and then Scott Orr.
Nancy Okada, you're on the phone.
I see, and you should be able to unmute now.
Nancy Okada, I see that you're.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, now I can hear you.
You can hear me?
Okay, great.
Thank you.
Good morning, commissioners.
Thank you for, Nancy Okada.
Thank you for allowing me to comment.
It took several years for Sonoma County's
constructively engaged community
to collaboratively work on this LCP in good faith.
And at no time during this process
Was there ever any mention of, or any consent to, using a zoning administrator?
This arbitrary change is being imposed after the fact and has not been subject
to due process or to public review.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors was required to approve the LCP update
within six months of the Commission's November 2024 action by May 14th, 2025.
When the Board of Supervisors did approve the LCP update on May 6, they also approved
a zoning administrator position within permit Sonoma, that's Sonoma County's planning department.
The Board also changed permit extensions from two years to four years.
This means the Board of Zoning Adjustment will be eliminated and decision-making for
certain permit requests will rest solely with the zoning administrator.
Too much is at stake for the California Coastal Zone in Sonoma County.
Communication about coastal permit issues requires effective full outreach and input
from the public, impacted residents and organizations representing environmental interests.
This new position and this impact for the Coastal Zone in Sonoma County are unclear.
I respectfully request the Coastal Commission delay approving this LCP amendment until more
details are provided by Sonoma County to the public and to all stakeholders who were involved
throughout the LCP process. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you. Next, Scott Orr.
Thank you. I'm Scott Orr. I'm the interim director for Permit Sonoma and I'm available
to answer any questions regarding this item. I would just say that we went through the
public process for this and I do want to clarify that while the Board of Zoning
Adjustments you know will no longer exist as a decision-making body its
authority is shifted over to our Planning Commission which will make it
easier for both the public and staff to have and developers to have clarity on
which decision-making process their item will go to which hearing board and also
So this process is going to do away with our, you know,
long standing practice of waiving public hearings
where there's no opposition
and instead require a public hearing every single time.
So we think it will actually increase the amount
of transparency to permitting on the coast.
So thank you again for your time today.
And I'm here if there's any follow-up questions.
Thank you.
And also note, we have Cecily Condon available
for questions as well from the Sonoma County as well.
Moving to item 15B, move to the consent.
We have Fred Keeley,
the mayor of Santa Cruz here in person.
Madam Chair and members,
thank you very much for the opportunity.
I want to congratulate your staff
for working cooperatively with the city of Santa Cruz
on what we think is a quite creative way
to achieve increase in housing,
especially affordability of housing in the coastal zone,
as well as a number of other activities
are taking place and going to take place in our downtown expansion plan. Your
staff and our staff I think have found really good ways to get the job done
while we are also respecting the other side of California government policy
which is changing rapidly around the interest in housing especially housing
density and so on. So City of Santa Cruz thanks you we hope that you will keep
this on consent and approve it with changes that the gentleman mentioned
earlier today that happened late last night thank you very much thank you and
then we also have two members two other members from the city of Santa Cruz
available for questions for item 16 a move to consent we have one speaker
Nina BD Nina you should be able to unmute now you I see that you're on a
Well, good morning. My name is Nina Beatty. I request that this project is postponed to
the September meeting to allow the public to study it. It's extensive. It's across nearly
90,000 acres with methods taken from the wood, pellet, and timber industry. It focuses on
symptoms instead of root causes of poor forest health, and the techniques it proposes guarantees
worsening forest health by injuring and killing trees, damaging or destroying their established
ecosystems, reducing moisture levels, damaging topsoil, and killing their
complementary trees, vegetation, and wildlife partners. And it increases fire
risks and hazards. This fails as a scientific or nature-based inquiry and
approach. Tree and forest health is a visible reflection of toxic exposures and
a compromised environment affecting everyone. Pitch canker and bark beetle are
symptoms. San Luis Obispo County has unique stressors and exposures as well as
more general toxic exposures. Trees are the canaries in the proverbial coal mine. This
plan moves in with chainsaws and macerators instead of doing deep analysis and kills the
messenger in a very literal way. The San Luis Obispo plan also increases fire danger and
introduces fire risk to previously undisturbed areas. I refer you to the papers by fire investigator
Dave Maloney on the danger of branding land transformation as fire mitigation and the
of this type of action. The LA fire lessons clearly have not been heated.
This introduces or increases wind access to these 90,000 acres and it dries the wind.
By limbing up trees, logging and thinning trees, eliminating vegetation,
and creating porous forests, fire lanes, not breaks, and bare hillsides,
this plan reduced as moisture, dries out, and stresses the landscape,
landscape, which leads to more plant entry compromise, and you increase wind. Provide
new entry and increased avenues and spaces for wind to flow through and even speed up
the eventory effect. This is happening in my area, and this will be detrimental to firefighters,
and it kills habitat and wildlife. So I ask you to postpone this, remove it from the consent
agenda, and bring it for a full hearing next month where the public can have time to look
of these documents and look at all the issues related to this, thank you.
Thank you.
And then also for this item we have five people available for questions, including the Executive
Director for Slow Fire Fire State Council.
For item 18A Move to Consent, we have four people available for questions.
For item 18B Move to Consent, we have Anne Cantrell.
control you're being moved in as panelists right now. I'm sorry I
mistakenly put 18b it's 18d. Okay and then we are moving straight into 18d so
stay right there. We'll start with the UN control. Commenting on 18d. Good morning
Ann Cantrell, Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force. I would like this
item to be returned to the regular agenda for a boat. We've been fighting
fireworks shows in Long Beach and along the coast for several years. Even the
city of Capitola agrees that fireworks have the potential to impact coastal
wildlife and firework debris can impair water quality as well as harm
wildlife that may ingest or become entangled in such debris. How can anyone
say with certainty that no human or animal has not been harmed by ten years
of fireworks in Capitola? In spite of these and other dangers such as air
pollution and noise effects on bats and pets, the city rejects drone shows as
being too new, logistically challenging and costing more. Jeff Stein did a drone
show from the La Jolla Pier on July 4th, 2025. The show was designed in a way to
be visible from any angle from the La Jolla Cove up and down the beach. The
show was 500 drones for 60k. John Morris in Long Beach has stated that fireworks
for Big Bang on the Bay costs $40,000.
Adding the cost of biologist surveys,
numerous permits, and repeated cleanups,
it would seem drones are a bargain.
With the known and acknowledged adverse effects
of fireworks on coastal resources,
the Commission must deny this permit.
There are other more environmental ways
to fundraise and hold celebrations.
At the very least, this should not be a one,
It will be a 103-year permit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
We have eight more speakers for this item, 18D.
Next is Jessica Kahn, followed by Jane Velez Mitchell, and then Marsha Hanscom.
Jessica Kahn.
Good morning, Honorable Chair and Commissioners.
My name is Jessica Kahn.
I'm the Public Works Director for the City of Capitola.
Thank you so much for considering the City's annual permit for its fireworks show.
This long-standing event provides free, family entertainment and supports local fundraising
for educational and recreational activities in the county of Santa Cruz and benefits local
villages, businesses, and our Capitola Village.
The City values its decade-long partnership with the Mani Foundation and looks forward
to continuing this collaboration.
We also have a well-established relationship with Save Our Shores, who partners often with
the City for Beach cleanups, including for this event.
This event has been permitted by the Commission for over a decade under the Mountie Foundation,
with mitigation measures that have been consistently met.
Monitoring reports from previous year's events have not identified any significant adverse
impacts.
As the agency responsible for protecting Kepitol's coastal environment, the City is pleased to
take on the permit responsibilities to ensure continued compliance.
We've coordinated this project with your staff ecologist and agree with all mitigation measures
included in the permit and we support staff recommendation and proposed conditions and
are available to answer any questions. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Next is Jane Velez Mitchell, Marsha Hanscom, and then Robert Roy Vandauch. Jane
Velez Mitchell. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. Okay. Respectfully,
you falsely suggest that there's no ramifications from these fireworks. Fireworks cause death
and bloodshed. In California alone, over 10 people died. There was a tragic blast, you
may have seen it, at a warehouse, a fireworks warehouse. Seven people died. This holiday,
an eight-year-old girl was killed by fireworks. In Simi Valley, a man died, and his house
caught fire. A man was also killed in Pacoima. Okay. Ten people died. Countless others were
injured. A sports star suffered an eye injury and a homeless man lost his eye. Two people
were also injured in a deadly fireworks warehouse explosion separate from the one that killed
seven people. You know, where were those fireworks headed in that deadly explosion that killed
seven people.
Were they headed to Capitola?
You can't just exempt yourself
from this destructive industry.
They sparked more than 100 small wildfires.
In Laguna Beach, people had to evacuate,
including a friend of mine.
This is a medieval, literally medieval practice
that stems back to the 11th century or earlier.
It is killing people.
It is causing wildlife to fall out of trees.
It is giving veterans PTSD and triggering them.
It's causing more lost pets than any other time of year.
It must end.
Why are you backing something medieval and deadly?
Think about the parents of that eight year old girl.
Is that family friendly fun when you have a safe
and effective and entertaining alternative in drone shows?
I urge you to please join the 21st century.
There is no excuse for this violence.
It is violence.
Thank you.
Next, Marsha Hanscom, Robert Jan-Roy van de Hoek
and Susan Kirks.
Marsha Hanscom.
Honorable commissioners and staff,
Marsha Hanscom representing the Coastal Lands Action Network.
I wanna reiterate, there is a feasible environmentally,
environmentally superior alternative,
a drone show that does not blast and disturb wildlife
with no chemicals that harm the wildlife.
I saw in your staff report, no analysis of the chemicals.
You're gonna have somebody go out the next day
and pick up some of the cardboard and plastic debris
that falls from the sky after these fireworks,
but you're not able to get the heavy metals,
Copper, strontium, barium, and other chemicals
create the colors of these fireworks.
Fireworks also emit fine particulate matter
and soot and ash, all of that goes into the water.
I know because I watch this at Marina del Rey every year,
several times a year, and it's gotta stop everywhere.
People do not understand the chemical reactions.
the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
is starting to understand it and starting to say no
to a number of cities' fireworks shows in that region
after years of litigation down at SeaWorld
by one of the good environmental law firms down there.
So we ask you that you start taking this seriously.
These chemicals go into the water, they go into the air,
And there are marine mammals off the coast here.
Has anybody done any studies of the sea otters
or the sea lions or the dolphins
that require echolocation sonar to thrive?
If you want a family-friendly event,
what happened to picking pumpkins in October?
This makes no sense.
Thank you. Robert Jan van der Hoek, Susan Kirks, and then Suzanne Cumming. Robert Jan
van der Hoek. Hi, is my voice coming across clearly right now? Yes, it sounds great. Awesome,
awesome. Okay, my name is Roy, Robert Jan van der Hoek, and I'm an environmental biological
scientist and work professionally in the government as a wildlife management biologist.
So I'm gonna give you some specifics.
Sequel, by the way, says, look at cumulative impacts.
And I don't think you have.
In terms of marine mammals,
let's focus on the sea otter for a second.
They may be able to survive the blast of sound,
but their prey, which includes fish, may not.
And we haven't studied a fish,
what species of fish are dying.
Grunion, they are using the area in autumn
of the California coast,
and they come into the surf zone,
and that's ground zero and where this fireworks is going.
In terms of the bottlenose dolphin,
it's a recent arrival in the 1980s
and has expanded its range due to El Nino events,
and now there's an established population.
And the bottlenose dolphin occurs
within the first 100, 200 yards of the seashore,
often going through the surf, jumping out of the water.
And again, they're affected, as you heard from Marcia Hanscom,
by their special hearing ability of echolocation
and sonar-like, and that leads to them not being able
to find prey, avoid obstacles in the water,
which their sound, you know, comes back to them
when they send out their communication
and communication between themselves.
During the fall we have osprey coming through
and roosting in the trees
right where the festival's gonna happen.
Bald eagles are nesting in nearby locations,
but fall is when courtship begins of reacquainting.
The blasts are very important.
In terms of cumulative impacts,
you need to study how all of these things
with plastics in the ocean or in the fish and birds
and how it all connects together
in terms of more biological and text, thank you.
Climate change too, I forgot to mention that.
Thank you.
Next is Susan Kirk and Suzanne Cumming.
Susan Kirk.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Harmon, Vice Chair Hart,
commissioners and staff.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I'm Susan Kirk and I have led and am leading
an effort in Northern California to eliminate fireworks
and replace fireworks with drone light shows.
Unfortunately, the information contained
in your staff report is erroneous
regarding seeking alternatives
and making decisions about how the other alternatives
to fireworks just wouldn't work for the Capitola community.
Anne Cantrell and Anna Christensen's letter
was full of details and definitely alternative suggestions.
And October is actually in the middle of wildfire season.
So while this community, they have enjoyed fireworks
and you have given permits for them for many years,
we all know that the impacts of fireworks
are very, very negative.
And in the climate crisis in which we find ourselves,
fireworks should not be approved at any time of any year.
What about the veterans?
I recently heard an interview of a veteran
who wanted to talk about the PTSD effects of fireworks shows.
It was heartbreaking to hear the impacts to veterans
and what this triggers when they hear the bombing explosions
for 20 minutes straight of fireworks.
Pets will be impacted, animals will be impacted.
And yes, I agree with the speakers before me,
birds in the area and wildlife and marine life
will be negatively impacted by these bombing explosions.
Please begin to take the path
that your commission has taken previously.
Please deny this permit.
Thank you, next, Suzanne coming.
Can you hear me?
Yes, go ahead.
Good morning, honorable commissioners and staff.
I'm Suzanne Cumming, speaking as a member of Sierra Club
and in support of Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands
Tax Force letter of opposition.
They submitted a timely and well-researched letter.
First, the staff report fails to mention air pollution.
It's well known that fireworks release toxic substances
the air, do our measurements really assess all the fine toxic particles left behind maybe
for days or longer? Second, staff states drones and lasers are more expensive. The task force
is offered data to show otherwise. Please watch the video of the La Jolla drone show.
This could really be a bigger fundraiser. It could be something the whole community
would enjoy more than fireworks. Additionally you heard about the fire hazard. The Palisades fire
may have been started by illegal fireworks not thoroughly extinguished. If we normalize
drone and laser shows with music then I believe fewer people would think it would be okay to set
off illegal ones. And fireworks affects wildlife as you heard. They injure wildlife and have
harmed people. Most people who have pets find they must take extra precautions with them.
Please deny the fireworks permit or remove it from the consent calendar to allow more research
into this item. Thanks so much. Thank you. We had two other speakers that are signed up for this
item but we aren't able to locate them I'm gonna call their names and if you
hear your name please raise your hands we can find you Michael Monti and
Kristin Northrop and Michael Monti and Kristin Northrop please raise your
hand I'm seeing no hands raised there are no more speakers for items moved to
consent okay thank you very much I will ask if any commissioners wish to remove
any items from the consent calendar yeah I think I'll quickly respond to the
last one 18d and mostly just to reiterate we don't believe there's
anything in error in the staff report we continue to agree with the general
premise that fireworks shows can have significant impacts but the track record
for this show has shown that there aren't those sorts of impacts and that
reflects the staff recommendation that you got today and also just on the
biological points I'm going to pass it to Dr. Rachel Pausch from our staff
ecologist to give some some other further information. Hello when we
considered potential impacts from this show we looked at which species are
using the area and how they use it in this location specifically we don't have
marine mammal haul out areas.
We don't see birds using the wharf.
We looked at the time of year and what species may be present.
Are they particularly susceptible
during that time of year?
So it's outside of nesting season,
which is usually one of our main concerns
during Fourth of July shows that are smacked up
in the middle of summer there.
So the timing of the show is a benefit
to the biological resources.
Additionally, US Fish and Wildlife Service
and the sanctuary and damps signed off on this last year.
So they have previously approved this show.
We have extremely stringent monitoring conditions,
both for biological resources as well as debris.
So we will have a handle on what debris was generated.
Not only will there be a cleanup,
but we've required a report to be submitted
of what debris was generated to be submitted for the ED
and suggestions made for improvements if necessary.
So I'm available for more questions.
OK, comments, questions, Commissioner Bacheco.
Just to follow up on that, I really appreciate all the hard work you've already put into this.
And I know we had this discussion now almost every year.
My particular personal take on it is I would love to see us really wind down fireworks as rapidly as possible over the next couple of years.
There are alternatives, as you pointed out.
I think perhaps the executive director might look at,
since this is a three to three year or five year approval,
yeah, condition it on every year of them coming in and proving
that the alternatives, which we already know
are more ecologically beneficial,
proving that those are not available.
I would discount the wow factor.
I don't think it's important if people want to come and watch a show then, you know, it doesn't have to wow them
It can actually just be
Anyway, that would be my suggestion
I could just quickly respond to that Commissioner Bocco that the permit does include that sort of adaptive management and
The city is required to evaluate alternatives and come back with less impactful alternatives that for the ED during the term of the permit
So there could be changes made during the course of the permit
But you're that what you're suggesting is actually required of the city and they're fully committed to that effort to looking into
How the alternatives might work here and how they might be able to implement them
So I just wanted to say that that is part of the good because it was a little general in the language in the report
So so they have to be very specific like this is what it costs to do a laser
This is what it costs to do a drone and yeah, you know, we know fireworks are cheap my god
to say that they are going to take it seriously, they have indicated to us they will, so that's
all part of the program.
Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado.
I just wanted to add a comment related to our veterans experiencing PTSD and I've just
wondered if there's any outreach by the city or the organizers to the community in terms
preparing or knowing that the event is taking place and that they should
prepare in case they are impacted in any way by this. I guess I want to recognize
the staff's work on the natural resources and protecting the natural resources but
it just seems that one element might be beneficial for us to consider and so if
There is an outreach initiative already I'd like to hear if that is underway.
Thank you commissioner. I will say we do have a special condition seven which says at least one
week prior to the event there needs to be noticing in the area of the event so that is a new addition
for this year to address public outreach in the area make sure people are aware that the event
will be happening. So we do have that public public noticing effort within the special condition.
I made note of it because as the public raises concerns about these things,
they may not go into the fine detail, but, and maybe it can be explicit that for those who have flash
and other things, that they too be considered in the outreach.
So the one-week notice is there, but maybe if we can develop the notice to extend
to certain communities that may be impacted.
I just want to be sensitive to the unique needs
of our veterans community.
If I may, I'd observe that that is something
that we can definitely work with the city on,
including for this year's event.
I think that's a really good comment,
and focused outreach to certain groups
that might be more sensitive is definitely important.
And I'm sure that they will do that
as part of this project.
there's no doubt in my mind.
I mean, you could ask the city
if you want to throw on the line.
Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Carl.
I too would very much appreciate that.
Okay, so I'll entertain a motion.
Commissioner Nada, excuse me.
I just wanted to say that I think in general,
we have seen a lot of testimony
about the need to move away from fireworks,
especially in sensitive areas.
I think we've had mostly discussions in Long Beach
and Mission Bay and San Diego.
I'll just note here that the timing does matter
and I appreciate the work that the staff has done
to identify the time of year makes a difference.
But I would like to see us move away from these
where we can.
I think the technology of drones is bringing the price down
and I've certainly seen more and more wow factors
not a bad thing.
And they are pretty impressive though drone shows.
So I hope that, you know, I don't think we need
to have one size fits all on the coast,
but as we move towards, as the technology improves,
I'd like to see more of the drone proposals.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
Just happy to make a motion to consider this one.
Second, and I could speak to just for a second,
which is that there are areas around the world
where they've done modifications to fireworks now,
doesn't necessarily deal with all the issues,
but there's been modifications around the materials,
biodegradable materials, as well as substituting
certain chemicals in the explosive properties,
as well as modifying the report,
I guess the noise level.
So those do exist, but they were done
through legislative means in countries in Europe
and other places, and so maybe something
that the legislature might want to take a look at, thanks.
Thank you, there's been a motion by Commissioner Lopez,
second by Commissioner Wilson.
Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I certainly understanding and appreciate
where the trends are going,
but I just wanted to give a shout out.
Appreciate the staff with a careful analysis
thoughtful understanding that at this particular junction, the one size does not fit all, so thank you.
Thank you. Okay there's a motion on the floor. Commissioner Kelly. Sorry I'll
just add a quick comment that we recently did do at the local level an
evaluation of whether we could transition away from fireworks based on
some of the concerns raised, concerns about pet noise and trauma for animals
as well as environmental concerns and our local jurisdiction in Sonoma County did realize
that the cost is still quite prohibitive to transition to a drone show and so we ultimately
decided to stay with our fireworks display which was under $50,000 and to transition
to drone at this time would have been over $150,000 so more than triple the cost for
our local jurisdiction and also just to note that actually it was the veterans groups who
who are the most vocal in asking us to keep the fireworks.
It was a 4th of July display.
And so just some interesting nuance
to the conversation that I'd add.
And we've also seen some really incredible drone shows
in our region in Northern California.
We'd love to see more of those.
And I wanted to second the comments by Commissioner Wilson
and just that if we can reach out to our partners
in the legislature to ask them to look
at environmental concerns around fireworks,
obviously the loss of lives
at the fireworks storage facility in Northern California
should not go unmentioned.
That was a truly tragic incident,
which is still under investigation.
But we know that obviously the storage of fireworks
as well as the environmental concerns
and some of the ingredients that are used
in the creation of these can certainly be improved upon.
We should never just rest on our laurels,
especially when lives are lost, that we need to do better.
And if we are able to try to move legislation
forward that looks at environmentally you know more beneficial fireworks if
they're doing that in other countries there's no reason why California can't
continue to be a leader in ensuring that anything we are exploding or that are
being deposited into sensitive areas when that is occurring that we could
continue to try to press for better fireworks that are going to be less
impactful on the environment so thank you thank you what a really good
conversation here so we have a motion on and a second on the floor to adopt our
consent calendar are there any objections to unanimous consent seeing
none the consent calendar is so adopted and I believe we are now moving to item
9 the enforcement report we are just might take us a second give us one
second yeah morning commissioners it's still morning um I just wanted to note
that since the meeting is here in South Central Coast District we'd like to do
two brief things today as part of our enforcement report.
First, we're going to highlight some developments in a few of the local cases.
And this is a picture of Point Doom in case you're interested.
The South Central Coast District covers a very active part of the California coast from
an enforcement perspective, and includes both the city of Malibu and the Santa Monica Mountains.
And today we're going to be providing an update on a few of the cases in which our local enforcement
staff have been working on.
But secondly, the district includes an array of access ways with long and storied enforcement
histories behind them, many of which are within a short drive of where we are now.
So, since several of you are joining us in this area for the first time, we thought it
would be a nice opportunity to also take the commissioners and the public on a virtual
site tour through a few of the historic public access cases in the Malibu area, which enforcement
has been involved in.
Unfortunately, the agenda was too full to take a physical tour this month, but hopefully
this will give you a good flavor of a few of the access cases around in this area. And
we'll provide a map and a list of addresses for anyone who has a minute and an interest
to go and check them out this week or later. So first of all, I'd like to hand the microphone
over to one of our two district enforcement officers for this area, Cameron Lee. Next slide,
please.
Thanks, Lisa. Morning, commissioners, and welcome or welcome back to the South Central
Coast District. You heard a bit about our district last month during presentation on
the Consent Enforcement Order to direct a property owner within the Meadows Court subdivision
in Malibu to, among other things, construct on their property a portion of the commission
required Izumi Trail, which will link the PCH with the very popular Escondido Falls
Trail. Here you can see a bench along the Escondido Falls Trail just ahead of the Falls.
Next slide, please.
We know that last month commissioners expressed an interest in seeing the Izumi Trail site.
Unfortunately, that final piece which connects the trail from the falls down to the PCH has
not yet been constructed, and we will have to put off the actual site visit to another
time, though we are happy to say that progress is being made as required by the Consent Enforcement
Orders.
As you may recall from the discussion of that matter, other property owners within the Meadows
port subdivision were also subject to the requirement to improve the Izumi Trail within
the subdivision and for the most part the trail is in place as required as another step
toward constructing opening and maintaining the trail here and to resolve another instance
of non-compliance with the permit requirement, staff arranged for payment of trail stewardship
funds from another property owner that was out of compliance with the trail improvement
condition. So in addition to the funding contributions required under last month's
orders, staff have arranged for $240,000 to be paid to the Mountains Recreation
and Conservation Authority, or MRCA, who holds the easement. Those funds will be
for maintenance and stewardship of the assuming trail once construction has
been completed. That funding, the majority of which has already been paid, will help
to ensure that the benefits provided by the trail will be available for the
public continuously and that it will not fall into disrepair. In the interim,
members of the public who are interested can currently reach Escondido Falls
through MRCA facilitated access along winding way and via Escondido. Next slide
please. While Meadows Court, the Meadows Court matter is a great example of one
type of case we see, meaning the type that takes years of diligence as staff
in both the district and statewide level doggedly pursue resolution. Our goal at
the district level is generally to get expedient cooperation from alleged
violators so that harms can be rapidly remedied and remediated and to help
achieve resolution informally when that's possible. To that end we'd like to
highlight another recent case of this latter type, whereas staff have made
substantial progress towards resolution by working with the permittee to bring
them into compliance with the CDP. This case comes from a housing
development just down coast from County Line Beach in Ventura County, which you
can see marked by the star on this map. Next slide please. The housing tract in
question is protected by a 787 foot long seawall which was constructed pursuant
to a county-issued permit in the early 1980s. The seawall encloses an elevated
sandy box area, though a public access easement grants the public the right to walk across
a walkway along the top of the seawall, which is marked here with yellow lines.
That walkway can be reached through several staircases on the flanks and the front of
the seawall, which are indicated by the arrows here.
In addition, another easement grants the public the right to lateral access over the beach
seaward of the seawall.
After years of weathering by the sea, the seawall required certain repairs and improvements,
including the removal and replacement of a concrete cap at the top.
And this commission approved a permit for such surface repairs and replacement of that
cap on July 12, 2023.
Next slide, please.
The commission's approval of the project was subject to several conditions, including special
conditions that required that no construction material, debris, or waste be placed restored
where it may be subject to wave dispersion, and requirements that any debris which inadvertently
made it to the beach or coastal waters be removed immediately. This is an
important condition intended to protect the beach from debris, which is both a
public access and safety issue, and also a concern for the health of the
ecosystem and marine life. However, Commission enforcement staff became
aware that the requirement was not being adhered to, and in the
course of demolition and construction, concrete, rebar, and other materials had
that made their way onto the beach
in the vicinity of the seawall.
For example, in this image,
you can see the material that we found,
a concrete and rebar debris originating from the seawall,
which was deposited on top of a rock revetment
and left to linger here
where it could be subject to wave action.
Next slide, please.
Because debris was left
where it was subject to wave action,
some of it was actually pulled farther onto the beach
and into coastal waters.
here, and as part of this little show and tell piece we were able to bring you today,
you can see this piece of epoxy coated rebar had been deposited and migrated within the
rocky intertidal area seaward of the seawall, where it could pose a hazard to marine organisms
which reside in that rocky intertidal area, as well as beachgoers who come to this area
for beach uses such as tide pooling. Next slide please.
Due to the seasonal accretion and scour of sand, debris which is not removed from the
may become buried underneath the sand where it can persist undetected for some
seasons and pose a future hazard to beachgoers or marine life when it's
later uncovered. Here you can see a metal brace which had fallen to the beach at
the toe of the seawall and was not promptly removed as a result of which
had become half buried by the shifting sand. When it's more fully covered these
rusted metal edges could pose a greater risk of injury to beachgoers. Next slide
Additionally, wave action and currents can carry lighter debris significantly
down coast of where it first enters the beach, as was the case for the screw
embedded wood plank which you can see in this image. Next slide, please. After
making visits to the site to confirm the presence and extent of debris on the
beach and in the Rocky and retidal area, Commission staff made contact with the
HOA to direct them to immediately remove the debris as required by the CDP.
Representatives of the HOA and contractors quickly responded
to comply with enforcement staff's direction.
Here, following an on-site meeting between commission staff
and representatives of the HOA and the contractors,
we see the HOA's contractors combing the affected area
in conducting hand removal of concrete
and other construction debris.
Commission ecology staff joined us for the on-site meeting
and we had the opportunity to observe the site
and confirm that this method of hand removal was appropriate.
Next slide, please.
Fortunately, as the SAM profile was relatively low
at the time of the cleanup and site visits,
staff were able to get a good idea of the thoroughness
of the cleanup efforts though we continue to monitor
the site and coordinate with the HOA's representatives
to ensure that timely compliance is achieved
with all conditions of the permit.
With the debris from the present construction project
in the area now removed, beach goers, tide poolers,
and tide pool inhabitants have one less hazard
to worry about.
Next slide, please.
We'll now hand the mic over to the other district enforcement staff member in our office, Carlo
Rivas, for something different.
Good morning commissioners.
Now as we said at the top here, since several of the commissioners are joining us here in
our district for the first time, but since we didn't have enough time in our schedule
to do a physical site tour of this hearing, we figured this would be a nice opportunity
to take the commission and the public on a bit of a virtual site tour of just a few of
the many public access ways.
we have had our enforcement staff involved in the Malibu area.
So on this map, you can see some of the many sites where enforcement staff working with
our access, permit, and technical staff, as well as by coordinating with our sister agencies
such as the Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority or MRCA, have played a role in facilitating
public access to help people reach and enjoy the beach.
This is only a small subset of the enforcement access by stories from Malibu and while some
of the access ways in the area are located within the area affected by the Palisades
fire and may be temporarily inaccessible. The ones we are covering today are all open
and are all within a short drive of where we are now. Next slide please.
Our first site is an MRCA managed access way at Carbon Beach. Now on paper this access
way dates back to the 1980s when the Commission approved two CDPs for development on the properties
indicated by the arrow, requiring the dedication of both a lateral access
easement covering the area seaward of the seawall, as well as a vertical access
easement extending from the PCH to the mean high tide line. Next slide please.
However, as you can see in this photo from 2006, the property owners had
installed unpermitted obstructions within the vertical easement, as
highlighted in the yellow box, including rock riprap, a concrete slab and generator,
Fencing, railing, a planter, light posts, a staircase, a private tennis court, and landscaping,
all of which clearly prevented public use of the vertical access easement located at
the site.
Additionally, unpermitted rock riprap along the seawall at the property occupied beach
space within the lateral public access easement, which you can see marked in the lower yellow
box.
Next slide, please.
Now here is another angle on the revetment which you can see was occupying a majority
of the dry sandy area available at the time this photo was taken.
Commission staff contacted the property owner in 2005 and over the next several years tried
to get the property owner to resolve the violation by removing the unpermitted development obstructing
vertical access but to no avail.
In 2009, the commission adopted unilateral cease and desist orders requiring removal
of the unpermitted development therein,
and the homeowner filed suit, challenging the orders.
The commission prevailed in litigation
before the trial court and subsequently the appellate court
as well.
Next slide, please.
After the litigation was concluded,
staff reached out to the owner and worked
with the property owner to still negotiate
a consensual resolution of the violations,
including the removal of the unpermitted development
within the vertical easement by amending unilateral orders
to make them consent orders.
Under the consent orders, the property owner
also designed, got the permit for,
and constructed the ADA compliant access
way at their own cost, including installation of a ramp
to facilitate full public access to the beach
at this location.
In addition, the property owner agreed
to pay $350,000 towards the improvement, enhancement,
and maintenance of public access elsewhere in the Malibu area,
and a further $549,000 payment
to the violation remediation account.
The settlement, which between the payments
and access way construction provided over a million dollars
worth of benefits to the public,
was effectuated through consent orders in 2013.
And today, you can walk straight from the PCH
to reach this beautiful stretch of beach.
Next slide, please.
In addition, the property owner agreed to remove tons
of unpermitted rock revetment which have been placed
within the lateral access easement seaward of the seawall.
Here you can see the open beach available for public access.
Next slide, please.
Our next site is just up coast along the PCH,
where three or more public access improvements,
which are indicated here by the arrows,
were secured through enforcement actions.
Similar to our prior story, this one began in the 1980s,
when the commission approved the demolition
of existing structures on the site
and the construction of the Malibu Beach Inn,
a hotel right along the coast.
As a condition of that permit,
the permittees were required to construct
a pair of public access staircases,
providing access from the PCH to Carbon Beach,
and also to record a lateral access easement
across the beach seaward of the hotel.
While the offer to dedicate the easement was recorded,
over the years that area was subject
to unpermitted beach grooming,
placement of private guest amenities
supplanting public areas,
and hosting of private events which had the effect
of discouraging public access to the beach.
Furthermore, the required public access staircases
were never constructed.
Next slide, please.
Now, here you can see the towering revetment
over the beach.
In the absence of the required stairway improvement,
members of the public would have to scramble down
this revetment, which is no easy feat,
especially when you're carrying a surfboard
or any other sort of recreational equipment
down to the sand.
Next slide, please.
Commission enforcement staff became aware
violations and sent a notice of violation letter to the owners at that time in April 2009.
Enforcement staff then attempted to work with the owner and the representatives to try and
resolve the violations but these efforts ultimately fell through. When the property
was acquired by new owners in 2015, commission enforcement staff apprised these new owners of
the violations and through a series of negotiations were able to reach an agreement to address the
violations which was approved by the commission through consent orders in December of 2016.
This agreement required the property owners to finance constructions of the staircases
which had been originally required under the CBP, one of which you can see pictured here.
Commission enforcement staff were further able to negotiate to have the property owner
contribute an additional $300,000 towards the ongoing operation, maintenance, and any other
costs associated with the public stairs, as well as a $200,000 contribution to the violation
remediation account. Next slide, please. In addition, the property owners agreed to undertake
the planning and construction of a signalized crosswalk across the Pacific Coast Highway
to facilitate public access to the coast by slowing traffic on this section of the PCH
and providing protected crossing, which you can see here. This addition helps to enable
safer public pedestrian access to the beach along this stretch of the busy highway and helps to
facilitate access to existing public parking on the landward side of PCH. For example just down
the road public beach parking is available at a shopping center on the landward side of PCH as
the result of a separate district level enforcement case. This crosswalk was a very significant
element of the settlement since such infrastructure changes are both very expensive and time consuming
to pursue and the homeowners the hotel owners took on the entire financial and logistical burdens
of bringing this new crossing to fruition, and as a result there have been significant improvements
in public access and safety. Next slide please. Our next site is Laudigo Beach for yet another
story that begins decades ago. Just prior to the effective date of the Coastal Act permitting
requirements, a revetment and oceanfront wastewater treatment system were constructed for what is now
the condo complex known as Tivoli Cove, as shown on the arrow to the left. As a bit of background,
staff resolved a separate violation which opened up access to this stretch of beach via a staircase
indicated by the arrow on the right side of the photo. After opening access to Latigo Beach itself,
staff began working on this violation at Tivoli Cove which blocked public access to the western
half of Latigo Beach. Next slide please. Okay in the late 1970s the commission improved a CDP
for repairs to this wastewater system and in doing so also required the permittee construct
and sign a public pathway atop the boulder's seawall to facilitate access since the revetment
would totally eliminate public access along the shoreline in that location. After the property
was acquired by Pepperdine University for student housing, the public access path and stairs at both
ends were constructed, as you can see in this image from around June 1984. The staircases at
the western and eastern end are marked by the arrows and the walkway atop the revetment is
is marked with this yellow box and at one time members of the public could access this
area from the down coast side indicated by the right hand area.
Next slide please.
However, by 1986 after the property had been sold to a developer, the down coast staircase
was destroyed as can be seen in this photo and was never replaced.
Furthermore, pieces of debris from this down coast stairway including concrete and rebar
became strewn across the beach, also preventing safe public use of the beach itself.
In 1996 access to the remaining upcoast stairway and walkway were blocked off, after which
the walkway area languished, unsigned and unusable by the public, and overgrown with
ice plant, as you can see in this photo.
Moreover, the HOA members and their guests continue to utilize the staircase at the upcoast
end as a private access. Here, you can see unpermitted signage discouraging public access
had been posted, erroneously claiming that the right to access the area was, quote,
by permission and subject to control of the owner, end quote. Instead of the coastal access signage
required by the permit describing the legal rights of public access, which was supposed
to be located here. Next slide, please. After observing the site and becoming aware of the
violations, Commission staff sent a notice of violation letter to the property
owner in September of 2017. The matter was then elevated statewide enforcement staff
and following extensive coordination and negotiation, the property owners agreed
to resolve the violation through consent orders which this Commission adopted in
February of 2020. To address the violations, the property owner agreed to
build the down coast stairway as required by the permit, install required
public access signage, and remove unpermitted development obstructing the
public pathway. Here you can see the restored staircase providing linkage
between the beach to the east and the public walkway atop the revetment. Next
slide please. In addition to removing the concrete blocks, pipes, rebar, and other
material from the defunct staircase, but as part of the resolution they further
agree to remove literal tons of other debris from the historic rerouting of the
PCH decades ago, including concrete, asphalt, and other material. Next slide
properties. Furthermore, to mitigate for years of lost public access, the property owner
also agreed to install a drinking fountain, which you can see in this photo, a public
shower, a pair of benches for public use, a pair of interpretive signs, and to widen
the public walkway, as well as pay an administrative penalty of $925,000. Staff and our statewide
enforcement unit continue to coordinate with the HOA in order to fully effectuate this
agreed upon resolution.
Next slide please.
Here you can see a shot of the restored walkway, open and available for access by members of
the public with signs to make sure the public knows they are welcome here.
Next slide please.
For the next destination of our journey, we stop at Malibu Road East, an access way which
provides access to Amarillo Beach.
The site has its own violation history, including the unpermitted placement of a chain link
fence and parking restrictive signage by neighbors.
where there is also where there is a staircase brought about in part due to
some of the penalties which you've been hearing about today. When penalties are
assessed for Coastal Act violations, including administrative penalties
assessed pursuant to section 3821 or 3821.3, penalties can be deposited into
the violation remediation account or VRA, a fund which is managed by the State
Coastal Conservancy in cooperation with the Coastal Commission. Funding from the
violation remediation account is meant to offset the impacts which Coastal Act
violations have had on coastal resources and to attempt to make the
public whole. It can be used to support various projects which aim to enhance
coastal resources including infrastructure facilitating public access,
acquisition of habitat, and restoration projects. Next slide please. Here
we see an example of such funding in action. Is this staircase providing access
from Malibu Road to the beach below was constructed in part using funds from the VRA.
As you can see in this photo, there is a significant elevation difference between
the road above and the beach below, making this staircase an essential feature to facilitate
public access down this coastal bluff. Next slide please. In this photo, you can see
this lovely little beach before you reach the Malibu Colony Beach at the base of the stairs,
which would be inaccessible absent this essential amenity.
Furthermore, this serves as one of the only points of access to the beach
fronting of what is known as Malibu Colony,
with the other being Malibu Lagoon, located nearly a mile down coast from here.
Next slide please. As a quick aside, that access point from Malibu Lagoon,
which is marked here on the map with an arrow,
is the site of yet another enforcement story.
Next slide please. Prior to the passage of the Coastal Act, a fence was installed running
perpendicular to the beach from the house at the end of Malibu Colony down to State Titans,
where it blocked public access to the downcoast area for some decades. In 2016, enforcement staff
learned that the pre-coastal fence had been removed and replaced with a new fence without
the benefit of a CBP. Next slide please. After learning of this unpermitted replacement,
District enforcement staff sent a letter directing the property owner to remove the fence,
and as you can see from this photo the fence was removed, and now members of the public can more
easily reach this once inaccessible stretch of the beach. Next slide please. The final stop on our
journey today is El Matador State Beach on the western end of Malibu. For a story that dates
back about two decades, and shows the importance of keeping a close eye on attempts to interfere
fear with the public's right to access public spaces.
Next slide, please.
A Matador State Beach is a publicly owned beach,
one of a series of three smaller public pocket beaches.
Due to the high bluffs and line of private properties
between the PCH and ocean in the nearby area,
a matador provides an important access point
for members of the public to enjoy
the incredibly scenic views in this stretch of coast.
However, just because the beach is publicly owned
does not mean that it does not need a protection
to ensure continued public access.
Next slide please.
As you can see in this photo from 2005,
a property owner adjacent to the beach
had installed an unpermitted plastic fence
on a portion of the state beach.
This fence created the appearance
that an area of the public state beach was in fact private,
discouraging members of the public
from accessing this section of the public beach.
After becoming aware of the fence,
staff sent a letter to the property owner
despite claiming that it was on his property and that it was a replacement for a fence maintained
by State Parks, did ultimately remove it for a time after speaking with commission staff.
Next slide, please. However, as you can see in this photo from 2017, the adjacent property owner
eventually fell back into their old ways, installing post with ropes strung between,
orange mesh fencing, and signs claiming that the beach beyond was private. Following another letter
that are from commission enforcement staff in 2017,
the property owner once again
removed their encroaching development.
Next slide, please.
To round out the trilogy, in late 2021,
enforcement staff learned, as you can see in this photo,
that signage and an unpermitted post-enrope barrier
had once again been installed.
After bringing on new staff
to help share the workload in the district,
enforcement staff sent another letter in 2022
prompting the property owner
to remove the unpermitted development.
Next slide, please.
Following a series of exchanges with the adjacent property
owner, the extent of El Matador State Beach remains open,
as it has, for the last three years,
though district staff remain vigilant in monitoring
the site for any recurrence of the violation.
Next slide, please.
And with that, I will hand it back to Lisa.
Sorry, sharing a mic.
Thank you, Carlo.
As you can see, and this is and historically
has been an incredibly active area from the enforcement
perspective, both at the district and statewide levels,
especially for public access cases.
Public access is not only at the heart of the Coastal Act.
It is a right under Section 4 of Article 10
of our state's constitution.
While Malibu and the rest of our coast
offers a stunning array of coastal access opportunities,
the challenge to obtain and keep these opportunities
for the public is never ending.
In some cases, we have, as you just heard,
had to take action a number of times.
But with the help of public reporting information to us
and local government partners helping resolve,
we try and track cases and ensure they remain resolved.
You can see that the challenges of providing
and protecting public access are varied
as the violations run the gamut from chain link fences
to very solid and significant walls
and many other forms public access encroachments take,
such as cones, painting curbs red, and so forth.
There's a lot of creativity along the coast
by property owners who would like not
to have the public visit.
Anyway, and the violations involve
both unpermitted development and failure
to follow the permit conditions that you put on conditions,
permits when you issue them.
We have a handout for you that notes the locations
of some of the sites we've talked about today
and hope you get to see some of the sites protected
by the Coastal Act and the work of the Commission.
The handout includes addresses and some information
about where you can park and how to access the sites.
And that includes the enforcement report,
and we're happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you so much, much appreciated. We'll start, are there any public
comments on the enforcement report? Thank you. All right, I'll bring it back to the
Commission for comments or questions. Commissioner Lopez. Yeah, just a question.
I've noticed as we've gone through these in my short time on this body that the
signage is always different, right, based on location and I think it's a missed
opportunity for branding. I'm wondering is that something that's come up in the
past. I mean seeing the same color but it's a great way to indicate that it's
blessed by or part of a program and for us as folks wonder what we do I think
having our logo on there and perhaps always being a certain shade of blue and
reflective would be a great way that folks recognize that is ours and that is
us because as I see other colors intermingled I would wonder is that a
local club is that an HOA so just curious if that's ever been talked about
addressed or a program considered? Yes, actually. We've gotten better over
time, believe it or not. The signs that officially go up, not as the result of
an enforcement action, but as a result of our permit actions, use the sort of brown
and the wave. And we've tried to get those put in as far as possible. Some of
them, when they're on private property, they want to have it sort of fit in with
the pictures of the other signage that's existent
at the site.
What we do is we have people submit sign plans
and we approve them and we've gotten much better about it.
We have the signs that are larger.
They used to put tiny ones or they would put them
in places where they didn't make sense
or they were not very visible.
I think the idea of having a unified color scheme
is a good one and we can talk about that internally.
I think it's a great idea.
One thing we've also gotten better about
is the signs used to say, brought to you
by the Coastal Conservancy, even if it was an enforcement
action or we'd funded it.
And so we have now, in all of our enforcement actions,
we require that the signs mention
the involvement of the Coastal Commission.
Because it's one of the, I do think
it's a lost PR opportunity for people
to understand that we're the ones bringing them and fighting
for these access points.
And so I completely agree.
And I think that maybe having something
that's more more of a brand is a really good idea.
Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
We're what's sort of the spectrum of local government agencies
or jurisdictions that we covered here just now?
I assume the city of Malibu, but it's also in the county as well.
Are there any other jurisdictions?
Yeah, certainly, Commissioner, I hope I don't miss anything on the list,
But if we go north to south, we cover Santa Barbara County,
Ventura County, and LA County.
In LA County, there's the Santa Monica Mountains local coastal
program, which is handled by the County of Los Angeles,
and the city of Malibu, which is the site of most
of the stories that you heard today.
Up in Ventura County, there's Ventura Proper,
which is the city itself.
And then, of course, the expanded county.
And a little bit farther north of that,
going into Santa Barbara County I believe is the county, the city of Santa
Barbara, the city of Carpinteria, and as well as a little area called the city of
Guadalupe. I think we have a small LCP covering that one. I guess what I'm
asking is in terms of the violations that were adjudicated through us talked
about today, what was the spectrum of jurisdictions? They would all be within the city of Malibu.
Are you asking about the involvement of the local government if I'm understanding you correctly? I didn't ask about that. I
Was just wondering what what jurisdiction specifically if it went outside the city
And then sure I'll ask is now that you brought it up what is the local jurisdiction?
have any
Nexus to this
Apologies, I'm not briefed on that a piece of information for all those cases
So, I would just say that the city of Malibu was not a party to any of these violations
that is one of the grounds when we can take over a case if the local government is a party
to the violation.
But we generally take it over because they don't have the wherewithal or the desire to
take it.
And so we work closely with them.
And our relationship with Malibu has gone up and down over the years as I'm sure you're
aware but we have a good working relationship with the staff there and we really try to
on violations and decide who should take the lead on them and the ones that are
more complicated are the ones that we tend to pick up okay great thank you
that's my question thank you Commissioner Kelly I just wanted to
comment I think the the jurisdictional alphabet soup certainly helps to elevate
the challenges that we face as an organization both on the enforcement
side and permitting side but then also the opportunities and the role that we
play in ensuring that we have consistency
up and down the coast.
To Commissioner Lopez's comment earlier
about the branding opportunities,
I think that that is a really great point
in that so much of public access both on the enforcement side
but also on the permitting side for folks out in the community
to know, A, that we exist, B, that this access has been brought
to you by the Coastal Commission,
and then also with the signage that seemingly is just
a game of whack-a-mole with individuals who are putting up their own signs to keep off
private beaches that are in fact public, if we are able to have a specific signage that
is clearly the brand of the coast because it is either brown as indicated by the coastal
access signs or we have our logo on it, it makes those signs of quote-unquote private
beach access that is not in fact private that much more obvious to just be individuals who
who are bad actors and in alerting the public
that in fact those signs probably shouldn't be there.
So I do want to just echo those comments
and to say that if we are able to continue
to kind of put our good brand out there,
it may help to identify those who are illegally
or unlawfully trying to create private beach access
where it does not exist.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I would just say through the chair
that we do work with Linda Laughlin also as well.
We have a good relationship with Caltrans
and they've been very cooperative
about putting signs on PCH and the other highways,
pointing out where you get to the access.
It's a little bit more complicated
to put signs on the beach,
and we try not to do that in so far.
One thing we have done,
and we've done it for a few different,
the enforcement unit did it,
but it's on the public access part of our website.
For both Carbon Beach and Broad Beach,
we did annotated aerial maps
that show where both the vertical and lateral easements are
so that folks can just look at it
and know where they're allowed to go,
and some people actually carry it with them to the beach,
but if you don't wanna do that,
you can at least look in advance
and know what your rights are.
We're trying to figure out all the ways
that we can to inform the public
so that they have some agency to push back
when they're given incorrect information,
and we do jump on them as quickly as possible.
You heard last summer we had a whole bunch of violations
having to do with the beach,
people being kicked off the beach.
And the one that we talked about today,
we literally called it the whack-a-mole violation
because it's just, it keeps, it's unbelievable.
It just keeps reappearing, but we're keeping our eye on it.
And so far, so good.
Thank you for that.
And I think to your point about people using our maps
or printing them and taking them to the beach,
I've seen some really great opportunities for artists
to participate in, not just a paint your favorite picture
of a whale competition,
but actually create public access maps for trails
and otherwise in other parts of the state.
So that could be an opportunity
where we invite artists in the public.
And when I say artists, I mean digital creators as well
to help us with those maps
and using our coastal lodging partners as well
to help disseminate those.
That could be another opportunity, thanks.
Thank you so much.
That's a great idea.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I'll say for my part, I'm always so grateful, Ms. Hagee, Sirivas, Mr. Lee, when you come
and just share with us how much work you're doing to preserve and protect access for all
of us and the people of California.
Very grateful.
And I wanted to specifically call out this site tour's handout that I appreciate so much,
especially not being from this area specifically and not having a lot of familiarity.
I love this and really appreciate it.
And I think you said it's gonna be available
for the public as well.
So I just wanted to specifically note how awesome this is
for those of us that are not as familiar with this area.
So my gratitude.
Okay, so I think that that brings us
to the end of that item.
Thank you very much.
I'm gonna propose that we break for lunch here
before we start the regular calendar.
To my fellow commissioners,
I believe we have closed session at lunch today.
And so we'll take an hour.
Director Hucklebridge should have a suggestion there.
I do just a note, I guess, a logistics comment.
We're actually, lunch is not in this room.
It's going to be across the way.
So maybe I think there are drinks in here.
Everybody could grab one, and then we'll walk,
and then we'll probably need to come back
or find a different space for closed sessions.
So just wanna point that out.
It's gonna be like a kind of a two-part lunch, so.
Yes, so we'll go get lunch and then come back here and we'll sort out where closed session is for the public.
We will aim to return to open session at 1 30 p.m.
It was through the through the chair just having been here a few times and knowing the logistics of going over and having lunch and then coming back for I would suggest an hour and a half for lunch because I'm just saying it will.
I mean I'm just trying to be realistic about maybe an hour and 15 minutes if we have a long afternoon.
So we need to both be efficient.
I like this negotiation.
We will commit to be efficient and close.
I don't want anything realistic.
Yeah, I think that's a good point, Commissioner Wilson.
Maybe an hour and 15 minutes.
145 it is.
Thank you.
OK, thank you very much.
We will return to open session.
And I'm going to start with a report out from our council.
Please, Ms. Warren.
Thank you, Chair Herman.
The commission met in closed session over the lunch break.
It received litigation information and advice
on a matter of potential litigation,
as well as Space Exploration Technologies Court
versus Coastal Commission.
It also received litigation information and advice
and took action on City of Fort Bragg
versus Mendocino Railway, and that concludes my report.
Great, thank you very much.
And now we are on item 10,
the Deputy Director's Report
for the North Central Coast District.
Yes, thank you, Chair Herman.
And in item 10 today,
we are reporting one permit amendment,
permit waivers and one emergency coastal permit we're not aware of any objections or controversy
regarding these matters and so the question is whether three or more commissioners object
and if not then the commission will concur. Thank you Mr. Carle. Are there any ex partes
on the DDR? Are there any public speakers on this item? Just two but they're only available
for questions. Thank you. And do three or more commissioners object to an item on the DD's report?
seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That'll take us down to item number 12A.
And I'd ask Isabel Cooper, who should be on the Zoom,
who's our analyst for the site, there she is,
to give our presentation.
We do have a PowerPoint for this one.
Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
Item 12A is an appeal of a city of Half Moon Bay
coastal permit approval of a new single family residence
with a detached garage along the Pullman drainage
near the mirror mark.
Just a second, we're gonna turn you up, please.
Nope, no problem.
Okay, please go ahead.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
Slide one shows a rendering of the city approved project
as seen from the Champs-Élysées Boulevard cul-de-sac.
Next slide, please.
The project site outlined in red on slide two
is a large nearly three-quarter acre
triangle-shaped property located seaward
of the Champs-Élysées Boulevard cul-de-sac
and seaward of highway one.
The Pullman drainage shown here with a blue dashed line
is a manmade and sometimes underground culverted drainage
feature that runs east to west through the neighborhood
and along the entire north side of the project site.
Given the culverted nature and general morphology,
the watercourse can flood during significant storm events
and the city has identified Pullman drainage
as a high priority for hydrological capacity improvements
in their storm drain master plan.
Next slide, please.
Slide 3 shows the City-approved residential site plan with the house noted in green,
the lot lines in red, and a rendering of the completed house on the lower left.
The 4,710 square foot development includes a two-story residence and a detached garage
connected to the home by a covered breezeway. The project also includes an approximately
2,300 cubic foot stormwater detention basin shown here in blue.
The appellants contend that the approved house raises LCP consistency issues related primarily
to habitat, flood risks, hydrological function and coastal blufftop hazards. Next slide please.
In terms of habitat issues, the appellants contend that the approved development is
inconsistent with LCP provisions that protect riparian and wetland habitat related to the
Pullman drainage, including that the development is sited within the resource areas themselves,
as well as within their typical buffer areas. The LCP identifies the Pullman drainage as
potential Esha and as a non-reparian watercourse. Where Pullman drainage lacks riparian vegetation
or other sensitive habitat value, the LUP requires a minimum 20-foot buffer from the top of the bank.
The 20-foot buffer is shown on slide 4 in green, and as you can see,
both the house and the detention basin are outside of the 20-foot buffer.
Although the record is inconclusive on this point there is a discrete area of potential
riparian vegetation on the seaward side of Alameda Avenue shown here in orange crosshatch.
Were this to be riparian vegetation a buffer of 35 feet from that area would be required and that
buffer is shown here with an orange line. As you can see on the slide the proposed storm water
detention basin does extend slightly into that buffer. However even if this buffer were applicable
it is allowed to be reduced to 25 feet for the LCP, in which case the detention basin would be
outside of the buffer. And in any case, a stormwater detention basin is arguably an LCP allowable use
within such a buffer. As such, the appeal contentions related to required Pullman drainage
habitat buffers do not raise substantial issues. Oneappellant also asserts that wetlands are
present on the property next to Pullman drainage on the site, and that the city relied on a flawed
wetland delineation and its approval of the project. Two recent wetland delineations were
conducted for the site by the same consultants. The first delineation from 2021 identified some
wetland areas in the western part of the site overlapping a portion of the proposed attention
basin roughly where the orange area is shown on the slide. However, a more recent delineation
was completed in 2022 and concluded that there were no wetlands on the site. The city based its
CDP decision on the updated 2022 report. And to be clear, this is not a case of dueling experts,
rather the same consultant updated its work in 2022, and the city relied on this most recent
information available in making their decision. Ultimately, this does not raise substantial issue
either. Next slide, please. The Appellants also contend that the parcel is on a blufftop,
where the LCP would require additional hazard analyses and development limitations.
The Commission's regulations define bluff top development as that which is located
within 300 feet of the bluff edge. The Appellants contend that the western boundary of the subject
site is just 210 feet from the bluff edge, roughly the location of the red dot seaward of the site on
slide 5, because they allege that this is where the Pullman drainage culvert daylights and that
that should be the bluff top edge. However, it is inaccurate to describe the drainage culvert as the
inland extent of the bluff edge and while there has not been a formal
bluff edge delineation, the city's conclusion that the project site is not
within 300 feet of the bluff appears accurate based on the evidence
available. In fact, it appears that the bluff is at
least 400 feet from the site and some 850 feet from the residence
itself. This contention does not rise to the
level of substantial issue. Next slide please. Additionally, several
of the appellants contend that the increase in impervious surfaces at the
site due to the development of the residents will modify existing flow patterns and worsen
surrounding flooding and erosion conditions. Although the site is not located within a
mapped flood hazard area, the Pullman drainage and surrounding areas have been subject to
periodic heavy flooding during significant storms. Slide 6 shows examples of such significant
flooding events in and around Pullman drainage. To address stormwater runoff produced on site
from the new residents the project includes a stormwater detention basin with an approximately
2300 cubic foot capacity adequate to capture stormwater runoff produced on site during a 25
year 24 hour storm event which exceeds the lcp's required capacity. Additionally the city's
approval requires that final plans demonstrate that all surface runoff is retained and managed
on site and includes erosion and sedimentation bmp requirements. In addition the city's engineering
consultants concluded that the project would not significantly contribute to flood conditions during
even a 100-year storm event. As such, the flooding contentions do not raise a substantial issue.
Next slide, please. Finally, the Appellants also contend that grading took place on the parcel in
2016 without the benefit of a CDP, and that such grading modified drainage in and around the site,
excuse me, resulting in worsening flooding on adjacent properties, as well as the California
coastal trail and beach parking lot access road to the west of the project site. Slide
7 shows the site again outlined in red and the grading in question in the lighter brown
color. The city states that the grading was permitted and was part of site improvements
authorized as part of the underlying subdivision approval. And in any case, it would be exceedingly
difficult to determine whether the grading that occurred at the subject property has
worsened flooding and erosion in the area, especially when at least four other residences
have been constructed on properties along the Pullman drainage between 2016 and present.
This contention also does not raise a substantial issue. Next slide, please.
In short, it appears that the city's section adequately addresses LCP provisions as they
relate to Pullman drainage habitats, flooding, stormwater runoff, and erosion, and the issues
raised do not rise to the level of a substantial issue. The outcome suggests that the commission
need not become further involved in this case, and staff recommends that the commission find
that no substantial issue exists with respect to the City-approved project's conformity with the
LCP. The single motion and resolution to do so is found on page 4 of the staff report and this
concludes staff's presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any ex partes to report?
Seeing none, I will open the public hearing and I believe we'll begin with the appellants
at three minutes please. Okay so we have John Rosie followed by
Bradley Steinweid followed by Andrew Abell and
Joe Ferrell. John if you can unmute yourself.
Okay can you hear me now? Yes. Okay great okay uh well good afternoon my
name is John Rossi a pelling on item 12a so let's start with
the truth. I believe that allowing this to proceed given the information we're about to go through
sets a dangerous precedent and no substantial issue vote today would leave unaddressed in a
legal grading job, a recorded court order, and a coastal act violation, all documented in the
record. At the heart of this appeal is a missing legal baseline. The city's own records manager
confirms no grading permit was ever found for the 2016-2017 lot grading. Yesterday upon a site visit
to city offices, the city planner personally confirmed that the grading at 2800 Shamps
Ali Zay was not permitted. The subdivision's 2012 parent CDP allows grading only for public
road and utility corridors, not the 2800 Shamps Ali Zay home site. Without that permit, there is
no lawful basis under the coastal act for this pad grading. Second, settlement compliance. The 2014
Telloski versus Gradstein settlement permanently created a 30-foot restriction area along the
Pullman water course, banning any development there. It also required the city to amend the
subdivision CDP under Section 3.5, an amendment that never happened. That omission leaves the
parent CDP legally deficient. Third, the city's current condition of approval demands dedicating
that same 30-foot strip as a public easement for future flood hazard mitigation. Yet the settlement
it explicitly prohibits exactly that.
This is a direct conflict between a binding court order and the city's approval.
These violations violate LCP 7-51, requiring preservation of natural drainage, and LCP
7-57, requiring full downstream impact evaluation.
The result is a city approval on an incomplete and unlawful foundation for flooding, wetlands,
and buffers.
I respectfully urge you to find substantial issue so the commission can take jurisdiction,
cure these baseline problems and ensure compliance with the LCP and binding court orders.
And lastly, as a resident directly next door who's been flooded nine times, I am not opposed
to the building of the house, but rather fulfilling the LCP requirements and asking the city to
continue to remediate the flooding issue.
and I also believe that this build will contribute to flooding. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Bradley Steinway. Bradley, if you can unmute yourself.
Am I audible? Yes, but you have a headphone.
Thank you. Could you please bring up the PDF? Oh, you have it there. Thank you.
Hold on, Brad. Hold on real quick for us.
Dear Chair and Commissioners, my name is Brad Steinway, and I wish to speak about the wetland
contention section of the report.
Local Act section 30121 defines the term wetland as lands within the coastal zone which may
be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water.
As you can see, the entire site is covered in shallow water.
This photo was taken on March 28, 2023.
Could you now please bring up the video, the MP4?
This video was taken in November 22, 2024, conclusively showing that the property is
covered periodically with shallow water.
This should raise substantial issue.
The 2022 wetland delineation was based on samples collected during the dry season in
August and it did not identify any wetland areas on the site.
The city relied on the most recent 2022 report in making its CDP decision.
This report, prepared by Biomass, did not use California Code of Regulation Title 14,
which uses a one-parameter definition.
The LCP clearly prefers wet season delineations, but it is not a requirement.
Rather the policy is framed such that wetland delineations should typically be conducted
during the rainy season, LUP policy 637.
That said, policies in land use planning that are framed as something should be done typically
stand for the premise that the standard in question should be applied unless there is
compelling reason for that not to happen.
The compelling reason in this instance is that the wetland assessment was requested
by the Planning Commission on three separate occasions.
in April 2019, in May 2020 and in July 2023.
Additionally, the California Geological Survey lists this very area as a liquefaction zone
using groundwater level records and subsurface geotechnical data.
This turns the biomass dry weather report that the CDP decision was based on on its
head.
The property owner, John Vitovitch, owns approximately 60,000 acres of California property.
Not building on this wetland will not cause him any hardship.
Thank you and I hope you can find it within your scope to deny this.
Thank you.
Goodbye.
Thank you.
Next is Anju Abel.
Anju, if you can unmute yourself.
Yes.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and commissioners. My name is Anju Ebo,
speaking as a member of the Half Moon Bay community who testified during Joan Heard
hearing also. So the issues in this appeal go far beyond a single house. They speak to
whether a local coastal program and court order protections can be enforced in practice
or are we just talking and putting it on paper?
Now here are some confirmed facts.
Joe Farrell did send an email out yesterday
confirming that there was no grading permit issued by city
for the 2016 and 2017 lot work.
It's being ignored.
It's illegal.
The subdivision 2012 CDP was never amended
comply with Sidosky versus Gratstein settlements permanent 30 foot restriction area. Work was done
that exceeded the scope of the original authorization including tree removal not
contemplated in the subdivision plan. If these facts are being brushed aside,
what kind of message are we sending to everyone? Dangerous message.
basically we're being told that missing permits and unfulfilled legal obligations can be retro
actively excused just by calling them permitted in a staff report. It erodes trust, undermines
public participation and it's weakening the Coastal Found Acts Foundation basically.
You have the authority and I would say the duty and obligation to find a substantial issue here.
We depend on you. The public depends on you to uphold the law, protect access and ensure
that once in a generation protections like Stilosky settlement are not ignored in favor of convenience.
Please, please take jurisdiction and review these facts to noveau.
Our community deserves it. Our safety deserves it. Please do the right thing. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Joe Farrell, who is another appellant, followed by Mark Massar,
who is the applicant, and they will have Harvey Rohrbach, which is elected official.
So Joe Farrell, if you can unmute yourself.
Joe Farrow try this again. Joe Farrow I see okay you unmuted yourself. Okay good afternoon
chair and commissioners. A couple of points before I start on my presentation. I wanted to note that
that the parcel map rebuttal from both Scott,
Hapman Bay City Planner, and Isabelle,
it's just not correct.
There are two maps, neither tentative or final parcel map
allows house pad grading, only roads and utilities,
and no grading permit exists
the 2800 chance to lose a the staff report claims that grading was permitted
and it was not my excuse me my own observations and Google Earth imagery
prove otherwise and yesterday at City Hall the city planner for 2800 chance
you lose a confirmed to us that no separate grading permit was ever issued
for this parcel okay now you're seeing slide one which is this was in April
2016. And at that point, the site is level. It's fully vegetated and it's within the Pullman
Watercourse buffer. It also happens to be roughly equal to the bank height, which was
at just a little bit under 32 feet. Today, that is at the top of the bank is much higher.
two please. All right, commissioners, this isn't trenching for utilities as what was
allowed in the in the CDP. It's significant pad grading, and it's inside a protected buffer.
And it's altered natural drainage violation of LCP 751 and skipping the downstream impact
analysis required by policy 7-57. And we also, our neighbors, we feel the effect of that
because they changed the natural flow of water and it's changed flow period. Please bring
up the video. And as you'll see in this video, this isn't minor work. It's extensive. It's
We would say maybe 15 feet and there's some construction taking place off at the distance
there.
It's like some soil being spread, I'm not sure what's going on.
Can you go back to slide two, please?
I urge the Commission to find substantial issue and I think it's worth noting the irony
that the same city planner who has required other homeowners
along with payment with paid E-TDPs,
yet this far larger grading project
with no grading permit, has never faced enforcement.
A no substantial issue vote here tells every coastal member
that missing permits, unamended CDPs.
Thank you.
Next is Mark Massarra, please come up.
Honorable Chair, Commissioners, I'm Mark Massarra,
and I represent the applicant,
we support your staff and urge that you find no merit
or substantial issue related to these appeals.
As staff's thorough analysis underscores,
this single family house is compliant
with all LCP policies and the Coastal Act,
as well as all the subdivision conditions
associated with your 2014 approval
of this small four-house project.
As has been repeatedly shown during the onerous
seven-year city review of this project including nine separate public hearings.
Some of you who work in local government may know that violates the five-hearing rule.
And by numerous independent biologic and hydrologic engineering and engineering firms hired by
the city, this project is not only compliant with all biologic drainage and flood policies
and regulations but is also an important step forward for resolving historic Pullman ditch
flood concerns.
Recall that the applicant does not own the ditch.
Appellants own the ditch.
In fact, if you look at the first picture that staff put up, you'll see that they have
no setbacks.
The last appellant's house is on the ditch.
It straddles the ditch.
Those flooding pictures, when you see that water backed up on our property, it's because
Their tiny culvert gets blocked up and our property
is a flood overflow property.
That's what's at issue here, is whether the appellants can
take this property and use it for an overflow flood site
instead of the single family home that was approved by you
and now approved by the city for this site
that includes more flood and drainage control
than any other single family home ever approved
in Half Moon Bay.
So not only do we have a 30 foot setback
that the city can utilize in the future
for a bypass for the ditch,
but we've also incorporated a bioretention basin
for natural percolation
that is larger than any single family home
in the city has ever incorporated
and can handle a 25 year storm.
Interestingly, we did an analysis
and could build a basin for a thousand year storm
that would last 900 years longer than the structure itself,
but in the end, the city engineer said,
that's just too much, we don't need that much.
What we need is that potential for future bypass.
So what we urge is that you support your staff
and give us the opportunity
and the appellants the opportunity
to address their flood concerns going forward
rather than trying to hold us hostage.
Thank you.
Thank you, Nyx's, Harvey Rareback.
You can unmute yourself.
Thank you very much.
I served on the city council when the Planning Commission
denial of this project was presented.
And I agreed with that denial.
I agreed mostly because I saw the flooding issues
that the neighbors presented, and it impressed me
that this was a real dangerous situation.
Since that time I've learned nothing that has changed my mind about the seriousness of the
flooding in the area and the effect on the nearby neighbors among other people. So
when the city commissioned their hydrological report from Chaff and Wheeler, I was skeptical
because if you know what results you want to get, you'll get them. But I think it's
It's really important that there are substantial flooding issues that are raised by this project
and that the only sensible way to deal with the hydrologic questions and the flooding
and the unpermitted grading, which as you just saw, probably is contributing to the
potential for flooding of the nearby neighbors.
would need an independent assessment of a report of the hydrologic issues that the Coastal
Commission would undertake, instead of the interested parties that have some financial
gains to take. So I urge you to find substantial issues with this project and agree that we
meet further de novo consideration thank you very much all right thank you mr.
Harvey that completes their speakers thank you there are no other qualified
speakers signed up okay thank you very much now we'll close the public hearing
and I will return to staff for the response please yes first in terms of
the grading question there seems to be some misunderstanding about whether
grading that took place a decade ago required a permit including because
city staff has indicated to our staff that all required permits were in place
for the grading which is as we indicated in the staff report and in any case
there was an underlying subdivision coastal permit it was the city's coastal
permit that also including grading on each of the sites and included grading
for subsurface sewer line all the way along Pullman ditch, you know, the length
of this property, so that coastal permit authorized a certain amount of grading
including on each of the four subdivision sites. Then as Isabel
indicated before it was a little difficult or would be a lot difficult to
figure out to what extent the grading that may have taken place may have
changed drainage patterns. We just we continue to think that that's a non-issue
in terms of this particular application then there was some references to a
subdivision settlement on the base coastal permit which is the city's
coastal permit the Commission was not a party to that settlement and whether
drainage work under the settlement that was required and whether it required
drainage changes it's kind of a separate issue from whether this project
properly properly evaluated drainage and flooding issues this project was
properly evaluated in that sense we're quite it required all drainage to be
handled on site in Clea including with a 2300 cubic yard detention basin that
successfully exceeds LCP requirements so even if there's some other sort of
drainage provision that should have happened under a settlement that the
Commission wasn't privy to and even if that would reduce drainage and flooding
issues on Pullman drainage that may be an interesting question and it may be
something the city should look into but it doesn't reflect on whether this
project is consistent with the LCP in terms of drainage and flooding and as we
indicated before in the staff report in Isabel's presentation we think that the
city did the appropriate work for drainage and flooding under the LCP. We
continue to recommend no substantial issue available for questions including
Dr. Pausch is here on my left and in the event there are any
biological issues. Thank you Mr. Carl. Okay I'll open it up to my colleagues for
comments questions motion commissioner Kelly and I had a question about the
capacity of the storage sorry the water basin and and just out of curiosity I
think what I heard from the applicant or the supporter of the project and his
passionate delivery was that there was more capacity that that could be created
but that that would not be required.
And can you just speak a little bit further
about the likelihood given kind of the magnitude of storms
and rain capacity?
Obviously, no one can predict the future,
but we are seeing more extreme weather up and down the coast.
Would it be advisable that we seek to speak
with the local jurisdiction about the capacity issues there,
or we feel firmly that this is, the capacity is appropriate?
So I think there's definitely, everybody including the city is clear
that there are drainage issues along Pullman Watercourse, for sure.
And the city is looking into that for future potential modifications.
It reflects the entire watercourse from, you know, from Inland of Highway 1.
For this particular project.
Can you speak just a little closer to the mic?
There's like a fan or something and it's just a little hard to hear you.
Yeah, I hear the fan too.
It's like right in my ear.
But for this particular project, so they size the detention basin for a 25-year, 24-hour
storm, which is over and above what the LCP requires, which is sizing for a 10-year, 2-hour
storm.
So it already exceeds what the LCP required.
I think Mr. Massar was making a point that they could even do more.
But it exceeds what the LCP requires in terms of the drainage capacity.
I move that the commission determine that appeal number 8 slash 2 slash HMB slash 25
slash 0 0 1 7 raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal
has been filed under section 3 0 6 0 3 and I recommend a yes vote that we find that the
appeal does not present a substantial issue.
Okay.
That's a motion by Commissioner Kelly, a second by Commissioner Preciado.
Commissioner Wilson, to the motion please.
Yeah, I'm just speaking to the motion.
I agree with this.
The only place I would've thought that an appellant might've done would've been the relative
size of this house relative to the neighborhood, but it wasn't in the appeal so couldn't really
talk about it.
say that that was a substantial change that might have been something we could
have reviewed but because it wasn't it wasn't our standard of review in this
particular item so with that I am concurring with the motion thank you okay
do any commissioners object to a unanimous vote on this item seeing no
objections no substantial issue has been found okay that brings us to item 14 the
deputy directors report for the Central Coast District. Yes that's correct. So in
the Central Coast District directors report this month we're reporting three
waivers, one amendment, one permit extension, and two emergency permits.
We're not aware of any objections or controversy regarding these matters and
so the question is whether three or more commissioners object and if not the
commission will concur. Thank you. Any ex partes on any of these matters? Any
Any public speakers wish to comment?
No, just available for questions.
Thank you very much.
OK, do three or more commissioners
object to any item in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That will take us down to item number 15A.
Yeah.
Yeah, so I'm going to begin.
We have a recusal.
Commissioner Notoff will be recusing,
and I'm going to ask her to read her statement, please.
Thank you.
I am recusing myself from the hearing on item 15 a the Monterey
County LCP amendment number LCP dash 3 dash m.
C. O dash 24 dash 0 0 3 9 dash 1 which is vacation rentals due
to a potential conflict of interest under government
code section 8 7 1 0 0 and I will see you after the hearing.
Thank you.
We'll give her a second to leave the dais.
While she's doing that, I think we're gonna begin
with just a little bit of housekeeping here.
We have a lot of folks registered to speak on this item.
We're grateful for your participation
and looking forward to hearing from you all.
That said, given the late hour,
I would just ask that we try to be as efficient as possible
with all the comments.
So for awareness, we're gonna start
with our staff's presentation,
and then we'll move to the county,
who's gonna be allotted 10 minutes
with five minutes for rebuttal.
And then we'll move on to the organized groups
who generally will be allotted four minutes to speak
unless previously agreed upon otherwise.
Then we'll be moving to general public comment
at two minutes each.
So we all have a general sense of the lay of the land.
And now I will turn it over to our staff.
Mr. Carl, thank you.
Yes, and I will pass it directly to Katie Butler,
who's a district supervisor in the Central Coast
to give our staff presentation.
There's, take it away, Katie.
All right, good afternoon, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Item 15A is a proposed Monterey County LCP amendment
to provide vacation rental,
also known as short-term rental regulations
within single-family residences
and the unincorporated county coastal zone.
Slide one here includes an image
of the iconic Big Sur coast,
which comprises a large portion
of Monterey County's coastal zone.
Next slide.
Monterey County outlined here in red
is located to the south of the San Francisco Bay Area
Santa Cruz and San Luis Obispo counties at approximately the midpoint of
California's coastline. Next slide. The county's coastal zone encompasses a wide
range of areas from the rural agricultural north county to the resort
focused and single-family residential built environments within the Del Monte
Forest and Carmel areas to the largely undeveloped and mountainous Big Sur
coast. Given this vast geography with distinct characteristics and
development patterns. The Monterey County LCP is broken out into four separate area
plans, one each for North County, Del Monte Forest, Carmel, and the Big Sur coast, shown
here. In total, the county's coastal zone is quite large and extends along approximately
136 miles of coastline that is punctuated by the incorporated cities of Marina, Sand
City, Seaside, Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Carmel by the Sea. This amendment would constitute
county's first vacation rental regulations for the Coastal Zone, although such rentals have operated
here for many years. As of 2023, the county indicates that approximately 400 vacation rentals
were operating in these four Coastal Zone areas, representing about 4% of overall Coastal Zone
single-family residential housing units. Next slide. The proposed amendment would add a series
of new definitions and operational requirements, such as general good neighbor provisions,
would create three vacation rental types namely homestays, limited vacation
rentals, and commercial vacation rentals. Homestays refer to room rentals in an
occupied residence, also known as hosted rentals, and limited vacation rentals
refer to whole house rentals, also known as unhosted rentals, up to three times
per year. These two types would be allowed on an unlimited basis in the
coastal zone where single-family residential use is allowed, subject to
obtaining a vacation rental license. Commercial vacation rentals refer to
unhosted rentals with no limit on the number of rentals per year and it is
this rental type that represents both the predominant form of vacation rental
in the county's coastal zone and perhaps the most controversial aspect of the
amendment. These would be capped at 4% of the total single family residential
unit count by area except in the Big Sur and Carmel Highlands areas where they
would be prohibited and these rental types would require a coastal permit in
in addition to the license.
Slide four here shows the breakdown
of the three types of vacation rentals in the four areas,
which I'll walk through next in more detail.
Next slide.
Slide five zooms in on the Carmel area
with a low density residential zoned Carmel Highlands
sub area shown in yellow,
which is one of the two areas
where commercial rentals will be prohibited.
The data provided by the county indicates
that as of 2023, there were 218 vacation rentals
operating in the entire Carmel area, out of almost 3,000 single family residences, most
of which would likely qualify under the definition of commercial rentals.
The data did not distinguish how many of these were located in the Highland sub area at that
time.
Under the proposed amendment, the maximum number of commercial vacation rentals in the
other residential areas of Carmel would be 118, or a reduction of 100, corresponding
to a reduction from 7 to 4 percent of single family homes.
slide. Slide six shows the Big Sur coast area in orange where big where
commercial rentals would be would also be prohibited in the entire area. The
county's data indicates that there were 37 vacation rentals operating in Big Sur
out of 925 single-family homes or 4% of such housing stock, most of which would
also likely qualify as commercial rentals. The new rules would mean a 37
unit reduction corresponding to a reduction from four to 0% next slide
slide seven shows the Del Monte forest area where county data indicates that
there were 83 vacation rentals operating in 2023 out of about 1,400 single family
residences most of which would likely qualify as commercial rentals under the
proposed amendment the maximum number of commercial rentals would be 57 or a
reduction of 26 units corresponding to a reduction from six to four percent of
single-family housing stock next slide and finally slide 8 shows the north
county area where county data indicates there were 63 vacation rentals operating
in 2023 out of about 4,000 single-family residences most of which would likely
qualify as commercial rentals under the proposed amendment the maximum number of
of commercial rentals would be 159, or an increase of 96,
meaning an increase from 2 to 4%
of single-family housing stock.
Next slide.
Thus, the proposed amendment's commercial vacation rental
restrictions would reduce their overall number compared
to the 2023 counts from about 400 to 334,
or a roughly 17% reduction overall,
corresponding to 3.6% of overall single-family stock,
although the change would not be uniformly distributed.
As just shown, it would both reduce the number
of commercial vacation rentals in some areas,
such as the Del Monte Forest, Carmel, and Big Sur,
and increase them in one area, namely North County.
In the Carmel area, this type of vacation rental
would drop almost in half, and they would be reduced
in the Del Monte Forest by nearly a third.
In Big Sur, all such rentals would be prohibited
and phased out completely for a 100% reduction.
Conversely, the North County area could see
substantial increase up to 96 more such rentals or an over 150% increase. To be
clear however these are caps and not affirmative requirements to have this
many active rentals in the various areas. Market factors could dictate fewer
rentals than are allowed. For example in North County the vacation rental market
to date has been quite limited with just 16% of the overall number of coastal
zone countywide vacation rentals despite having 43% of the coastal zone single
family housing stock and again it's important to note that homestays
otherwise known as rented brooms where the owner is present and limited
vacation rentals meaning up to three whole house unhosted rentals in a year
are allowed on an unlimited basis in all areas that allow single-family
residential use so while the unlimited unhosted commercial rentals are set to
decline the proposed amendment still provides for significant vacation rental
activity throughout the county's coastal zone for these more limited types of
rentals. Next slide. In terms of other notable aspects of the proposal, the
amendment would limit all three vacation rental types to single-family dwellings
only, so they would not be allowed in multifamily units, ADUs, or protected
workforce, or affordable housing units. A vacation rental owner would be defined
as a natural person and owners would be allowed one commercial vacation rental
at a time to prevent commercialization and ownership by vacation rental
companies. In addition the amendment includes provisions for phasing out
existing vacation rentals by requiring applications for licenses within two
months or later if the current authorizations expire later than that.
Finally, CDPs would be required for commercial vacation rentals where they
are allowed, where these CDPs are valid for seven years each and would all be
appealable to the Commission. Next slide. The four area LUPs include provisions
that require protection of public access opportunities and that prioritize scarce resources for Coastal
Act priorities such as providing for coastal visitors.
At the same time, the LUPs also include provisions that speak to the preservation of housing
and traditionally residential areas.
Thus, the question of if, when, where, and how to accommodate vacation rentals raises
intertwined LUP public visitor access, neighborhood, and housing issues that must be harmonized
imbalanced for LUP consistency. The county undertook a multi-year process to
arrive at their proposed program and ultimately struck a balance that
accommodates these sometimes competing policy objectives. Feedback from the
public and decision-makers over the years has ranged from concerns on one
end of the spectrum about the importance of vacation rentals for visitors' ability
to access the coast to, on the other side, concerns about the loss of neighborhood
cohesiveness, the commercialization of residential areas, and overuse of limited
resources. Staff acknowledges the validity of all these viewpoints and
concerns and notes that there's a lot of discretion and a wide range of what can
be considered reasonable and LUP consistent to meet the objectives of
providing overnight accommodations and protecting other coastal resources. Some
of these alternatives are explored in the staff report and there certainly are
others which is reflective of the broad range of vacation rental regulations the
Commission is familiar with across the coastal zone. But as also explained in
in some depth in the staff report.
Staff believes the county's proposal represents
an appropriate and balanced middle ground
that appears to not be wholly supported by either side,
but that represents a framework that is responsive
to the unique attributes of the built
and natural environment of the county's coastal areas
and the various policies of the four LUPs.
Next slide.
So while it can be difficult to find an appropriate balance
between providing an important
overnight accommodations function
and protecting communities and their needs,
as well as housing opportunities and coastal resources.
Staff believes that the LCP amendment has found that balance
and firmly grounded it in Monterey County's unique context
as applied to the four coastal zone areas.
Staff acknowledges that the proposed amendment
will impact the availability of overnight accommodations
in some parts of the county's coastal zone,
and in particular in Big Sur and the Carmel Highlands,
but also notes that the allowance for unlimited home stays
limited vacation rentals in all areas and a total of 334 commercial vacation
rentals overall out of approximately 9,000 single family residential units
is not insignificant from a visitor perspective and still represents a not
insignificant vacation rental market. Furthermore there must also be a
healthy appreciation for the local process that leads to LCP amendments
like this including respecting the bargain struck between important and
critical objectives in the coastal zone namely in this case providing unique
and important overnight accommodations while recognizing a need to protect
housing and coastal communities staff recommends that the Commission approve
the amendment as submitted and the motion to do so is found on page seven of
the staff report this concludes staff's presentation thank you miss Butler I'll
begin by asking if there are any ex partes to report on this matter
Commissioner Presiata.
It's already been submitted in writing
but I wanted to report that I had a meeting
with representatives from Airbnb,
Benjamin Lee, Jose Alvarado,
Justin Wesson, Susan McCabe.
I want to report that they shared with me
unique challenges with the amendment as it's proposed.
They shared with me differences in how similar regulations have been applied by staff in
other parts of California and in fact yesterday got an email that outlined those.
I think we all got the email and lastly they had recommendations for improvements or amendments
that would really eliminate the hardships created
by this amendment to existing short-term rental individuals.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez.
So I have the same meeting, same folks
as Commissioner Priscado at a different time.
Same content except for the upfront portion
of the meeting was actually them asking me
background given my role in this for the last 15 years is a staff member and a
supervisor. So ditto on everything including the material but ours was also
submitted ahead of time and is on the record with staff. Also submitted ahead
of time was a meeting with Kurt Gavel who I consider a friend and he is also a
representative of the, let me get the title right, Big Sur local coastal defense
committee and so in that meeting he again asked for my perspective to start
and then let me know about their representation of 250 residents and
asking for us to pass the ordinance and understood the lack of balance between
the Salinas Valley and the coastal without the one-size-fits-all, an attempt
to create a one-size-fits-all, not actually working in this instance and he
understands that there may still be adjustments needed to this ordinance in
order to get it where we want it. Now lastly I did receive late last night a
text message from another friend Kenneth Wright who is a member a community
member in the community of Big Sur and he sent a short text I reread it last
night after talking to council and I do think there was some advocacy in it and
so for that reason I have my staff submitting it today but I'm also going
to read the length of the text which is hi Chris tough day tomorrow with regard
STRs in the county. I urge you to support banning the STR in the Big Sur planning area. It's been a problem
I also know you have strong concerns, which I understand STR and Big Sur are not affordable despite proponents
Despite what the proponents may say I know from years of experience watching them personally respectful
We can so just wanted to share that as well. Those are the three ex partes. I have on this item
Thank You commissioner commissioner Jackson. Thank you. Madam chair
I also want to report that I spoke with representatives of Airbnb to discuss their concerns about the Monterey County
LCP amendment regulating short-term rentals and that was Miss Susan McCabe and Mr. Benjamin Lee
Thank you. I also met with representatives from Airbnb this morning at 8 a.m
Via zoom and my conversation was substantially similar to that which was reported by Commissioner Presiado
Okay, seeing no other ex partes will open the public hearing and begin with representatives from the county, please and I believe
Ten minutes is sufficient to start with five reserved for rebuttal. Yes. Thank you
Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Craig Spencer. I'm the director of housing and community development for Monterey County
Here with me is Melanie Beretti
She's our chief of planning for Monterey County and she's been involved in this process and from the beginning
which is our supervisor and now Commissioner Lopez has mentioned
started about 15 years ago. So really in order to understand where we're going
here today you have to know what the history is in Monterey County. We have not
had any implementing regulations in our LCP that deal with short-term rentals. We
have a lot of regulations and our four LCPs that deal with timeshares in units,
hostels, every type of visitor serving use you could think of, but that started
in the 80s and has been updated in parts over time, but it really hasn't addressed
in any significant way vacation rentals. And as you probably all know, and I've
experience myself beginning in early 2000s it really took off. It changed. The
popularity of vacation rentals became very significant and a former boss of
mine and the former director of housing and community development or resource
management agency at the time, he made an interpretation under our existing
implementation plan a bed and breakfast or time share required a CDP and so if
you wanted to operate a commercial vacation rental you needed to have a
CDP that was a use of a similar nature and character to other uses listed as
uses allowed in residential zoning and other zoning districts that allow
residential we were challenged on that and as part of the resolution of that
that challenge, we agreed not to enforce permit requirements
against those who are operating until we adopted regulations.
So that's about when a former commissioner that's
at on this committee, Dave Potter,
began doing public outreach to many different constituents
within Monterey County.
He convened all kinds of groups and had a lot of discussions.
That lasted at least two years, maybe three.
That brings us close to about 10 years ago
when we really started having workshops
at our planning commission.
We had public meetings.
We got all the feedback
from all the people about this topic.
We heard from our constituents,
and our constituents have been mixed,
and there's no doubt about it.
There are people who want short-term rentals.
There are people who don't want them.
They don't want them as neighbors.
They need them to help support them financially,
be able to stay in their homes and afford them.
We heard all of these stories.
We developed these three types of vacation rentals.
A homestay where someone is in their home
and they're renting out rooms or a guest house
or whatever it might be as a source of income.
It's not a whole house rental.
It is not capped, and it's allowed everywhere.
And by the way, we have the same regulations
in our inland zone already adopted.
And in effect, and working well,
and we do have hosted vacation rentals
being permitted and licensed as we speak.
So we also then said, people go on vacation.
There are some significant events, including this weekend,
which we call Car Week in Monterey County,
where there would be some real constraints
on availability of your traditional hotel units.
If you're going out of town to avoid Car Week
because you're not a car fan,
or if you can get a whole bunch of money for that week
with your vacation rental, you can do that.
That's a limited vacation rental.
It is not limited in any area of the county,
and it does not require the CBP.
Then there's the commercial vacation rentals,
commercial being one of the terms
we've used to define them.
They are whole house, unhosted rentals
that have no limit on how often they can be rented
short term, less than 30 days.
And many of what the complaints we receive
as a local government have to do
with these types of vacation rentals.
And a lot of it is social economic impacts.
It's the fabric of our neighborhoods.
It's getting to know your neighbors.
It's the noise complaints, the trash, the parking.
All of this stuff we heard, we listened to, and we addressed.
As far as I know, Monterey County is the only jurisdiction
to have done an environmental impact report
on our vacation rental ordinances.
We signed up for Air DNA data, so we had the data.
We know how many are out there.
We know where they exist.
And we made that data available to an economist.
We had an economist study the housing impacts
and market conditions around these.
And while it was slightly inconclusive
about the significance of the impacts,
I think we've all seen some impacts
on housing as a result of vacation rentals.
It is a commercial vacation rental
And it's so different from area to area
within Monterey County.
We decided we wanted to retain the discretion
on the permitting for those commercial vacation rentals
through a CDB process.
That was talked about at length,
at our planning commission, at our board,
and in many, many meetings.
We have approved many vacation rentals.
We welcome visitors to our beautiful section of the coast.
And by the way, I didn't thank staff.
Very appreciative of your staff.
They're excellent, they've been very helpful.
They've been involved, they've been writing letters.
We've been listening to them
and trying to find that right balance.
Is it perfect?
Maybe not.
But we cannot continue to be in a position
where we don't have any rules and regulations.
That really just encourages and incentivizes
those investments, investment properties,
second properties where people can buy
and maybe they're going to retire here one day,
but they're not gonna stay here all the time
and they can make money renting it out.
That grows a problem over time.
We need to have regulations in place.
We recognize that there are some things that we'll learn
as we implement these regulations.
We know that we can raise the cap
if the cap needs to be raised,
but we're talking about permitted vacation rentals.
Right now in the coastal zone,
I think there are 10 based on our past policies.
We're nowhere near any cap in any place except Big Sur,
and I'll just address the limits on the areas
where we've said no commercial vacation rentals.
We've heard loudly from these communities
and we have significant constraints.
There are no public utilities in these areas.
Most of you have probably driven Big Sur Coast
and Highway 1.
Highway 1 is the main highway through Big Sur,
but most of that community,
they live off of Highway 1 in up narrow roads
with very difficult access a long way from services
that are private roads, they are on sewer,
they're on septic, and it is an area
where our LCP acknowledges
that there are significant limitations
to both residential and visitor-serving commercial uses.
And in fact, it says you get one or the other.
So taking away existing housing stock
when not much new housing's being built there,
to add to the visitor-serving accommodations
and having the greenhouse gas emissions
from all of the folks who live in our area
who support that visitor-serving industry in Big Sur,
driving from Salinas Valley or from Seaside and Marina,
all the way down to Big Sur and back every day.
That's what you get,
or you get people living in cars in Big Sur.
So we heard that loud and clear.
We made a consistency determination
based on our adopted land use plan policies
that are fairly clear on this point,
and based on the information
and the geographics of that area.
The same is true for Carmel Highlands,
where we have studies that we've done as far back
as about 10 years ago,
where the concentration of wells and septic systems
on one acre lots in the Carmel Highlands area,
in an area underlain by granite rock,
has a significant issue.
Granite rock means that wells are not reliable.
They rely on fishers within the cracks,
within the rocks to pull water from,
and they don't percolate well.
So you get cross-contamination issues
and an environmental health problem.
And so we really looked at those factors to say,
in those areas, it is not appropriate
for short-term commercial vacation rentals.
It's long way from services.
There are significant hazards,
there are significant problems,
and there are significant communities.
I'm done now and I will let our district five supervisor answer any questions at the end, Thank you.
Thank you very much sir.
Okay and confirming Chris, do we have any elected officials?
No.
Okay, perfect. Then we will be moving on to the first group, which is MCVRA, I believe.
And they will be allotted 10 minutes.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, honorable commissioners, Frank Angel for MCVRA, and I thank you for
graciously offering us the time. And staff also for having offered us the time to discuss these
issues with them very early on since the submittal. First, second slide, please. The Coastal Act's
balance requirement, I think I mentioned that more broadly, generally, and I've heard it again said,
Your balancing is not the same balancing as the county's.
What the county balances
is not what the commission must balance.
There's a much broader diversity of interest
of communities that are not taken account
at the local level, but that must be and should be
and are typically taken account
at the coastal commission's level.
So the legal mandate, you know it.
The Coastal Act talks about maximizing public access
subject to certain other rights and resources overuse.
It's still the law, and the law explicitly
prioritizes visitor-serving uses.
Any restrictions on coastal access
also must demonstrate an appropriate balance
between competing interests, but that balance
must be based on substantial evidence.
And I'll get into that a little bit more.
The Commission has historically applied these standards across California in creating settled
precedent in terms of short-term rental regulations.
So what are we asking for at this point at a minimum?
Four points.
Remove the CDP requirement.
It creates a $12,000 barrier that together with hosts inability to appeal CDP denials
by the county will basically eliminate most un-hosted STRs which are subject to this CDP
requirement. Secondly, grandfather existing STRs. For those of you who are attorneys on
the commission, you know this is a dicey legal issue. Grandfather existing STRs. Third, raised
a 4% cap at least back to the 6%.
And I think Commissioner Lopez knows and can
confirm what I'm stating.
This 6% cap was the cap set by the County Board of Supervisors
itself before the EIR process started to disclose and describe
the project as such in the Environmental Impact Report.
And only after some political pressure very late in the game
did the county change it down to 4%
without any new evidence that this 2% delta
between six and four would be justified
by any new evidence of concerns.
So, and then the fourth point is,
please remove the blanket commercial VR ban
in Big Sur and the low residential areas
of the Carmel Highlands.
Basically, you're excluding short-term rentals,
unhosted more than three times a year from more than 60 miles of coastline, that is unprecedented
and unseen anywhere in the state of California. So getting to the CDP requirement more in
details, this is a complete about face. The staff has consistently since the 90s opposed
to CDP requirement for good reasons.
For example, your former Executive Director, Mr. Lester,
in a letter in 1997 to the Chair of the Board,
stated a coastal development permit,
which is limited under the Coast Elect to a device
to regulate only new development,
is not an appropriate mechanism
for regulating transient rentals.
Same thing repeated in July 22 by Mr. Carl,
with the current Central Coast District Director
to the Monterey County HCDD.
And again, in the comments on the EIR
by Miss Katie Butler, also from the Central District.
This has been repeated.
What she also very correctly pointed up in the EIR comments
is that there is no really evidence
to support the 4% cap.
And she stated, it is also unclear
how the county arrived at the cap
of 6% of single family residences
for commercial vacation rentals in areas
where they are proposed to be allowed.
Neither the economic study nor the DIR,
the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
includes a detailed explanation for how
or why that percentage was chosen.
And even less so, of course,
for how the percentage of 4% was chosen.
So there's no evidence for that.
Could you slip to slide number six, please?
Monterey County asks the Commission
to severely reduce access to the Monterey Coast.
So staff acknowledges that unhosted rentals
would be curtailed significantly,
but claims that this reduction is balanced
by the unlimited allowance for home stays
and limited vacation rentals.
But as this commission recognized in rejecting
several LCP amendments for short-term rentals,
including recently in Malibu in 2022,
A, hosted STRs generally do not provide the space
at the privacy desired by families and larger groups
traveling together that STRs often offer.
And two, families and larger groups are less likely
to stay at hosted STRs.
And this directly then contradicts staff's current
assumptions about replacement capacity.
A predictor of the degree to which unhosted STRs,
the so-called commercial vacation rentals,
to be precise, in the LUP area subject to the 4% cap
will plunge should the commission approve the LCPS
submitted is to just look at the data for the inland areas
like the greater Monterey Peninsula and Carmel Valley,
which didn't need to evade your approval
for the restrictions to take effect.
These are good, these are a good proxy
of the magnitude of the loss as the CVRs there,
subject to an individual CUP approval,
which is conditional use approval,
the equivalent of the CDP for the inland.
The CDR, the CDR counts posted on the county's website
disclosed that today, one year after the board
past the restrictions, Carmel Valley is at a mere 5.47% of its 4% kept allocation, just
11 STRs of 201. And Greater Monterey at 12.9%, no more than 20 STRs of 155 after one year.
Slide number seven, please, STRs are the primary source of coastal access, 80% of overnight
visitor capacity in coastal Monterey County is represented by STRs, and 90% of those as
we demonstrated in the CITO study are unhosted STRs.
So the conclusion is clear.
The hosted requirement is a de facto ban.
Slide number eight please. We made that point. But I would just add that the Coastal Development
permit requirement abandons precedent, a point noted earlier, and the CDP requirement is
the proverbial camel's nose in the tent. Other jurisdictions will take note. You will be
swamped with CDP appeals, approvals of CDP appeals and neighbor to neighbor disputes.
And in Monterey County, especially,
this will be bad given the very vague county findings
requirements for a CDP.
So basically, is a coastal visitor or family's access
to a single family residence for a couple of days,
is that a public threat to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, and general welfare, a finding that they have to make?
If noise generated by occupants of entire residential
development projects, including student housing,
is environmentally insignificant as a legislature determined
in a 2023 CEQA amendment, then how
can a rental of a single family home
possibly be environmentally so significant as to call
for discretionary SDR review, CDP review?
Slide number nine, please.
So to illustrate the disproportionate impact
on lower cost overnight accommodations,
Big Sur has only 15 economy hotel rooms
serving the entire iconic coastline,
making STRs essential for lower cost access.
Banning short term rentals in the wealthiest areas
protects affluent residents
while eliminating public access
to California's most iconic coastal destinations.
And in this regard, I want to draw your attention
to a finding in the CECO report.
This is really crucial.
On page 39, it states it has found,
after detailed analysis, and I quote,
taking actual demand trends into account,
Monterey County hotels cannot meet the demand
for affordable overnight accommodations
for almost 600,000 of the 2.2 million
low-income visitors, resulting in a significant supply
shortage. The low-income visitors are determined by looking at all the visitors that earn less
than the medium California income, which is $96,300. So we urge you to either deny it
or at a very minimum to have discontinued. You have time until February 2026 so that
issues can be worked out in a more orderly fashion than they
thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you sir. OK. Now we will
move on to the verified groups please and we'll be at four
minutes per group. Thank you. OK. So we have Kathleen Lee
followed by Ryan Ryan Bussinger followed by Kurt Geffill and
then we have phone booth. Three of them are on zoom ones in
person Kathleen Lee if you can unmute yourself. Good afternoon Chair Harmon,
Coastal Commissioners and staff. My name is Kathleen Lee and I serve as the
Director of Governmental and Community Affairs with Pebble Beach Company.
Pebble Beach Company deeply values our relationship with the Coastal Commission
and Coastal Commission staff. I'm here today speaking in defense of the Del
Monty Forest land use plan that was carefully written directly with Coastal
commission leadership and staff, and received a thorough environmental review, which provides
a delicate balance between the conservation of the Monterey Pine Forest, the preservation
of the residential character of the Del Monte Forest, and the visitor serving uses within
the forest, and capped the number of available visitor serving units within the forest to
protect that balance.
With that perspective, Pebble Beach Company has been actively engaged in the short-term
rental discussion with the County of Monterey since 2015. Our first public comment in opposition
to unlimited short-term rentals was in August of 2016. Before I continue my prepared comments,
I wanted to note that staff's presentation indicated that 57 commercial vacation rentals
would be permitted in Del Monte Forest. While we understand that the commission only has
jurisdiction over the coastal zone of the Del Monte Forest, I did want to clarify that
But the total number of commercial vacation rentals allowed by this ordinance in the Del
Monte Forest is actually approximately 112, due to the fact that the Del Monte Forest
is bisected by two separate land use plans, each with a 4% cap, and the forest has approximately
2,959 lots.
Pebble Beach Company recognizes that vacation rentals are here to stay.
We need reasonable and manageable rules to maintain that balance outlined in our land
use plan.
Pebble Beach Company knows our community, we have been dealing with the issue for a
long time, and have provided the county with a reasonable solution.
We are disappointed that the county failed to respond to suggestions from the organization
that has the closest connection to the community when drafting this ordinance.
As a result, the county's ordinance is critically flawed in ways that disregard and upend the
Del Monte Forest land use plan, and needs to be fixed by the county before the commission
and certifies the ordinance.
The major challenges with the ordinance are
homestays are a gigantic, unenforceable
and unmanageable loophole in the ordinance.
Pebble Beach Company provided the county
with a blanket objection letter
that the county should be providing upfront to applicants,
advising applicants that the Pebble Beach Company
will not grant access to our private roads,
which are paid for and maintained
solely by Pebble Beach Company
for the benefit of operators of commercial vacation rentals.
A copy of that letter was included
in our written correspondence.
There is no pre-approval process
and no set of rules to expediently handle bad actors.
The county does not have the resources
to enforce short-term rentals,
resulting in frustrated residents
reporting their complaints to Pebble Beach Company.
This puts Pebble Beach Company employees at risk
when they respond to complaints of noise, traffic,
or other activities that impact the quiet
residential areas of the forest. Short-term rentals in Pebble Beach should be limited,
not commercial. The commercial license violates our CC&Rs and goes against the careful balance
in our community between residential visitor serving units and the conservation of the
Monterey Pine Forest that was thoughtfully and intentionally created by the land use plan.
Homes that are commercial vacation rentals are no longer available to be occupied full-time by
renters or owners, public beach company respectfully requests that the
commission not certify the ordinance before you and further request that the
county of Monterey uphold their commitments to revisit the short-term
rental ordinance fix the flaws outlined above and present the live ordinance to the
commission for adoption. Thank you.
Next is Ryan Zinger. Ryan are you going to unmute yourself? There you go.
Good afternoon, commissioners, and thank you for this opportunity to speak today.
I'd like to start by thanking the Coastal Commission staff for their detailed and nuanced
report.
I am Ryan Leitzinger.
I'm the president of the Board of Directors for the Community Association of Big Sur,
and I'm here to speak today in favor of the amendment to the LCP.
My organization, the Community Association of Big Sur, has existed for decades.
We've been very engaged in public comment on this issue,
and we've come to a specific inclusion
that we think represents the best interests
of our community and its visitors.
There's many reasons to support the LCP amendment,
and I'll focus on two.
The first one is that the proliferation
of commercial vacation rentals,
were that to continue if the amendment is not passed
would certainly lead to less month-to-month
rental housing in Big Sur.
We know that would be true based on evidence
from across the United States and across the globe.
Less month-to-month rentals in Big Sur
means a smaller workforce and a smaller workforce
means fewer services available to the many people
who visit Big Sur in a given year
and more expensive services for those that remain.
The second point I'd like to highlight
is that Big Sur is unique in many ways.
One way that's particularly important to this amendment
is that there's near parity between homes occupied
by full-time residents
and the number of hotel rooms in Big Sur.
If campsites were included,
the number of overnight visitor serving at accommodations
would actually be much higher
than the number of homes occupied by full-time residents.
So that's a way of making an important point,
which is that the status quo in Big Sur
represents a unique level of emphasis
on visitors serving overnight accommodations
vis-a-vis residents occupied by,
residences occupied full-time by community members.
Approval of this amendment to the LCP is essential
in realigning visitation practices
with Big Sur's land use plan,
an advisory document that's existed for four decades
and is widely considered the gold standard
in land use plans.
Craig Spencer noted a number of really important things
earlier about the unique constraints,
President Big Sur.
Here we have treacherous mountain roads, extreme fire risk
and a current severe lack of month to month rentals
for teachers, first responders
and those who work in big serves hotels and restaurants.
Alongside our community supervisor for this district
in a range of other local organizations,
I strongly urge you to approve this LCP amendment
which represents a thoughtful compromise
between constituents.
And I'd like to conclude just by noting
that the claim earlier by our first speaker
that banning STRs or reducing commercial vacation rentals
more specifically protects, excuse me,
that were the amendment to the LCP to pass
that that would be, actually, I'll stop right there.
I'm almost out of time.
Thank you.
Okay, next is Kurt Gaffill followed by Feng Bui followed by Laura Davis followed by Christina
McInnes.
Kurt Gaffill if you can unmute yourself and you can start your video if you like.
My name is Kurt Gaffill and I'm a long-term resident of Big Sur and serve as the spokesperson
for the Big Sur local coastal plan defense committee, a group of over 250 local residents
and business owners. For over a decade, we have worked with Monterey County to address
the negative impacts of short-term rentals in the Big Sur planning area. Through these many years
of public hearings and planning efforts, Monterey County has finally developed short-term rental
regulations that, while imperfect, are ones that we can support to achieve resource protections
and regulatory clarity for visitors, residents, and owners of short-term rentals.
Absent a meaningful enforcement or regulatory process, the negative and ongoing impacts
of short-term rentals will continue, and there will be limited, if any, tools to address
current conditions and to make necessary future adjustments to the balance of resource protection
and public access. The consistency determination in the Coastal Commission staff report concludes
that a meaningful vacation rental market would be maintained in the county's coastal areas
while also protecting coastal resources and housing and community needs and objectives.
The Big Sur local coastal plan defense committee agrees and we urge the commission to certify the
proposed LCP amendments without delay so that Monterey County can begin to effectively implement
these balanced regulations. Thank you very much. Okay next is Fong Bui.
Good afternoon. My name is Phong Bui, and I'm speaking on behalf of the California Short-Term
Rental Association, which represents STR operators and workers across California.
I'm here in strong opposition to the staff recommendation for the Monterey County LCP
amendment. We believe that this recommendation would fundamentally undermine the commission's
core mandate to protect and maximize public access to our precious coastline for all Californians.
STRs provide 80% of the total overnight visitor capacity along the Monterey County coast,
and on a per person basis they cost about $75 a night compared to $122 for hotels.
So that's a 39% savings. They also offer kitchens in larger spaces, allowing families
to save hundreds of dollars on meals eating out and by making this coastal trip possible for many
Californians. Monterey County is not a market that hotels are trying to serve.
Research shows that since 2019 Monterey County has actually lost 6% of its
economy hotel rooms while luxury and upper-scale categories have grown to
nearly half of the market. Only 29% of the hotel rooms are considered economy
class and in high demand areas like Big Sur, affordable hotels are virtually
non-existent, and SCRs really fill this gap. They meet demand peaks on weekends
and summers, and they accommodate groups and families, and they mirror California's
demographic and income diversity. And by severely restricting our outright
banning these accommodations in areas like Big Sur and Carmel Highlands, the
proposed ordinance will effectively eliminate the primary source of
affordable coastal accommodations, and thereby diminishing public access rather
than maximizing it. We urge the Coastal Commission to reject staff's recommendation and work
towards a policy that preserve whole home STRs as part of a very balanced accommodations
mixed. We're ready and willing to collaborate on solutions, and so thank you for your time.
Thank you. Next is Laura Davis, followed by Christina McGinnis, followed by Noah Suarez-Sikes,
by Doug Bloch followed by Russell Jones. Laura, are you gonna mute yourself? Thank you. Good afternoon
commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Laura Davis. I'm the
Deputy Director of Land Watch and I will be providing comments on Land Watch's behalf.
Land Watch advocates sustainability and smart growth including the provision of adequate
housing for the local workforce. We urge the Coastal Commission to support staff's recommendation
and certify the county of Monterey's implementation plan for its local coastal program for short-term
rental regulation. Like most of California, Monterey County suffers from a serious shortage
of affordable housing for the local working community. The people who work in our community,
for example those in the tourist industry, need places to live within a reasonable distance of
their employment. When a significant portion of already limited housing is used for STRs,
It reduces availability and raises rents. This is especially true in the coastal zone.
The county of Monterey carefully drafted ordinances to regulate STRs, taking into
consideration the diverse needs and interests of the vastly different regions of the county.
The ordinances distinguish between different types of short-term housing,
allowing flexibility while maintaining housing stock where the most severe housing shortages
exist on the coast. They preserve housing for local workers while also supporting the
local tourist industry. Like most good legislation, the ordinances are a compromise. Land Watch
and many other community organizations have been involved with the development of these
ordinances for more than 10 years. The public participation process was extensive. Numerous
meetings were held with community groups, the Monterey County Planning Commission and
Monterey County Board of Supervisors. County officials and staff discuss the
details of proposed regulations countless times and made adjustments in
response to new input and data. We commend Monterey County's efforts for
listening to the various stakeholders and crafting a balanced ordinance that
considers the needs of all Monterey County residents. We urge the Coastal
Commission to support staff's recommendation by approving the
ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Christina McGinnis. Thank you. Good
Good afternoon, Honorable Chair Harmon and Commissioners.
My name is Christina McGinnis,
and I'm speaking today on behalf of Keep Big Sur Wild,
a small nonprofit dedicated to protecting
the scenic landscape, sensitive natural resources,
and wild rural character of the Big Sur coastal region.
We represent over 250 supporters.
We do support Monterey County's prohibition
on commercial short-term rentals in Big Sur.
However, we have grave concerns
about the remaining provision
that allows limited unhosted vacation rentals
up to three times a year with only a business license
and no CDP, due to the lack of enforcement
by Monterey County.
Cupix or Wild has reported numerous violations
to Monterey County for years,
often including vacation rentals that are operating
on illegal event centers leased out to LLCs.
These rentals and event centers are located
in residentially zoned properties without any enforcement
as demonstrated in our letter to your commission.
Since enforcing illegal rentals is the lowest priority
for Monterey County code enforcement.
The limitation of three unhosted rentals per year
would not be enforced.
And these properties would certainly take advantage of this
by offering more rentals than the limit.
Essentially this is a significant loophole in the ordinance
and would not eliminate commercial vacation rentals
in Big Sur.
In the current ordinance,
these limited vacation rentals would allow
up to 15 day occupants and 10 people overnight.
We highlighted an example of the unsafe road conditions
in Big Sur, one lane roads, dead end roads,
hilltops with no turnouts, et cetera.
You also heard that from Mr. Spencer today.
In the event of an emergency, vacation renters
would be unfamiliar with proper evacuation codes
could potentially endanger year-round residents.
And this type of situation is not an anomaly.
It's a real danger to both visitors and residents alike.
It will result in a tragedy one day.
It's just really a matter of time.
So we respectfully request that the provision
for limited vacation rentals is removed from the ordinance
due to the lack of enforcement
and the safety concerns they present.
The Big Sur Land Use Plan currently allows
for bed and breakfast,
and we support the continuance of that opportunity,
not further commercialization of properties
in residential neighborhoods.
The Big Sur Land Use Plan is also one of the core tenets
for protecting Big Sur,
and there is a limit on the number of visitor serving units
that are allowed in Big Sur.
Currently, the county is not proposing
to count any kind of a limited rental
towards that visitor serving unit cap,
which has been established
and which our organization has done extensive research on
and has shown has been actually exceeded currently.
That's also a concern.
Big Sur is mountainous, remote, full of sensitive habitats.
And as your staff report noted,
in cases where development potential is limited,
the commission has in past cases recognized
that more stringent limits on vacation rentals
may be appropriate.
So given what the safety concerns are,
I just wanna share a story that I heard yesterday.
As a matter of fact, we had a meeting.
A resident out on Partington Ridge explained
at 3 a.m. one night he was woken up with a knock on the door by a vacation
renter person asking where the vacation rental was and he's also explained that
there have been numerous occasions where he's had to pull out cars that have come
off the road on Cardington Ridge. I know a lot of you probably aren't familiar
with the back roads of Big Sur but I can testify here honestly that they are very
treacherous and very dangerous in areas and visitors who aren't familiar really do pose
a safety threat. So we strongly encourage the Commission to eliminate the ability for
limited vacation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Noah.
All righty. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Noah Sykes. I'm an organizer for
Better Neighbors LA, a coalition of hosts, tenants, housing advocates, and community members.
We conduct data analysis and research on the short-term rental industry, including in the
coastal zone, where we advocate for regulating short-term rentals through true home sharing
in hosted-only rentals as the best method to balance coastal access and long-term housing
needs.
Today, I'd like to discuss item 15a, Monterey County's LCP amendment, updating its short-term
rental regulations, and a few ways that it could be improved.
This ordinance does represent a significant step forward in regulating STRs in the county.
Provisions like limiting STRs to one per natural person, as well as banning corporate STRs
from multi-life family housing and certain zones in the county, will help prevent corporate
exploitation of housing.
At the same time, however, we have concerns that this ordinance does not go far enough
in regulating STRs.
We urge the Commission to amend the LCBA to only allow true home sharing in hosted-only
rentals.
hosted STRs in Monterey County are more affordable than un-hosted STRs and most un-hosted STRs
in the county do not, on average, constitute lower cost coastal accommodations. A 1 to
2 person STR has an average nightly rate of $334 a night in the coastal zone, which is
far above the threshold for an overnight accommodation to qualify as affordable.
True home sharing in hosted only STRs will best achieve the goals laid out in the county
the LEPs, which emphasize long-term housing opportunities.
If the Coastal Commission chooses not to amend the LCPA to allow only true home sharing and
hosted only rentals, we recommend three amendments that will preserve housing and affordable
coastal access in Monterey County.
Number one, to require SDR operators to be the primary residents of the units that are
renting out.
Number two, to implement a 60-day cap on commercial vacation rental stays.
And number three, to lower the proposed cap on commercial vacation rental permits from
4% to 1%.
These common sense policies have been previously approved by this commission in jurisdictions
throughout the coastal zone, and they can make a serious impact on the cost of housing
in the coastal zone, ensuring that the vibrant coastal communities that we love continue
to exist.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to see the rest of my time.
Thank you, next is Doug Bloch, followed by Russell Jones, followed by Jonah Brazelow.
Doug Bloch, if you can unmute yourself.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Harmon and Commissioners.
My name is Doug Bloch, and I'm with Unite Here Local 19, representing hospitality workers
in Monterey County.
Our focus is on ensuring affordable access to the coast, especially housing, which is
the most pressing challenge that our members face.
We advocate for strong regulation of short-term rentals to preserve housing and ensure truly
affordable coastal access.
We applaud the county for taking on this issue.
That being said, we have several concerns with this ordinance.
First, we believe that unhosted rentals reduce available housing and do not necessarily provide
affordable coastal access, allowing 4 percent of the housing stock to be commercial vacation
rentals presents a significant challenge during a housing crisis.
We are concerned that these commercial operators will not be subject to the same requirements
to promote lower cost overnight accommodations as hotels are.
Why is that?
Second, we are concerned about how these regulations will be enforced.
For example, there's a rule that an owner can only hold an interest in one commercial
vacation rental.
Is there anything requiring an owner to be an individual rather than a corporation?
What prevents an individual from owning multiple LLCs that operate numerous short term rentals
in Monterey County?
This potential loophole should be addressed.
Finally, we oppose the exception that would allow unique neighborhoods with existing developments
with the intent of managed vacation rentals.
This is far too vague and the staff itself notes that it could apply to more than just
the single complex mentioned in the staff report.
This should be clarified.
Thank you for your consideration and your time.
Thank you.
Next is Russell Jones, followed by Jonah Breslin and Carl Jagger.
Russell?
Good afternoon.
My name is Russell Jones.
I represent about 50 short term rentals,
rental operators in the city of Pacifica.
And while none of the individuals I represent
would consider themselves commercial,
by Monterey County's definition, they would be.
Everyone in my group, they're not large corporations,
they aren't managed properties by someone else.
These folks are moms, dads, husbands, wives,
who scrape together enough to buy an investment property
and manage an efficient, affordable operation
inside the coastal zone.
This benefits our city, it benefits our coast.
I'm an interested party here because I do see parity
with what's going on in Pacifica
and what's going on in Monterey.
I hear many of the same arguments.
I hear about protecting affordable housing.
I hear about the hosted versus unhosted debate,
and I get it, this gets really complicated
for folks like you.
But I just want to start by saying I can speak firsthand.
Many of my guests who book my short-term rental
come from Northern California,
or maybe even just within the greater California area.
They're booking from the East Bay, Tracy, Oakland,
and often describe needing to get away
from the heat of the East Bay
or wanting to spend the week with their family on the coast.
They want access to affordable accommodations
where they can stay together, cook together,
and most of them could not afford to visit otherwise.
This really is that important.
If we continue to allow wealthy neighborhoods
to coalesce around bogus arguments
and false accusations about bad operators,
we really are harming small young families
and folks who deserve to have access to the coast.
Another large share of my visitors who book my property
are just families, villages and relatives in the Bay Area.
They need a place in the heart of our town
so they can visit beautiful hiking trails along the coast
and shop at local restaurants.
Hotels, especially in high demand areas like my town,
can cost hundreds of dollars per room per night.
For a family of five or six,
that means paying for two or three rooms,
easily doubling or tripling their lodging costs.
In contrast, a vacation rental allows families
to stay together.
When my own sister wanted to make a trip to the Bay Area,
she originally looked at hotels as an option,
but she chose an Airbnb because all the hotels in Pacifica
are too expensive, shabby, and rundown looking.
Many opponents of STRs in my town often invent horror stories
about loud parties or irresponsible hosts,
and I get it, that probably occasionally happens.
But what's happening in my town,
I see also happening in Monterey, they're just lumping all STR operators as if they're
all doing the same thing, and then saying, we just need to get rid of them all.
And that just doesn't make sense.
This doesn't make your ruling easy.
I get it.
The last council meeting that I attended for Pacifica, one of the STR opponents bragged
about how he calls the police regularly, even when there's nothing wrong, just so he can
keep the STR operator on notice.
It's important to note that as a host, I take pride in welcoming visitors who come to enjoy
our beaches, trails, and small businesses.
I sent you a PDF with just reviews from my booking.
It tells the story of who's visiting and who needs access to short-term rentals along the
coast.
I really do hope that you take this matter seriously and consider the impact on young
families and folks who could not afford to come visit our town without these valuable
accommodations. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Jonah Breslow, followed by Karl Jagger,
who we do not see. Karl, if you're on Zoom, please do the hand function. If not, then
after that we'll go to public individuals, which is two minutes. Jonah Breslow, you can
unmute yourself.
Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jonah Breslau.
I'm here with Unite Here Local 11. We second the comments of Better Neighbors
Los Angeles.
This measure would be a significant step forward,
but we do have significant concerns as well.
We care deeply about coastal access,
but housing is the greatest need of working people here in California.
The Coastal Commission must set good precedents that do not take it as a given
that short-term rentals constitute affordable access to the coast in and of themselves,
and Monterey's land use plan reflects this conflict.
We believe the availability of homestays does ensure LUP goals and LCP goals are met but
have some concerns about unhosted and commercial vacation rentals and consequently short-term
rental regulations in Monterey County.
First of all, we support the CDP requirement, but we would go further.
We are concerned about these commercial vacation rentals.
A key issue is that there is no assurance that these permits will actually promote lower
cost overnight accommodations, a critical goal of the Coastal Act.
Is there any mitigation for the creation of luxury STRs?
The commission has generally held that high cost hotel rooms may need to pay significant
fees or build lower cost overnight accommodations on site or show that neither of these are
feasible.
Is there a provision to ensure that the CDPs for commercial vacation rentals will promote
lower cost overnight accommodations?
These are serious issues if we're going to sacrifice housing for luxury short-term rental
development.
Secondly, we urge you to lower the cap on commercial vacation rentals to 1%, as better
neighbors mentioned.
Monterey's certified land use plan recognizes the importance of preserving residential neighborhoods.
More percent of housing becoming short-term renters will have an impact on those looking
for housing, especially in a housing crisis.
And a lack of housing pushes California further and further from the coast, which makes coastal
access less and less feasible, less and less affordable, as we are pushed away.
If it takes hours or even requires an overnight stay, a visit to the beach will be out of
reach for working class people, even if there's more coastal accommodations available.
And as you have heard from better neighbors, home sharing is on average more affordable
than unhosted and commercial short term rentals.
So we urge you to address these concerns for working people throughout California who want
access to the beautiful coast of Monterey and all around our state.
Home shares do create are better at promoting access and comply with the city's local coastal
program whereas unhosted short-term rentals can cannibalize our housing and
at least as proposed may not be required to meet the same sort of standards to
promote lower cost accommodations as hotels. Thank you so much. Okay next we're
going to public individuals which is two minutes each. We have about 24 found
total 38 speakers 24 are found and 14 are missing so far. So we're going to stick
with in-person Alex Harkakian and David Harkakian,
Margot Thomas and Maurice Ragson.
Thank you, Simone.
Before we begin, I just wanna give folks a heads up
that at a certain point given the hour,
we may need to reduce the public comment time
from two minutes to one minute.
So I would ask, please just urge efficiency
and to do your best not to be repetitive.
Thank you very much.
Definitely, I'll try to be brief.
My father, Alex, had to step out,
so he's not going to be with us, but I'm
going to speak on behalf of my family.
My family owns a vacation rental in Big Sur.
It's an amazing place that people get to really, really,
really enjoy.
They get to go there with their grandparents,
with their uncles, with their aunts.
They get to really enjoy intimate time with their family.
And I'm very concerned by the broad nature
of this amendment, I wholly reject what's going on here.
I think it's going to have an incredible impact
on coastal access for visitors.
And I also don't think that it's going to help
the housing shortage at all.
In the area, I encourage the Coastal Commission
and county staff, if they're looking into more housing
and housing affordability to deal with that
from the development level
and not to restrict coastal access in the process.
I also object to the natural persons requirement.
I'm here, I'm a natural person.
I own this property as an LLC
and I won't be able to monetize it.
Many families will not be able to afford it.
And yeah, I just hope that you guys,
you commissioners, ladies and gentlemen,
all really understand that the decision
that you're making today has an impact
on millions and millions of Californians
that wanna access the coast.
And Big Sur, which is the crown jewel of California,
so many people have said,
is just gonna be so out of touch for people.
And I'm concerned, and I hope that you reject the amendment.
Thank you.
Thank you, next is Margo Thomas, followed by Maurice Ragson,
followed by Jim Holtz, followed by Todd Corner,
followed by Yumi Takayama.
Hello, hi, I'm Margo Thomas.
Thank you, commissioners, for your thoughtful care.
You bring to such a complex issue.
I travel from Carmel for this, and it's been a privilege to witness your process today.
I want to state clearly that I oppose the 100 percent ban on short-term rentals in the
Carmel Highlands and urge you to use a balanced approach and grandfather in existing STRs.
For the past 15 years, my family and I have welcomed peaceful, respectful guests.
This is not a corporate entity or commercial.
That narrative is simply incorrect, very similar to the gentleman who just spoke.
via the Coastal Act, short-term rentals do create meaningful connections to our
coast, especially for young people, and that matters. Kids from landlocked areas
watch migrating whales from my dining table and light up with joy and
curiosity. A recent guest from Kansas City told me the only time he saw his
three daughters look up from their phones was in my home to connect to the
coast. This is not the same experience in North County, that's why so few STRs
exist there versus the the housing supply at large. So the proposed LPC is not in fact
balanced and it reflects only the loud voices of a handful of residents in the Carmel Highlands.
I also host people with disabilities who require extra space for medical equipment, caregivers
and emotional support animals. Hotels cannot provide the privacy, accessibility and comfort
that a home can for this population.
Also, on a somber note, I host guests
going through chemotherapy,
and they're there, they're sustained
by the peace of the coast,
and it may be their last moments to spend with their family.
I've also hosted people who need ad hoc housing
evacuating from the Big Sur fires.
Communities need this sort of interim housing available.
I also urge you to consider the environmental impact
a full ban without STR options in the highlands visitors will stay in hotels
in Seaside and Marina and drive down highway one creating more traffic
congestion increasing co2 emissions. Okay thank you try to get a light in there.
Thank you Maurice Ragson followed by Jim Holtz followed by Todd. Hi there thank
you very much for your time today also I want to thank you all for your service
and the fact that you have really allowed people over the years to enjoy California's
incredible beauty. The coast never fails to take away my breath when I drive it multiple
times every single day. I was blessed to grow up in Malibu along the highway that easements
were put in by the Coast Commission, allowing the public to enjoy the beaches. What everybody
seems to not really want to address, I'm going to address because you wanted to hear
ideas and things that are different
from what you've heard previously.
There's a sense in our area today,
and I speak particularly of the Carmel Highlands,
of the minority really dominating the narrative
and creating misinformation,
influencing board of supervisors
in a way that has been just tragic.
For 13 years, the house that I own in the Carmel Highlands
has been used as an SDR.
There've been no issues.
What there has been is the ability for people who normally
would not be able to enjoy the coastline,
to see the whales migrating, to see the wildlife
and the vistas that are so unique to California.
I've been blessed to travel the world.
It's unique in California that you can own property
on the ocean.
Most countries don't allow it.
But the beauty of your job and your mandate
is that you want to give access to as many people as possible
to enjoy this natural wonder.
I will tell you that it is really important
to allow people to come and enjoy the coastline.
You should drive it, I sure you do,
but I will say that there are some things
that need to be clarified.
The gentleman from the county talking about
subject tanks gritting across the contamination.
Lived all my life with subject tanks,
from Malibu to Carmel.
They're not ideal, but the reality is,
if that's the issue, we'd all be happy
to empty our subject tanks that haven't serviced every six months.
Those are just some of the things that don't make sense to the bottle.
Thank you for your time.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Next is Jim Holtz, followed by Todd Coroner, followed by Yumi Takayami, and Jim Holtz will
translate for him.
Yeah, she's her right here.
She will speak after me.
Thank you, commissioners.
You heard from several people from Better Neighbors LA.
I call them Ben-La.
They were driven by hotel workers, Unite Here Local 11, and by hotel associations, which
have a direct financial stake in eliminating SCR competitions.
They say they want to reduce rent, but they're just looking to keep their jobs.
Ben-La's appeared at all coastal commissions, and most city meetings across Southern California
repeating the same hotel sponsored message they arranged for hotel mates to
speak here complaining they can't afford to live on the homosa beach tram
because STRs make venting there too expensive hello venting on the beach is
expensive for everyone STRs do not create that reality
Bella paid for professor Wasmash Commission research in December 2023
three housing discussions that align perfectly with Ben Lott's message. I watched the video,
the professor parroted their talking points perfectly, and the commissioners ate it up.
Your own staff report showed that the professor did not respond to multiple follow-ups after
his presentation when he was pressed on the details. Before you rely on these findings,
consider who funded them and why. They sell hosted-only SCRs to the Commission as a compromise
because it acts as a de facto ban for most rentals. Family would rather rent a whole
home on the beach where everyone could be under one roof instead of paying big bucks
for adjoining hotel rooms and eating out in every meal. If the Commission falls for the
hosted only as CR charade. This is what it looks like in practice. A woman forced
to stay at home as a host was five men from Europe here for the World Cup.
Little Johnny staying next to the host hub. Thank you. Thank you.
Alexis Todd Corner. Oh no, she's going to speak in Japanese.
In the past, the amount of money we have received from the STR has been over.
We have been able to get the money from the STR, and we have been able to get the money from the STR.
We have been able to get the money from the STR, and we have been able to get the money from the STR.
We have been able to get the money from the STR, and we have been able to get the money from the STR.
I will be able to communicate with the staff. I will be able to communicate with the staff.
And two minutes for the person translating for them to translate what that person just
said.
So that's double the time, that's four minutes.
Okay.
I'll turn the mic on, please, sir.
Okay.
Sorry, I prepared for a longer time.
I just want to say the CBP for each STR rental is really out of line, that creates $12,000
dollars or put people out of out of reach. The whole home STRs and commercial
STRs are just names. It really should be just one item, STRs. It shouldn't be
separated. That's really a Benla talking point. The Big Sur and the 4% inland
cap. STRs are the, you know, basically the backbone in Big Sur as far as, you
know, there's only a few economy of hotel rooms up and down the coast and they
provide most of the bed and home-sharing options that hotels cannot
accommodate. Right now 80% of coastal beds are vacation rentals. I just want to
point out that a lot of people have been saying cost comparisons. You have one
whole house compared to a home sharing or hosted only excuse me a whole home
rental I mean it takes several rooms to accommodate what one home can have plus
there's a false equivalence with the traffic when you have two parents and
two adult children you have four cars but when they travel together that's one
car. So that's less traffic, not more traffic. So let me just summarize right here. Please
drop the home per home CDP. Lift the Big Sur, Carmel Island bands. Grandfather existing
STRs to avoid sudden loss of capacity. Raise the cap about 4% to a level that actually
protects visitors serving combinations, then make the definition between hosted and unhosted events. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Todd Kerner and then we'll go to Zoom. We have about 18 people left on Zoom.
My name is Todd Kerner. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to relate the
positive impact that being a short-term rental host in Hermosa Beach has had on
me and I believe on the city of Hermosa Beach which I will reference has yet to
to file an LCP with the Coastal Commission.
I have seen people come in from Australia
to take volleyball lessons on Hermosa Beach.
And by staying with me in my short-term rental,
which is my primary residence,
they have access to parking,
so they're not bringing in a car to take up parking.
And they have access to my kitchen facilities,
so they're not having to spend extra money,
which they probably couldn't afford
to go to expensive restaurants, and I have had people come in from Arizona who want to
spend time taking surfing lessons in Hermosa Beach, which they couldn't afford to do if
they didn't have access to residents like mine for a short-term rental.
It has been, frankly, a life-changing experience for me, because it exposed me to some really
fantastic people who really want to enjoy the pleasure that the California
coast has to provide and I would say that that same argument would go towards
what's going on in Big Sur and the question that's before the council at
this point in time so I just would like to reiterate that I am an advocate for
short-term rentals I think it provides a lot of opportunities that are missed
before the advent of short-term rentals and I strongly urge the council to
deliberate carefully about any legislation or restrictions on short-term
rentals that they have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Richard Matthews
followed by Mr. Gwynn DeAmorell, followed by Adrienne Berry, followed by Tiffany Edwards,
followed by Annie Martin, followed by Jim Zach. Just know when I promote you guys to
zoom please accept it. Thank you. Hi can you hear me? Yes we can hear you. Okay
this is Richard Matthews, unhosted commercial vacation rentals. CBRs are the
most sought-after form of coastal visitor logic. Visitors do not want a
a stranger in the house when they stay there.
Unhosted short-term rentals outnumber home stays
by a margin of at least four to one.
That represents the desire for that type of housing.
Yet this ordinance will permit unhosted CBRs
in only six miles of the 100 mile coastline.
Where will they be allowed?
They won't be allowed in the Big Sur.
They're not allowed in Carmel Highlands.
they are allowed in a five mile stretch near Carmel
by the sea.
And then in the North County,
first the Pebble Beach area,
Pebble Beach Company has already told the county
that they will block every permit for a CVR
in the Pebble Beach area.
So Pebble Beach will not have commercial vacation miles.
In the North County,
the only places where there are houses
are in Monterey Dunes colony
and in Moss Landing.
And Moss Landing, short-term commercial vacations are banned.
So in the results, you have six miles
of where commercial vacation miles can be
under this ordinance, about 100 miles.
This is unprecedented.
This goes way beyond the issues you see
when you're enforcing a lock gate denying people access.
This ordinance will deny access to the coast
to vast amount of people,
far in excess of what you deal with in your enforcement
with lock gates, thank you.
Mr. Richard, are you done?
Okay.
Next is Mr. Gwen, if you can unmute yourself.
Hi, thank you, thank you, staff.
My name is Gwen D'Amorel,
I'm a resident of Carmel Highland,
and I would strongly urge you to approve the LCP amendment
that's in front of you today.
We chose to live here in Carmel Highlands
because it's a low density residential area.
We didn't want commercialization as a neighbor.
Carmel Highlands has two hotels already here
and partial timeshares.
They are both on sewer.
I would like to also see the documentation
that is showing low income families are spending 300 plus
to come to the Carmel district five area
to enjoy a time with their families.
The short-term rental supporters
that are raising concerns over the septic requirements
are the same people that disputed them
when they tried to have them placed by the county
as part of a protection agent
to protect the people living here in the Highlands.
Anybody that would dispute
that we do not have septic issues or contamination,
all they have to do is look at the Carmel Highlands
on-site wastewater management study by Cuesta
to learn more about the septic failures and contamination.
So I just urge you again to stand by this
and to please approve it, thank you.
Thank you, next is Adrian Berry.
I'm going to unmute you, Adrian, if you can.
Can you hear me?
Barely.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, a little bit louder though.
Can you hear me?
Yes, go ahead and speak, you got two minutes.
Yeah, I'm in support of the court's amendment.
I wanted to address the concerns about the increasing cost
high-cost short-term rentals STRs along the California coast, many of which
charge in excess of 8,000 per night. While STR proponents often argue that
they improve access to the coast, these luxury rentals do the opposite. They
commodify our coastline for the wealthy while displacing local families and
workers. Renting a home for 8,000 a night does not promote equitable access to the
California coast. These are not affordable accommodations for the
general public. They cater to a narrow segment of affluence for us. The
original intention behind protecting all coastal access was to ensure that all
Californians, regardless of income, could enjoy our natural resources, not just
those who can afford a private estate for the weekend. SPR did destroy coastal
communities. What we are seeing is a fundamental shift in the character and
function of our neighborhood. Housing displacement, long-term housing is being eliminated at hedge
funds, corporations, and absentee investors purchase homes purely to operate as vacation rentals.
These drive up home prices and reduces the availability of rentals for working families,
community erosions, families, leaders, teachers, hospitality workers, and public servants are being
pushed out of the coastal area because they cannot compete with short-term rental markets.
The result is a revolving door replacing permanent invested residents.
Economic imbalance, the promise that SCRs bring economic benefit is undermined by the profits
that leave our community and the cost. Infrastructure threats to local housing
care to be or born by the local. I call for balanced regulation. We urge
prices and inequity of thank you Adrian. Next is Tiffany Edwards followed by
Annie Martin followed by James Zach followed by Heather Marzano followed by Fred Faltresack.
Annie Martin we're going to oh sorry excuse me Tiffany Edwards. Thank you. My husband and I
I have been proud partners at sanctuary vacation rentals
in Monterey County for 12 years.
And I do believe there should be an ordinance
and a permitting process,
but I believe we should remove the van
and Big Sur and Carmel Highlands
and restore the 6% cap on the quote,
commercial vacation rentals.
I also asked that the commission consider
a grandfathering clause for rentals
that have been in good standing
that have rented in the past year,
have upcoming reservations and have paid their TOT
and haven't had any code violations
similar to practices seen in San Diego and South Lake Tahoe.
At sanctuary, we have 50% of our guests
are from the California area.
We serve families and our guests want private extended spaces
instead of multiple rooms that are unhosted.
Our guests will not switch to hosted stays
and this decrease in supply
will naturally drive up rental costs.
Banning and Big Sur and Carmel Highlands
will also not create an increase
in affordable housing supply.
Our owners are not in a position to convert their properties
into longer term rentals.
And these homes are used by their owners,
along with their families and friends throughout the year,
and transitioning them to full-time housing
would be not only impractical,
but also a burdensome and unrealistic shift for most.
And finally, I'll say this year,
an Orange County grand jury found that,
and I quote, that STRs have a negligible effect
on the affordable housing in cities
that currently allow STRs,
and it is unrealistic to expect that coastal STRs
would be converted to long-term affordable housing
in any sizable number.
a study in 2021 by RCL Co.,
found that STRs do not have an adverse effect
on housing affordability instead for Monterey County.
Instead, those prices were driven by
desirability of the area, housing trends,
and the migration that has happened following COVID-19.
I wanna thank the commission
and the counties work on this ordinance,
and I appreciate your consideration.
Thank you.
Next is Annie Martin.
We're gonna allow you to talk.
Hi, my name is Annie Martin,
and my life's purpose and passion is hospitality.
For the last 18 years, I've owned sanctuary vacation rentals
as well as being a founding member
of the Monterey County Vacation Rental Alliance.
My companies welcome millions of visitors
with only a handful of issues,
fewer than most long-term rentals.
We manage 200 homes and about 50 of them
are on the coastal area.
We employ 35 full-time staff.
We support hundreds of local service providers
and partner with more than 50 local businesses.
The Coastal Commission purpose
to provide low-cost visitor accommodations
for individuals and families, not just for the wealthy.
Banning areas such as Big Sur and Carmel Highlands
goes against everything the Coastal Commission stands for
and it's supposed to protect.
Reducing the cap to 4% reduces the chances
for ordinary families, often multi-generational,
to gather under one roof.
For many, it's their only way to come together.
They can't afford multiple hotel rooms,
and they don't want to share a home
with someone they've never met.
Would you?
Home sharing may work elsewhere in other areas of the country,
usually for those under age 30,
but not in Pebble Beach, Carmel, or Big Sur,
and I believe the county knows that this is the case.
Banding backyard will not create affordable housing.
Limiting licenses to three bookings a year
cut supply, the raised prices, and worst of all, they're going to encourage
unpermitted rentals, which will lead to more division in our community. The 6%
cap I think is fair and reasonable and responsible owners who have paid their
taxes should be grandfathered and allowed to continue. Many of them like
ourselves have been here from the very beginning in this fight and we deserve
to at least be able to rent our homes. Please choose a path that protects our
communities and keep the joy of the Monterey Peninsula within reach
for all who dream of visiting. Thank you so much.
Next is Jim, Jim's act. Good afternoon. Thank you for the time. I'm a Carmel
native who moved away to the Bay Area 30 plus years ago for school work and
raising my family and never assumed I'd be able to come back to Carmel and a
a few years ago found a affordable fixer upper
that I proceeded to remodel and use as a vacation home
and ultimately my retirement home.
The short-term rental provides that opportunity
to hold onto this property until the time
when we can afford to be there full-time.
A few things that I've noticed is that a lot of the people
that are in opposition tend to be groups
and the people that are for this tend to be the individuals
who own these properties.
There's no one single story for everybody.
There's no one story that fits all
and everybody has a different reason
and a different motivation to do the short-term rentals.
I think some regulation is in order.
I think that the amount of money being discussed
to continue to do short-term rentals is exorbitant
and will probably put many people out of business.
$12,000 is the cost for the CDP,
but from what I understand,
by the time you do all of the permits necessary,
you're getting closer to $20,000,
which really is inaccessible for most people.
One thing that I've thought about
through listening to everybody is
what happens to the short term rentals
that are gonna be forced out of business.
I would ask another question,
which is how many houses in the Carmel, Carmel Highlands,
Pebble Beach area, remain vacant most of the time
for wealthy homeowners that do have vacation rentals.
Where I think most of the short term rentals
are probably owned by people like me,
who are just trying to find an affordable way
to enjoy the Carmel coast.
So while some regulation is required,
I would think that there's some re-imagining
that needs to be done here to make the regulations
a little bit more accessible to the people
that are doing this.
The number of people doing host term rentals
is three or 400 people.
It's really not very many and the impact is gigantic
and the service they provide is extensive.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, next is Heather Marzano.
I'm going to allow you to talk.
Can you unmute yourself Heather?
Okay, so we're gonna move on.
We're gonna go to Fred.
Fred, I've asked you to unmute yourself.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes. I'm Fred Vaulter-Sack. I'm a native of California. I'm also retired.
I am a big believer and supporter of short-term rentals. They allow affordable options for
thousands of families wanting to visit the California coastline. They allow owners such
as myself to be able to afford to own a second home in the Monterey County. They bring additional
revenue to the cities and the counties through the collection of TOT taxes sales taxes property
taxes and more they bring revenue to the many businesses including restaurants retailers
wineries and more they bring jobs to the area by employee weekly main services gardening
services maintenance services and more commission members I beg you to please reject this particular
ordinance in its entirety. Please consider the thousands of families from all over the United
States and other countries who would like the options when they visit the beautiful California
coast. Please do not support ordinances which would deprive them of a visit because of cost
or by not having an option to keep their family unit together in a single family home.
I have a search and rental permit and I am one of the few whose permit was issued by the county
into perpetuity. That's no expiration date. The proposed ordinance would give me a competitive
advantage by limiting or eliminating competition, but that's not what I think is fair. That's not
what I want. What I would like to see is affordable coastal vacations for all who want to visit.
thank you for your time and I'm complete. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next we have Colleen. Colleen,
we're just going to allow you to speak. Sorry about that. Hello, my name's Colleen Floyd Carroll.
For over 40 years, our family has had the benefit of a home on the North County Monterey coast.
Despite the misinformation reported by opponents of STRs,
I've hosted affordable opportunities
for multi-generational diverse families
with disability-friendly accommodations for up to nine
people to connect across states and countries
to stay together, cook together, dine together,
all for less than the cost of two decent hotel rooms
and a remote beautiful part of North Monterey County.
Over 12 years of hosting, I've never
had a complaint from a neighbor about my guests,
Rather, they have become friends and assets to our community.
This week, we hosted a diverse multigenerational family
gathering, so their grandfather with late stage Parkinson's
could spend limited quality time with his kids
and young grandchildren who live at a distance.
And we were able to offer all the accommodations
to enable them to enjoy both our home and the beach
inclusively and with dignity and privacy
in this precious moment.
Let's be real.
Beachfront rentals are never going
to be affordable housing for local workers.
but they do provide a great asset to the economy.
I have a number of people who work for me
and work within our community.
We support the local economy.
We send our folks out to local restaurants and businesses.
We provide income diverse accommodations
and have hosted scores of families over the years
with many of them coming back year after year
to build memories.
We are not a nuisance, we are an asset to the community
and we provide tons of money in terms
of transient occupancy taxes
and support to the local community.
Thank you for your time
and thank you for your consideration.
Thank you, next is Susan Kellerman.
I'll ask you to unmute yourself.
We have about eight speakers left.
So it'll be Joseph Sinish, after that Linda Marin,
followed by Mark Grancola.
Susan Kellerman, did you unmute yourself ma'am?
Okay, we'll come back to her.
Let's go to Joseph Sinish.
On behalf of the 12,000 people that will not have access
to Big Sur and Carmel Highlands last year,
I'd like to thank the commission
for taking the time to hear me today.
Certainly the 4.05 median housing price
for Carmel Highlands does allow those,
afford those owners a piece of sanctuary,
the $3.6 million median housing price for Pebble Beach
and the 3.1 million housing price for Carmel.
No, short-term rentals do not cut into the availability
of affordable housing.
More than has been the task taken on
by the Monterey County Supervisors and Zoning Commissions
who have failed to approve any high density
residential housing in the county,
any significant high density residential housing
or zoning in the county over the last 20 years.
We've actually seen a 5% reduction in available inventory
in this county over the past 10 years.
I would also like to speak on behalf of the $45 million
in local contractor payments made to local contractors,
the $31 million spent in local shops and restaurants,
the $9 million, $8 million in sales tax,
and the oh, I'm sorry, $10 million in sales tax.
So there's quite a bit going on with the short term rentals
that are driving the local economy and quite helpful.
But the biggest thing is people are right.
We do need affordable housing.
We need high density residential approved.
Limiting short term rentals in areas where we have 50%
vacancy rates already,
because the owners are multimillionaires
and these are their second and third homes
is not the answer.
Let's provide access to the coast
those thousands of families.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Linda Marin.
I'm gonna allow you to speak.
Linda Marin.
Okay.
Nothing from here.
We're gonna go ahead and go straight to Mark.
Oh.
She unmuted herself.
Okay.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon commissioners.
I'm Linda Marin.
I found the staff recommendation to be surprisingly full
of internal contradictions
and in some cases, just not true.
It acknowledges STRs can provide unique visitor accommodations
in the coastal zone and especially for families and groups
and that undue restrictions on them
is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
Then it says there's evidence
that STRs impact coastal resources or housing availability.
But apparently not in Monterey County
because the next paragraph ends with this statement.
It is not clear that homes that are being used
for unhosted rentals will instead be used
for longer term housing under these proposed rules.
Close quote.
In fact, there's lots of evidence
that these expensive second or even third homes
will simply remain vacant.
And the DEIR showed STRs having no impact
on resources when capped at 6%.
And I'm sure the staff knows that.
The staff report says this ordinance will result
in a loss of some vacation rentals,
but claims the overall package will still allow
for these types of rentals for groups and families.
No, that is not true.
You know, and I know and everyone knows
that families and groups,
as many people have said already,
don't stay in one or two rooms
with a stranger in the kitchen.
And then when every paragraph of a recommendation
exhibits tortured thinking like this,
that usually means the real reasons
for the recommendation can't be said out loud.
I have no idea why now in Monterey County,
2025, the Coastal Commission is veering so far off course from its mission to protect
the coastal environment and public access to it. I can only urge any of you who still
feels committed to that mission to vote to amend this amendment. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Mike Grancola.
Yes, hi. Can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay, wonderful. Well, first of all, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
And I just want to say that with all due respect to the good work done by this commission,
when I ask Californians what issues concern them most, coastal access isn't at the top
of their list, but affordable housing is.
You've heard from lots of several outside investors today.
They want unfettered ability to buy up homes, turn them into mini hotels, and while this
profiteering may reward their wealthy investors, it drives up the cost of housing for regular
folks not just in the Coastal Zone but all the way across the entire Monterey County.
This is one of the reasons why Monterey County after long and careful consideration has adopted
a fair and balanced plan to cap and regulate short-term rentals, not ban or eliminate them.
As your own staff points out, there are already lots of STRs, plenty of them available in
Monterey County in the Coastal Zone.
This LCP amendment does not ban them, but allowing more STRs is counter to the county
land use plan.
Pebble Beach Corporation does not speak for all of us like they claim they did.
I bought my home in a residential community in the Carmel Highlands six years ago.
Now I find myself surrounded by several mini hotels, none of which are hosted, but all
owned by outside LLCs.
I could carry on about the problems such as overflowing septic systems from overcrowded
rentals or bullets that were shot by strangers renting the STR behind me that were shot into
my neighbor's house. But I will simply do this. Please, please support the recommendation
of your own staff and vote to approve this reasonable and balanced Monterey County amended
LCP. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Doug Clay. Doug, go ahead and unmute yourself.
you. My wife and I own a property and unincorporated
Monterey County, and we've operated a short term rental for
the past several years. No complaints, no incidents. We're
in compliance with the county's new application process. We
followed the short term ordinance process for years.
And what we've seen in that time is a vocal minority overstating
negative impacts of short-term rentals. We've seen special interest groups like
the Pebble Beach Company have undue influence over the county,
including statements made today that CC&Rs prohibit
short-term rentals or they prohibit access to roads,
when in fact most owners in Pebble Beach actually have
deed restrictions that provide access to roads for themselves,
their tenants and their visitors. We also see that financial numbers in favor of STRs are
understated and includes TOT revenue, tourism revenue, vacation rental industry jobs. So there's
just a vocal minority just kind of twisting the facts against short-term rentals. We've heard that
vacation rentals need to be banned to keep the nature of the community and provide affordable
housing and while housing is an issue in California and while you know we all
have our opinions I just don't think there's any evidence that says that you
know short-term rental sold into the open market is going to end up in the
hands of somebody who needs housing it's going to go to another rich buyer so I
think that's just the reality in Monterey County so what I'd like to
to suggest is that we consider some changes that reduce the complexity of
the ordinance perhaps grandfather existing short-term rental operators
who've paid to T who've operated without complaints and provide some
operation thank you we have about five more on zoom Sarah Harvey followed by
by Andrew, followed by Susan Jones, Marcus Foster,
and Martha Dyle.
Sarah, Hari, you gonna meet yourself?
Yes, thank you.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay.
I'm a low income single mother of three young children,
a full-time college student,
and a longtime South Coast Big Sur resident.
I co-host a short-term rental in Big Sur,
and I wanna be clear that it is because of the existence
of this STR that I have a comfortable, affordable place
to raise my children in the community where they were born
and where I've lived for 15 years.
Since 2021, I've been co-hosting an Airbnb
on the same property where I'm a full-time renter.
This STR is a small one bedroom cottage
where couples stay to disconnect.
I overs available on site as my home is a stone's throw
from the short-term rental unit.
The owners of this property are a lovely family
with two young children.
They pay TOT and are respectful of our neighbors.
They've relied on the STR's income
help alleviate the extremely high combined cost of mortgage payments,
taxes and fire insurance.
The fact that they're able to operate the STR allows them to rent to me and my
children at an affordable price.
I'm gravely concerned to that banning this type of short-term rental with a
caretaker on site will make it basically impossible for property owners like my
landlords to own housing and rent to low income community engaged families.
Like, um, I'm sorry, I'm still here.
Okay, sorry.
This unfair ordinance will ironically pave the way
for the housing market to be bought and sold solely
by the ultra rich in Big Sur
who are not essentially a part of our community.
My observation is that STR has been mischaracterized
as taking away housing from local residents.
And I feel it is of the utmost importance
for the Coastal Commission
to understand this is not the case in all circumstances,
especially in Big Sur where caretakership of properties
with multiple housing units is common.
When STRs are operated with caretakers on site,
they can have an overwhelmingly positive impact
on average low income residents in the area,
providing housing and jobs for locals
with low rent living situations.
And this is why I am strongly requesting
that your organization reject
the proposed Monterey County ordinance
as it currently is taking part.
I just have a second,
which would put an unfair hasty generalization approach
to a commercial short-term rental ban in Big Sur.
And I request that you advise or revision
to the proposed ordinance with consideration
for the type of education.
Thank you.
Okay, next is Susan Jones.
Susan Jones, go ahead and unmute yourself.
My name is Susan Jones and my family and I own a home
in the coastal zone of Monterey County
in an incorporated Carmel area.
I'm here to urge you to support well-regulated,
but not severely limited in number,
short-term rentals in our coastal area
and to eliminate the CDP.
As a local host,
I've welcomed guests from all over the world,
families, retirees, artists and students
who come to enjoy our coastline.
Many choose short-term rental because it's affordable,
allows them to cook their own meals, travel with family pets,
have a bit more space than a hotel room,
and easier access to laundry facilities
after a day at the beach.
Let's them stay in a real neighborhood.
They spend money in our restaurants, shops,
farmers' markets, golf courses,
and in doing so, directly support our local economy.
These guests get to enjoy for a few days
the paradise in which we are so blessed to live.
The neighbors of our short-term rental
have had no complaints and have appreciated our choice
host guests rather than tear down an older cottage and build a huge maximum lot coverage house.
Our family now in its fourth generation at Carmel has chosen to retain a charming Carmel
cottage and share it with others. Short-term rentals also align with the Coastal Act's mission
by expanding access to the coast for people who might not otherwise be able to afford to visit.
With sensible rules like occupancy limits, parking requirements and noise controls,
short-term rentals can coexist with neighborhood life while keeping our coast open to everyone.
I urge you not to restrict the number of short-term rentals and to remove the CDB requirement,
your grandfather and the existing short-term rentals, and respectfully ask that you preserve
this important form of coastal access in Monterey County. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Next is Marcus Foster.
thank you can you hear me okay yes all right i appreciate the time here thank you um i'm uh
my name is marcus foster i'm a long-term resident here in big sur i've been here long enough to see
the impacts of our community dissolving and our housing options and the proliferation of sdrs
not the the only cause of it but it is a great uh part of this uh happening there's no denying
that short-term rentals impacts opportunities for long-term housing.
You're seeing this happening around the world at all these popular tourist
destinations and locals are starting to push back on that.
I do want to push back on this false narrative that
I hear from opponents of this amendment that it's an affordable way to
visit the coast. I'll just talk about two
Short-term rentals within half a mile of my area,
one to the north, at $2,500 a night.
Used to be owned by full-time residents.
Used to have a renter in their caretaker house
that worked in local restaurants.
And that's the impact more so than the luxury homes.
It's the caretaker units.
It's the guest houses, the yurts and things like that
that were affordable.
Liberty opponents seem to obviously prioritize visitors over residents, and I think that's
just straight up wrong.
We need to prioritize people that live here.
How about the coastal access for people that grew up here, that people that live here that
want to be part of this community?
What about our coastal access as we get pushed out because there is no place to rent?
So let's prioritize people that want to live here, that want to be part of the community
and contribute.
Let's prioritize that over the visitor for once.
And our LUP, our land use plan, strictly in Big Sur is unique.
Rural residential areas, secondary uses, do not say visitor serving units and short term
rentals in them.
So, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next is Martha Dial,
all of our Holly Thomas and Ellen Thomas.
Martha Dial, you can unmute yourself.
Yes, thank you.
I wanna thank you all for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Martha Deal,
and I'm here to ask that you prove the LCP amendment
before you and do it today.
As you know, LCPs share our stated vision
for how we will balance many different needs and interests.
Perfect balance is impossible.
The outcome is fair.
Usually nobody gets everything they want.
This amendment is certainly no different.
I've served on the Monterey County Planning Commission
since 2001.
As you've heard and know,
vacation rental policy has been a hotly debated issue
since well before that.
Our failure to resolve it leads to significant conflict
among neighbors and stakeholders and helps no one.
This amendment is the result of many thousands of hours
of input from individual organizations
and agencies over decades.
As you can see from today's turnout,
nobody gets everything they want in it,
and the fact that this is a
good sign and this is a good
sign and this is a good sign
which is probably a pretty good
sign that it's balanced. For
the record, I have heard very
little that I knew today that I
haven't heard before. This
proposed amendment is intended
to be a clear statement of how
homes in coastal Monterey County
can be used to benefit property
owners and provide public access
to our coastal resources without
harming the very resources we
all seek to protect. It's meant
units into visitor accommodations and instead to support visitor serving businesses and
services and encourage residential housing to house residents who may then host vacation
rentals if they wish to do so.
It recognizes the unique different needs of different areas differently, consistent with
their different circumstances, and most importantly, it also provides clear means and methods for
consistent fair and ongoing enforcement.
is perfect, however, what we have now doesn't work for anyone. This amendment is a well-considered
good faith effort. It deserves a chance. Let's use it to set a new baseline to build from.
The conversation can continue, but it's time. Please vote to approve this LCP amendment
today. Thank you.
Thank you, Nexus, Holly Thomas, and Ellen Thomas. From my understanding, they are on
Zoom together. I'm going to allow you guys to speak. It doesn't look like they have a
mic connected still. They're on Zoom but they don't have a mic. Okay, I'm going to let you go.
I'm going to let you go. Holly or Ellen, can you guys speak again please? Hello, my name
is Holly Thomas. All right, go ahead and speak. You guys got two minutes. Hi, my name is Holly
Thomas thank you Commission for your time and service. I'm sorry my mother
and I are both trying to speak to you at the same time. Yes um hello my name is
Holly Thomas and my family and I operate a short-term rental in the Carmel Highlands.
Hi my name is Holly Thomas thank you Commission for your time and service.
there's a little bit of a lag here I apologize okay just try to just talk
through it we're at a minute and 26 seconds so okay let's push through mute
your side and we'll just talk through we'll hear you rental and the Carmel
Highlands I have always been respectful of my neighbors I urge you to take a
fair and balanced approach, and to grandfather in accessing SDRs in the
Carmel Highlands. Our community has the feel of the Big Sur, but without the
complexities I have always been respectful of my neighbors.
It sounds like you have a second device that's playing back the audio, could you
mute that device. We're hearing you in real time just fine. Holly try again.
Let's unmute. If you have two devices turn the other one off. The one that you're
speaking is speaking to that one. Okay so let me just make sure that we'll come
back to you. Okay I think I'm here. You're here. And I would like to apologize
and thank you for the long day that you have all put in and good evening my
name's Holly Thomas as I stated earlier my family and I operate a short-term
rental in the Carville Highlands and we have been very respectful to our
neighbors over the years okay I think I'm here okay Holly thank you so much I
think we understand where you're coming from and we're gonna go ahead and move
forward good evening we need to come back to you if nobody else comes back hold on okay we're gonna
try yeah we we've lowered all hands we have about 12 speakers 13 speakers that we can't find we're
gonna repeat their names just in case and then if not we'll try Holly again Andrew we do not see
Andrew, Heather Marzano. We're going to try to unmute you, allow you to speak.
Oh, hi, this is Heather Marzano. Can you hear me now? Yes, please go ahead and speak.
Fantastic. I'm, you know, everyone had really great comments. I'm in support of short-term
rentals. I'm not going to repeat them here. I just have two minor requests for amendments
and how you're executing this. However, you end up voting in terms of
allocating out CVR permits. And one is you're excluding LLCs and everyone kind of is referring
to LLC is almost like a four letter word. LLCs are generally individuals or domestic partners
and just how they choose to title their property. The county has the operating agreement and knows
exactly who owns the LLC. So that is a very, very easy step to check to make sure that only one
person is getting a CVR. Very few of these are actually larger corporations. The second
is what I would recommend that that be excluded. It's just a way how some people choose to
take title. My second request is not necessarily grandfathering in all the STRs that are in
operation but rather prioritizing the allocation of permits to pre-existing STRs who have demonstrated
you know, a high degree of success within the community,
within their neighborhood.
So that when, when we're kicking this off with,
in some cases like Carmel by the sea with,
I think the first time that permits have been issued
or have been permitted,
that you do so in a, in a successful manner.
That's all I wanted to say.
Thank you.
Next, Susan.
Excuse me, Simone, for the remaining speakers,
we've already called everyone once.
So when you go through them one more time,
if we find them, they'll have one minute.
to deliberations, thank you.
Perfect.
John Wilson, Mimi Chan.
Over.
Josh Ohamian, Renukathan Raman, Mary Randall, Katherine W.,
Moses Siserio, Harry Avila, Billa Talbrooke,
Alexandra Burke.
No names, no hands up, we're good to go.
Thank you very much, thank you so much for your help.
OK. And we will return to the county.
They ask for five minutes for rebuttal testing.
Got it. It's not.
I'm not used to being on this side of the dais.
I'm Kate Daniels, Monterey County supervisor.
And I'm going to try to be really quick.
So Craig and Melanie get the opportunity to add within the five minutes
to make some comments as well.
But I hope you ask them a lot of questions during the Q&A time
in case we don't get a full rebuttal, because there is a lot here.
There's a lot that was said that does need a response, but what I want to start by saying is I want to thank staff
I want to thank the Coastal Commission staff and I want to thank the county staff for years of
Meetings and for years of conversations that got us to this point
One of the first things that was said about the the vacation rental alliance is that we have a difference of a different way that we balance
Coastal the our priorities and that could not be further from the truth
So what I want to really direct all of you commissioners to is the documents that guide
At the end of the day the policies that are before you and that's the local coastal program
And so what was determined and devised in Big Sur and what was devised and determined in the Carmel area
have to do with the dock the words that are in the land use plans and
That that's that's the governing document for Monterey County
It's our general plan in the coastal zone and obviously that is the Coastal Act
I also want to say that we have not as a county removed
STRs from 60 miles of coastline we're talking right now about unincorporated Monterey County
But you still have the city of Seaside you have
You have the city of Pacific Grove both which have short-term rentals in the coastal zone with
Regulations and what we're trying to do is bring regulations to unincorporated Monterey County
So I hope we get the opportunity to talk more about
What's in those plans and why we have the rules in place that we're proposing for the Carmel Highlands area
It was pointed out that where we do have visitors serving uses
we actually had to go on to sewer for the for the hotels that are in that in
that area and there's so much I want to say but there's a lot I think we need to
rebut so I'm going to turn to Craig Spencer and just say thank you ask lots
of questions because we have lots of responses to what was said here today
thank you thank you supervisor again Craig Spencer with housing and community
development of Monterey County I just want to cover a couple of things we
heard during public comment and say what we're not doing. We are not
restricting access to the coast. We're not prohibiting access to the coast. Come
to Monterey County. Come visit our beautiful coastline. Stay in a hosted
vacation rental. Stay in a limited vacation rental. Stay in a permitted
commercial vacation rental. Stay in a hotel. Stay in a campground. We have all
of it, in all of the areas we're talking about. We are not restricting or
precluding public access. We want to provide the ability in areas that are
appropriate for people to have commercial vacation rentals. We want them
regulated and we want to be able to have clear rules in place for everyone. For
the neighbors, for our constituents, for the people who want to do hosted
vacation rentals. And so we're also not trying to say that people who are
hosting vacation rentals now we want you to convert your housing, excuse me, to
affordable housing. That's not realistic, that's not what we're asking for. But
there is a point in time where you do have to say here are the rules for
vacation rentals in Monterey County, here's how many we can have, and if you
want to come invest in a second home. If you want to come and invest in an
investment property you may or may not depending on if there's room in the cap
and you want to go through our process you may or may not be able to do a
commercial vacation rental to pay for your second home or your investment property.
That's what we're trying to do that ultimately will help us with all our
housing policies which we are working on our housing developments which we are
working on, to get housing built and to keep up with the supply that we need to
keep up with to address our housing crisis of Monterey County. So there are
some things we're not doing and some things we are doing, but ultimately we're
asking that you support your staff, that you certify Monterey County's LCP
amendment as it's been submitted, and we're we stand by and are happy to answer
any questions you have. As you know, it's been a long process. We have a lot of
answers a lot of history and we're happy to provide answers if two questions if
you have them. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Daniels, Mr. Spencer. Okay,
I will close the public hearing and bring it back to our staff for their
response. Thank you. Yeah, so that was obviously quite a lot. I think one thing's
for sure, there's clearly not a whole lot of consensus on the issue and I think in
place of a series of responses to everything you just heard and you'd be
more efficient if we see where the Commission goes with this and then
obviously we're here for questions to help you along really Katie and Kevin
are the experts up here and then I would echo the county they've they've been at
this for a long time and they know the ins and outs of this really well and so
ask questions of county staff as well but we're here for questions. Thank You
Mr. Carl. Okay. Who would like to kick it off? Commissioner Kelly. I just had a
quick question of county staff just regarding the areas within the county's
jurisdiction that are not covered that we're not discussing today. Obviously
we're just focused on the coastal zone and what's under our purview but just
out of curiosity what are the policies our vacation short term rentals allowed
in other parts of the county in if you can just highlight a little bit of that
because I know we're just looking at a small sliver but obviously right now we
could be staying in our hotel and have access to the coast, but we're not at the
beach right now, right? So I'm just thinking about how we access the coast
and where folks stay. Absolutely, thank you for the question. We have 13
geographic planning areas within the county. Four of them exist within the
coastal zone. We've been talking about four of them. The other nine are not
within the jurisdiction, the Coastal Commission. We have the regulations in
front of you adopted and in place and working within the other nine
geographical areas of the county. Many of them are essentially on the coast. Some
are a bit further away. And with overall we have five areas where from the
existing data we had on who's operating, they would come down in number from
the existing levels on how many we can permit under the cap. That's if they're
all commercial. In all of the eight other areas it would go up significantly in
terms of the capacity for us to permit above what exists in those other areas
today and overall the total number of operating vacation rentals that we could
permit in unincorporated Monterey County is much greater than what it is
is operating today.
It is very much concentrated on the coast today, though.
Thank you.
So just to make sure I understood what you said,
there are a number of other areas
within the county that do allow for short-term vacation
rentals, many of which are actually going up
in the numbers that would be allowed.
So and that those changes have already gone into place,
and you're seeing, how are you seeing those results?
Yes, they are in place and they are working.
So we have provided grace periods.
Anyone who's been permitted under previous rules
has, until the expiration of their permit
or up to seven years to continue operating,
they then have to come in and get a permit
under our existing regulations.
The similar situation with the coastal zone.
we are permitting vacation rentals,
we have permitted a number of commercial vacation rentals,
and we permitted dozens of limited
and homestay vacation rentals
through a ministerial simple process that is not expensive.
So just to, and then my next question,
which I think you just touched on, appreciate,
the process and the timeframe
by which should these changes go into effect
in the coastal zone,
It would be also seven years for safe harbor
and then people would be phased out.
It's different because within our inland areas
we did have regulations governing short term rentals.
We have not had them in the coastal zone.
So there were people permitted previously
under the old regulations in the inland areas
and we did have to deal with them.
We have, I think, two or three permitted in the coastal zone under a similar use determination.
They would be allowed to continue operating for seven years under our current regulations
and then have to come get a coastal development permit to continue operating after that.
So for those that exist, say, in the Carmel Highlands area now, and they would not potentially,
should we move forward with what's being proposed,
not be able to exist going forward,
what would be the timeframe by which
they would have to cease to operate?
Yeah, so the majority of existing
commercial vacation rental operators in the coastal zone
have never had any permit from the county.
They've paid TOT for the most part to the county,
but have not had any licensing,
any discretionary permitting,
no coastal development permits.
they just started operating.
And they would have two months to make an application
in the Carmel Highlands.
That would be two months to stop operating essentially
because they wouldn't be permitted in the Highlands.
That's that small section of Carmel, by the way.
The rest of Carmel still have the ability for 4%
of the total number of units in Carmel.
So Carmel does allow them.
It's just that section that we call the Carmel Highlands
that would not.
Anderson and then for those other areas where you are allowing for commercial
permits to be allocated within this plan but less than the number of commercial
rentals that currently exist so there will be if all of those folks wanted to
continue forward some will be winners and some will be losers for lack of a
better term what is the process by which is it a first come first serve
application process or how will you make the determination of which commercial entities
could get those coveted permissions?
It is a first come, first serve.
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time hearing you.
Can you just one moment.
It is a first come, first serve process.
And we, you know, we start at 4% and we do have the ability to increase that if we're
seeing the lack of impacts in the demand in the future thanks so much thank you
I'll go to Commissioner Lopez please yeah I have statements that I'll make
later at this point though just being in the Q&A I would like to ask we talked
about the study being done on six percent but then the end decision being
on four can you talk about why that drop happened and what if you've updated the
science or the numbers the algorithm that was used to calculate that to four
or what got us from six to four?
Yeah, that's a good question and it did come up.
It was something I didn't have time to address.
Sir, can I ask you to speak a little bit?
Thank you.
So we did identify as part of our project description
for the EIR that we completed a 6% cap on vacation rentals.
That was something we studied as the project in our EIR.
One of the alternatives to that in the EIR was a lower cap, 4%.
When we looked at the numbers, again, we have 13 areas, we saw that there would be fairly
small differences between 4% and 6% in certain areas.
Five areas, including Big Sur and Carmel Valley, which have a zero, would come down from existing.
The other areas, Carmel, Del Monte Forest
would also see a decrease
from what was currently being advertised.
And then, I believe it was greater Monterey,
no, it was Koshawa, for anyone who knows where Koshawa
is, our supervisor would.
Because there's only very few houses out there
and there were 11 vacation rentals,
that number came down.
Everywhere else, it went up.
So looking at the various environmental impacts,
coastal resource impacts and the alternative in the IR
and the numbers in terms of overall numbers in the county
and in each individual district, 4% seemed to work.
And then it's also a place to start
and which can be increased.
It's much harder to decrease in future.
yeah Melanie Brady with the county. Just for one added clarification to that. In addition when the decision for lowering the commercial vacation rental from 6 percent to 4 percent.
We also had the alternative to add in home stays as an alternative as an unlimited alternative throughout throughout anywhere in the county. And so it was also part of that
consideration in the big picture of how we allow different versions of these in
different parts so it wasn't just an elimination of commercial vacation
rentals did all the reasons Mr. Spencer spoke to but also recognizing we wanted
to add in this other type that had not been accounted for in the the project
description regulations so then a second question would be given the numbers the
folks who were paying TOT so folks who we knew were operating on the inland
inside, how many of those folks, what percentage have come in and gotten permits and what percent
essentially went away?
We don't have actual numbers to be able to say what percentage of who is doing what.
In our inland area, our regulations went into effect in October.
We had a six-month window where any unpermitted operations could come in and at the end of
at six month window that ended in April, so not that long ago, you needed to either come
into compliance with our new regulations, including coming in for applications.
We've actually had a fairly low rate of applications.
We've had, I believe we have approximately 100 applications in play, give or take.
It is starting to tick up because one thing that came up significantly in some of the
public comment was the concern about enforcement. How to enforce limited
vacation rentals. How to ensure that a home stays a homestay. The county board
actually approved two additional code enforcement officer positions in order
to help support enforcement once and now that we have these regulations. So 100
applicants on the inland. Yes, it is growing. It is climbing. Okay. Because I
know I'll just share from the folks I've talked to all but to decided to just
shut down by given the huge barrier to injury.
So I would love to see those numbers.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
At the appropriate time, I have comments.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Preciado.
I just have clarifying questions
and I have comments and motions that I may pursue later,
but I wanted to know from staff,
it seems that there is a variance.
appreciate that each local community local government has the ability to
create from their context and point of view policy recommendations but your
staff recommendation reflects your context which is the state of
California's responsibility and interest in this and how did you change or how
did you see the conditions so different when you look at just two years ago
Malibu or within the last five years the other areas where you considered
different ways of offering regulations for short-term rentals and we use the
pejorative that's being used in this area the commercial short-time rentals
instead of other short-time rentals. How did you decide that this community
I'm trying to understand how you reach the conclusion given past practice of the commission.
Well I wouldn't call it from the start, I wouldn't call it a ban.
I think the way Ms. Butler referenced it this morning earlier in the presentation was there's
still going to be a market, it's just a different kind of market, right?
So the homestays and the limited vacation rentals would be allowed unlimited without
any sort of coastal permit, right?
Really, we keep focusing on this commercial vacation rental, but that's not the only part
of this that is vacation rental.
And then just going back to the questions about our past history, et cetera, I was not
involved with the Malibu one, so I won't speak to that.
But I can say that there's definitely been an arc in front of the commission with respect
to this issue in the way in which communities are addressing it and the way in which the
commission has approached it.
And I would say in more recent times, you're much more likely to see something akin to
what Monterey County is proposing in terms of focusing on individual areas, identifying
certain numbers for those areas, than you are to see kind of what we saw originally,
which were just regulations, a lot of good neighbor regulations in the beginning.
Because I'll do respect, is that speculative on your part?
Are you making an assertion about how the State of California will be managing the short-term
rental industry based on what is your opinion, sir?
I'm not, I'm saying, I'm not observing anything about the State of California.
You're making a claim, though, so I just want to clarify, where are you getting that information?
Sure.
So I'm speaking to the Central Coast District and the North Central Coast District, which
are districts that I supervise, and I'm aware of the arc of the Commission with respect
to short-term rental regulations in that area and they have tended towards something akin
to what Monterey County has done.
I think you heard some folks reference it, is that all you want or?
Oh no, keep going, I'm listening to you but I have one more question.
Okay, I think you heard some folks reference the Marin County short-term rental regulations
which happened fairly recently within the last year or so I'd say, which was really
a lot focused on this similar kind of idea, looking at those individual communities, what
made sense for those individual communities, and then each one of them had their own prescription.
And that is much more the trend now, and so much more specific to that area what they
think is appropriate.
And I think you've definitely seen that arc has included a lot of deference from this
commission to local city councils and local boards of supervisors in terms of the process.
heard about a 15-year process here, that seems like a long time. That's not a long time.
These kind of processes are taking very, very long, and they're super-duper contentious.
And so there's been that deference to that process where they found a balance. And so
I'm not speaking to the state of California. I'm speaking to the areas that I've been involved
in. And so hopefully that helps to answer your question.
So I want to be respectful of staff, but he just commented publicly that he wasn't here
two years ago or he wasn't responsible for what
the commission did two years ago.
So I'm wondering if the executive director can
comment on what is our approach with short term
rentals and how have we used policy in the past
as a commission prior to the two years that is being
that was referenced by staff.
How does the staff approach this?
Because I know I'm familiar with projects in my postal area
that we're holding sacrosanct access and economical access
to development.
And so I'm trying to understand how this varies
with the different kinds of options.
Are we committed to access everywhere?
Or are we limiting access or, and by the way,
the industry, according to their belief,
is that by enhancing or expanding the so-called hosted hand,
you're basically creating a ban, a default ban.
It may not be characterized that way,
but so I'm just trying to see if the executive director
can comment on past practice of the commission
and go and explain since the staff member only
has two years of experience.
So just for the record, Dan Carl's
been with the commission for 32 years.
He has a lot of experience.
But his districts are north central and central coast.
And that's what he was his experiences in those areas.
However, to your question, commissioner,
I think what Dan was saying about an ARC is definitely true.
As staff, we look at each case individually, case by case.
We want to hear from the local governments and communities.
They know these areas better than we do,
and so we use the data they provide to us,
and we make a determination on a recommendation to you all.
But the commission is the decision-making body here,
and so we take direction from the commission.
And the ARC that Dan was speaking of
is one that the commission has created over time,
and we are in partnership with you responding to that.
So I just want to make that very clear.
But again, there is new information available all the time
related to this topic, and so we take that in as it comes.
And some of the discussions related to the effect
of the short-term rentals on access
and on community character and other types of issues
that come up, there's new information all the time on that.
And so we bring that in, we look at what's in front of us,
and we make our best recommendation
for that particular case.
And again, this, there has been an evolution
about how the commission has chosen
to work through these things based on new information
and then new thinking or new ways of looking at the impacts.
So I think, you made one comment about how we view access
and access is, it is one of the main,
it is one of the main tenets of the Coastal Act.
So it's something we think about deeply all the time.
And there's no one way to describe what access is.
It looks different and it comes in a multitude of ways
in every community.
And so this is, we really try to dig into each,
in this case for these types of LCP amendments
with each community and understand what are the constraints,
what are the opportunities in each place,
and then maximize access through that.
And in all the ways that we can do that.
So that's just as a little bit of a high level background
how we approach these things, but we're very, you know, obviously interested to hear how
you all are thinking about this particular CPMM, but also in general, on short-term rentals
and how we should be looking at those things.
I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions at this time, but I hope I do get a chance
to speak again when I'm not asking clarifying questions.
Thank you so much.
Certainly.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Hochberg.
Mr. Carl is an immense immense wealth of knowledge who has been with the
Commission for many many years 32 years I'm being told up here and I don't want
to give away your age but we are incredibly grateful for all you do and
appreciate the probing questions important conversation that we're having
up here so I will Commissioner Wilson questions well there's a just it will
get into that discussion around the arc of the discussion there the Commission
on this issue short-term rentals as well access but I have a couple questions
around the what you're saying well I think what I heard you say you can come
up because I want you to answer your questions yeah I can't remember what
your name is right now correct thank you so what you're saying is that that most
of the or most of the short-term rentals currently operating in the Coastal Zone
don't have a permit to do that and aren't zoned to do that in particular so
really they're non conforming uses within the within that with wherever they
are right now so they're really operating technically from as a it's a
code violation currently, right?
That's the way it was for us.
I'm just gonna say, so in our county,
but that's technically what it is.
Yeah, it's a complicated answer,
but we have not given-
Oh, it's not that complicated, really.
Right, well, they're not in violation
because of our essentially estoppel letter,
we call it, it is a settlement over a legal challenge.
Okay, okay.
We have said we are not enforcing,
but they have not gotten a permit or a license or a permission.
To, because they're, because it's not enumerated in your land use code right now, so it's basically
commercializing a residential use without a permit or a license.
Correct.
Got it.
Okay.
So, and that could be any, I mean, so, you know, any house could be converted into a
dentist or any other business but in this case it's okay to convert it into
basically a you know a one-unit hotel for a change in use yeah of a
residential structure yeah it may require coastal development okay okay the
TOT part of this is the TOT being submitted directly to the county or
through the through the through like Airbnb or one of these other hosting
platforms. I believe it's submitted directly to our treasurer tax collector
at the cabin. So they don't do it through they don't do it both ways. Well in our
experience if it comes through one of the hosted platforms we don't get any
information as to actually who pays it and who doesn't pay it. So we just have
trust that that happens. That was one of the the pieces of information we had a
hard time getting as well. Right. Just the nature of taxes. And there was no
accounting so we didn't even know if we were getting the same amount of money
that they were paying to taxes that were coming to us. There was the Airbnb and
VRBO did not offer any accounting for that and probably still don't I would
imagine is that they yes one of the difficult things that we encountered and
trying to find the data was we actually didn't keep record or track of the
difference between what was collected as part of a vacation vacation rental TOT
rate and what was collected as part of a traditional hotel motel operation TOT
So there wasn't a way to separate out that information.
Yeah.
If I may, the one thing we did with these new regulations, we did work closely with the
treasurer tax collector and we did establish a very low cost, but business license.
So that the treasurer tax collector can track hotels, vacation rentals and others to be
able to track that revenue.
We also included provisions in our regulations
that require the hosting platforms
to work with our agency and with the county
to provide information on basically providing information
of who is advertising and operating within the county
and also to ensure that they're advertising
and operating with proper permits and licensing.
So we are also trying to work with those platforms as well.
Some of the platforms have started to provide us
with that information, and we haven't quite
gotten there with all.
Yeah, starting to, but they still
haven't, for us anyway, in our county, provided the money part.
They give money, but we don't know where it comes from
specifically.
So a question, well, actually, I just want to,
the question I have is, the fact that you did an EIR, I think,
is great and amazing.
And for me, there was a lot of discussion here today
around all these different areas.
But really North County was kind of really stuck out to me because it's the only place
we were talking about 150% increase in STRs.
And so I guess I read in here about how some of the justification for that.
But I mean if you were to do an EIR for just North County and you said and say the project
was proposed as we're going to build a hotel
and we're going to remove 100 homes, which is, you know,
that analysis would be pretty significantly different
than the analysis that is in what we're seeing here today,
which is that there's nothing.
Right?
You see what I'm saying?
This is the problem with the sort of STRs and sort
of the slow boil that we've got to come into,
is that we're eliminating housing.
And I understand that it's not our space,
our place for our standard of review
is not around housing specifically.
But when we change communities significantly
around the character of the community,
and what I mean by that is when you
remove the working people that are within these communities,
That's actually part of what people visit and see,
and I don't want to put those of us who are working people
in coastal communities in this place where we're like a zoo.
But what I mean to that is that the character of that space
matters.
And when I think of the city of Trinidad,
in my community, which exploded into a 25% STR rate,
the number of surfers with flip-flops walking down
the street and the fishermen that lived in the, you know, that changed really dramatically.
And so that space is very different now.
And so my concern in relation to North County is that any time that you have a cap of STRs
that's above the existing amount means that probably almost every sale of a property is
They're accounting for the capacity to convert to a commercial enterprise in the price.
And then that raises the property values in a way that makes it unsustainable for the
people who exist there or to move in there to do that.
And we even had testimony today around someone saying, like, hey, I bought a place, but I
can't afford to live there because I have to commercialize it in order to get it to
where I need it to be.
So I guess for me, that's why I'm most concerned with the community and the character under
section 3012, I can't remember what section is that we have within the Coastal Act, that
we're supposed to have, you know, we need to take that into consideration.
So I was just kind of wondering, like, why did this all kind of focus, why the kind of
the explosion and whatever, you know, the increase in STR has occurred in North County
as opposed to the other places.
Thanks.
And our director Spencer can add to this, but I've been involved in this for the better
part of 10 years, both as a staff for five years on the planning commission and now as
a county supervisor.
And in terms of what Commissioner Wilson you're asking, what we have right now is a free for
all with no regulations.
And what we will have when we have regulations is the opportunity to assess the concerns
that you have in real time and the reason most of the county is opened up
for short-term rentals in Monterey County is when we were working with
entities like the California Coastal Commission literally hand-in-glove
giving our staff feedback throughout all of these years we knew that it was a
priority of the California Coastal Commission to have short-term rentals so
So what we're trying to do is come up with a proposal with an ordinance that allows short-term
rentals but allows us to regulate something that's been completely unregulated.
It allows us to enforce where there are problems in ways that we could not enforce before.
And so there is going to be some discretion.
That's why it's a coastal development permit.
And that discretion will allow for us to assess in real time.
Is there a concentration of short-term rentals in this one area?
Is there too many short-term rentals on this one street, right?
If there's too much density, that's discretion that the county will have in issuing a permit.
But right now, none of that exists.
So Craig may want to add, but I just wanted to reiterate the part that this has been hand
in glove with the California Coastal Commission staff trying to address the fact that short-term
Rentals are a priority and in terms of a use that has been supported over the years by the California Coastal Commission
There are many people that you heard from today many in my district who do not want to see short-term rentals
But we're trying to come up with a way to allow for short-term rentals throughout the coastal zone
whether it's in the form of a homestay a
Limited vacation rental or in most of the areas which includes the north coast at that potential
It doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it's a potential that could exist up to the four percent cap.
Appreciate that response.
And before I close out, I just want to speak just a second to the to the arc that was discussed earlier and sort of understanding.
Again, the standard of review for us is not housing.
But I will tell you, the political pressure
on this commission around housing has been extreme.
And you can see it in the legislature
through the bills that are hammering through the thing.
And the perception that this commission is not
friendly to housing, which I think is just absolutely crazy.
But it is around an arc.
And if it's not about just building housing,
there's also the preservation of housing.
Because if you can't, if you remove hundreds of units,
now you want to try to rebuild those hundreds of units
in the form of affordable housing.
It costs you half a million dollars per unit.
Your TOT, you could spend all your TOT for 100 years,
and you still wouldn't even get close
to the replacement value of that in terms of the loss of housing
within your community.
And yet, when the grander politics of this construct,
you know what we're talking about here,
I just want to speak to that we feel that.
That's all I'm saying.
It's like we don't use that in our standard of review
for discussion, but I just think it shouldn't be so hidden away
and sort of like that it's not relevant in this case,
because if we're, it's just, it has relevancy.
Again, my nexus and the nexus have always thought
about this, how it changes the communities, right?
And the people that are in it and whether or not you,
that community is vibrant and authentic.
And whether, so if you were losing housing,
we're losing authenticity within these coastal communities,
whether you can even get people to be on city council
volunteer for the fire department or all the other things that make them cool and interesting
for people to visit, right?
That is very, very important.
And we're trying to mitigate both those changes and then also this access at the same time.
So thank you for letting me kind of like vent a little bit about that because when I first
got on this commission in 2019, the conversation was very different.
It was not just different at the commission.
It was different at the state level as well.
It's different.
It was different.
We weren't interviewed.
I wasn't interviewed about housing or the impacts of housing
to be on this commission.
But certainly, it's something that's in our lexicon now.
And so that was it.
I just wanted to give context to some of this discussion
because I just didn't think it should be under the table.
So thank you.
Vice Chair Hart, thanks so much.
I'm hoping to get away a little bit from the generalities
and I want to zero in on the two areas.
I'm gonna go to staff on this.
I'll let you know.
Thanks, Mr. Spencer.
If I have any questions, I'll let you know.
So let me turn to staff on this
because I know that the staff struggled with this
the same way the community struggled with it.
It's hard to look at a reduction.
Let's talk about Big Sur from current 37 to zero.
And we have not seen any community and in Carmel Highlands
to go to zero.
It's not really zero though,
because they're allowing three per year
in a sort of unregulated way, I believe, you know.
I'm unclear, Dan, can you just tell me?
Without a coastal permit.
So it'd still be subject to the licensing and all that.
Okay, still be subject to getting a license,
but not the expensive CDP process or anything like that.
And it can be up to how long each time?
Up to 30 days.
Okay, so three times per year up to 30 days.
So that's 90 days of potential renting then for Big Sur.
So I just wanna clarify because I think it's a little jarring
for everyone when you see the numbers,
when you see zero, it's not zero
because I am concerned about Big Sur.
I love Big Sur, I go there a lot.
I'm usually camping, and you know, just,
I checked to see what the camping situation is.
For example, if I wanted to camp there now,
and it was actually better than I thought.
There's no campsites available now, as you can imagine,
but within a week, you know, if you plan ahead,
you could go to Pfeiffer.
In Ventana, I know they have that campground there,
and it's not too bad, it's $80.
That's a really good development,
and that's the kind of thing I would love to see more of.
like it would be great if Post Ranch would take that example
and develop a campground because it's just been so beautiful.
It's been a great thing and a great way
for people to access the coast.
But I am very concerned because it's so expensive down there.
The hotels, they're stratospheric, you know, really,
to spend a night in a hotel room
in the few hotels that are down there.
I was trying to figure out what's the,
where are the less expensive rooms?
No, no, in Big Sur.
I'm talking about in Big Sur.
So we don't need to get into it.
But I just think it's important as we discuss this
to recognize that no, we're not talking
about a complete cutoff, that there is an opening here,
both here and in Carmel Highlands.
And you know, I've gone back and forth on this
because in Carmel Highlands, for example,
the reason, the rationale for going to zero
is because of the domestic water issues,
the septic system issues.
But of course, to get a commercial vacation rentals
under your new proposal, you would have to prove
that all of that is resolved, is that, that's correct.
It's in the report, I assume it's correct.
Yeah, you would have set.
So I'm, the rationale is not really working for me
on Carmel Highlands.
However, what does work for me is years and years
and years of community process and community input.
And I really respect the people that live in an area
developing a plan that they feel comfortable with.
With regard to the woman that spoke, that lived in Big Sur,
and it was a little unclear to me
because she was sort of breaking up,
but it sounds like for someone like that,
and then the people have a vacation rental on that property,
would that be considered owner,
would that be considered hosted?
It sounded like she lived there or the owner lived there,
but that the rental was a separate place.
We don't know all the circumstances associated with that,
But it sure sounded like it would fall into the unhosted,
the commercial bid.
Oh, you think it would?
Well, it's hard to say, honestly.
Yeah, look, I think it's a tough situation
that you all are dealing with.
Big Sur's such a unique place.
The housing crisis there, I can't,
I'm sure nobody that works there,
barely anybody can afford to live there.
And then that drive, it's really a lot.
Bridges falling down, they got all sorts of problems
getting to work.
I think anything that can be done
to deal with the workforce housing thing,
which I know is a priority for you all
and went into your thinking on this.
So at the end of the day,
I think when you really look at the underlying possibility
for people up to 90 days without getting a CDP,
the commercial license is so difficult to get.
I don't see a lot of North County people getting that frankly.
I just think it's, I find that hard to believe,
I just don't think that's gonna happen.
So I guess what I'm getting at here is,
it's a very, very complicated and difficult process
you've been through, but I don't think it's as,
that's what I'm looking for.
I think that people will have an opportunity
to utilize their places for vacation rentals
in the Big Sur area in Incar Mill Highlands
in a way that I think is reasonable.
So for me, this very, very tough plan,
I feel, you know, should be supported.
Thank you.
I just.
Commissioner Lopez.
If I could respond to that one piece about the three for 30,
the reason that set up and Mr. Spencer talked about it
in his comments is really for large weekends,
like the one we're gonna experience this weekend,
which is car week, right?
It's not three times you get to rent it
for 40, or let's say nine different folks
over a 30 day period.
It's three rentals for up to 30 days each time
because those folks need time to come in,
clean out the house, bring in the Bentley's
and the McLaren's and set up the front yard for a show,
right?
So they're one time rentals to these large folks
who come in and take care of that.
I don't know that it's what you're thinking
in terms of somebody in Big Sur is gonna say,
hey, this weekend we're gonna go away
rent it to somebody for a month, right? It's not, that's not the way it was
imagined and created when we discussed it at the board of supes. And so I know
that there'll be different folks who decide how to try to use that language
to meet their need, but really it was set up for those large-scale events that
happened with the pro and the car week and then some years we get the US Open.
So those were your three big events. Thanks so much Commissioner and I'm really
interested to hear your comments because I know that you've dealt with this
extensively and you know have a strong position I guess the way I was looking
at it there's a couple things I was thinking about in Big Sur thing thing
the one I was thinking as well if you have a large house and say you have an
estate or something a lot of these people are renting these large houses
then hire somebody to stay there while you're renting it out you know a lot of
these people have ADUs whatever so that's an option for these large
vacation rentals but I was thinking for example in Big Sur say you want you
could rent three times you could leave for a month if you need to make money
off your vacation rental you could rent it be gone for 30 days three times a
year and give people an opportunity to enjoy the coast even if it's two weeks
it's not traditional vacation rentals but that's just not working it seems to
me for the Big Sur community so but I'm very interested to hear your feedback
back on this whole plan. Commissioner Jackson. Thank you madam chair. Thank you
to all the speakers today. There's passion obviously on both sides. Thank
you staff. I know you guys have worked tirelessly on this as well as the
Monterey County folks. So you know nothing that comes before us is easy
right and if it were easy we wouldn't need to be here. So there's no disputing
that short-term rentals are here to stay. They are part of today's travel landscape for some
visitors as we know they offer an affordable option making it possible for folks to enjoy
the coastal communities they might otherwise not be able to enjoy. But we know also that you know
a lot of these properties are $20,000 a night and so you know I will put affordable in quotes there.
You know, but as we've heard, at this time, the growth brings challenges for municipalities,
especially in high demand areas where neighborhoods, as my colleague talked about, feel the effects
of frequent visitors and it impacts community character.
That's why it's important for municipalities to have some flexibility in trying to determine
where the short-term rentals can operate,
how many there should be,
and the conditions that best fit that community standard.
We talked about that, and I think that is imperative,
and I think when we talk about the YARCC,
that's what we're talking about.
I think a balanced approach,
which is something we're looking at here,
can preserve the economic benefits of short-term rentals,
maintain community character, and that's important.
But I have some concerns.
I'm OK with the 4%.
I think what you've proposed here is a start,
as you all have mentioned.
It may not be perfect, but I don't
think we should let perfect be the enemy of good.
And to continue to do nothing, which
is so often what paralyzes so many of us, is we do nothing.
There'll be growing pains.
Some people will be happy.
Some people will not be happy.
That's government.
That's the way it, but we figure it out.
And I think this is a good start point to figure it out.
I had some specific questions
and my colleague mentioned the enforcement piece.
Home stays.
Home stays are unlimited.
I don't know what that means.
I understand what it means theoretically,
but if I'm registering my property,
and I go on Airbnb and say it's a homestay,
what does that mean for you all?
And then how is it reconciled with the platform
that it is a homestay versus, you know, an LLC,
and the whole was the natural owner.
I'm still not sure what that means.
And because I don't know what that means
because if I go online and register my property on Airbnb
there's nothing that goes to the city
that says Ray Jackson has registered this property
on Airbnb, right?
So then you've got to figure out code enforcement
all of that. So help me explain help me understand how that you think that all
is going to work. Commissioner Jackson may ask are you directing that question
specifically to the county? Yes. Identify that. Public hearings closed so I want to
make sure we yeah yeah I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner. Very good
question. Home stays with natural person residents means essentially that you
you can't have someone occupy the property on your behalf and then call it a hosted stay,
first of all. But then, it is a place of residence where someone lives and rents out rooms within
their home and of two visitors. Often you'll see kind of a upper level, lower level split
kind of situation where an owner host will live in one part of the house and
the guests will live in another. That is unlimited in terms of it is not a zero
in any area within our county. It's allowed in every area without a coastal
development permit and it's not limited in the number of times you can do those
short-term rentals per year or per any given amount of time. So if you are
living in a home and you rent out rooms within your home and you advertise it on
a short-term rental host site as a hosted stay and you're licensed with us,
we'll ensure that that matches. We have it licensed as a home stay.
online whoever platform you use says it's a hosted vacation rental it's
available certain rooms are available within that hosted vacation rental then
it's really enforcement is really only if we get complaints or if we do a
random inspection through our so every every hosted vacation stay requires a
It requires a license, a registration, a registration.
Alright, so everyone has to get, everyone who operates a short-term rental has to go
through the licensing process.
Yes.
Okay.
And so I say it's hosted, you don't really know whether it's hosted or not.
I advertise it, you collect the TOT, if you, if, but if I don't license it, if I don't
get any if I don't go to the city you don't know what I'm operating you play
you've got your code enforcement and yeah you know we have a host compliance
enforcement capabilities so we are monitoring who's who's advertising on
those hosting websites the VRBOs or Airbnb those host of hosted websites
we're monitoring who's advertising for vacation rentals on those websites and I
I guess I understand the intent of the hosted stays but hosted stays unlimited versus hosted
very restrictive versus unhosted, very restricted.
I'm having a tough time with that because I think at the end of the day, you know, I
now obviously your enforcement pieces, you'll figure that out, but I guess I'm having a
have time with that within my own mind. So for hosted vacation rentals a lot of
the discussion was around someone is on-site and is responsive which means
often less risk of noise and you know neighbor type complaints. It also means
that someone lives in the house and it's not something that is sort of a
commercial operation without someone being present. No I understand, okay in
theory. I'm gonna add one more point that it is, and this comes from the years of
discussion that was had with the community, is it also retains a resident
in a home versus fully removing residents from a house to make it a
short-term rental. So we heard from many people who said, look I have this home
but this is how I'm staying in this home,
is being able to rent the short term rental.
And so the hosted, all the things that Mr. Spencer said
in terms of having someone on site
so you don't have all the noise complaints
and the party house and all of those side effects,
but you also keep a resident in a home
and that was a real priority.
And then I wanna add is that we have found
so many people thought they were a commercial
vacation rental because they were renting say a guest house with privileges in their kitchen or whatnot and found in
This process that they are actually a homestay. So I think you you heard
you heard
About the like the large how many how many of the operating short-term rentals were commercial today?
But that was anecdotal that was not based in fact
And what we are finding is that people are coming forward and applying inland for a homestay
that thought they were operating a commercial vacation rental before I
appreciate that and the CDP requirement for North that obviously is going to
deter a lot of folks that is a pretty it's a high hurdle in terms of the
application fees and the process right it is and was there any thought of
licensing slash permitting versus the heavy lift of a CDP?
There was quite a bit of thought and debate and disagreement about all of that, yes.
We established things that we thought were both not detrimental to a neighborhood or
housing stock like homestays, like your limited vacation rentals. We wanted to
make those easier. We didn't want to put that restriction in place. For the
commercial vacation rentals, the decision was made to keep some discretion on how
many in which areas, in which neighborhoods, in which circumstances, in
which cases, and a lot of the various factors that for actually many years in
in the inland area, our planning commission
and board have grappled with.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Go ahead.
And I just briefly add on process.
Just on process.
So calling into CDP, it is a coastal development permit.
We're doing our use permits on the inland.
However, because there is not new construction happening,
the process is significantly truncated.
We've also made them so that they are,
can maybe be approved by our zoning administrator.
They do not have to go to the planning commission.
I do wanna separate cost from process.
The discretionary process for changing a use
to this type of use in a residential,
that's what was deemed appropriate.
The cost and the fees that were set by our board
are for the coastal development permit.
That is a discretionary decision by our board
that could get revisited if it continues
to prove as a barrier for individuals.
there was a suggestion from the fees perspective
for the licensing process to come back
and have that be especially renewables
be significantly less expensive
so that it was less of a barrier.
So I think I just wanted to reiterate
the process is not the same as what you think of
as a laborious coastal development permit.
I think a lot of the contention
and a lot of what individuals want to appeal
is because we have no regulations
and no ability to enforce what is happening at the time.
And if we don't have the chance to start rolling it out,
we can't come back and report to our board
on how it's going and where we might need to refine
as we discover how it does and does not work
to balance those needs.
Thank you.
And again, thank you for your willingness to start
to put a mark on the wall and say,
hey, let's start here and then adjust as needed going.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Lopez.
So I wanna share in full transparency,
This ordinance passed our board on a three-two.
And I was in the two,
I was in the minority on this full transparency.
And as I've gone through this process,
I've tried to remove my hat as a supervisor
and really only focus through the lens
as a coastal commissioner on the issues that are before us
and the questions that we have to ask ourselves
in carrying out the coastal line.
Looking at all the work before us,
I want to share that there's things
that still stand out to me,
most of which have already been called out
by each one of you, in your line of questioning
about our process, right?
The high barrier in the fees, we just updated those
this last Tuesday to an extent and I had voted against them
again, right on a four one at that time.
And it's that concern for me in terms of making sure
that families who live on the inland get that chance
to visit the coast.
That access piece that I talked so heavily about
when I was interviewed for this particular seat,
when I was asked about why I was interested
in representing Inland, California on this seat.
This is one of those moments for me,
outside of my role as a supervisor,
but in my role as a commissioner,
I have to speak up for those families
who are trying to access all parts of the coast.
At the same time, knowing the communities
that I know so well, having spent so much time on the coast,
I see the concerns around specifically big survey.
And their LUP is clear about a restriction
on a number of units, a restriction on what they can
and cannot take in terms of capacity,
given the conditions of those roads.
They're not paved roads, they're not paved driveways.
It's a really interesting, raw and rural place,
and that is captured in the LUP in the way
that it's been framed.
But I also can't separate myself from those final moments
on the politics of that last fall,
let's get this done and push it over the line
and just be done with it.
And I don't know that we're done with it
because of some of the pieces.
I'm not asking that we go deep again.
There's pieces that I would like to see us
call out as concerns on the access piece
to have the county address to bring back to us, right?
And some of those include the cost.
That cost of permits, we've heard 11, we've heard 13,
we've heard $20,000 it's somewhere in that spread that is a high number to get
through the door and I don't know that that's fair to all Californians and
especially those who want to visit this very special part of the coast so that
to me is important the caps the numbers I think we agree there's gonna be winners
and losers and I think just having coming back with clarity on that
knowing what that number is across I hear the concerns about North County I
I also hear the concerns about those places where we're already over the numbers.
So I want us to call those out as a concern.
One thing that's important to me and we heard it today in Big Sur was the idea of the ADU
with a resident living in the ADU, a resident, not an owner, not the registered owner.
And she's helping monitor that for the owner and play that role.
As I understand in our ordinance, that would not be allowed.
And that is a concern.
Is that correct or incorrect Melanie?
So in Big Sur, if the case we heard they were living
in an accessory dwelling unit permitted as such
and the main house was being rented
as a commercial vacation rental, that would not be allowed.
In other areas of the county where
commercial vacation rentals are allowed,
that absolutely is allowed.
And that is those caretaker units
that could be a home for someone local,
where then the main house is a commercial vacation rental?
OK.
So that, to me, is a concern that I
want clarified, knowing that we're
seeing it work for communities and creating access
for community and housing at the same time.
And that same question comes up in the instance
that was addressed at our board in a big back and forth
about what if somebody wants to develop the ADU in order
to create that opportunity.
And at the time, the decision was no.
To me, that's an opportunity to have balance,
to bring both to our communities that I would like to see included.
And so on all this, I heard some feelings,
but I don't know that I'm ready to vote yesterday.
And again, if I get overridden, I don't hold bad feelings about that.
I want to be clear.
Even with my colleagues, I know even on a 3-2, I'm good with that.
That's just where I sit today, given this conversation.
And I know that we've been deep, and it's taken a lot of time.
But I'm worried about the question of access
for this very special part of California.
Thank you.
That valuable perspective.
Yep, nice to hear it.
Thanks so much.
I mean, this is kind of what I was getting at.
I think that if you have zero commercial rentals,
and then you say, well, if someone has a property,
let's just call it a one acre property in Big Sur,
and they have a cabin, and they have a house,
And you're saying that the cab,
and you have somebody who's employed
to oversee the property in the cabin,
I think this is what you're getting at, Commissioner,
that you can't, that it doesn't count as a home state.
I disagree with that.
And I'm willing to take that up today.
I feel like we have to be a little more flexible
when you have zero as the number.
So let me talk to the county now.
I don't know if that's supervisor
Or if that's you, Mr. Chair, I don't know.
And I don't know if my colleagues agree with that.
But to me, I think that's a pretty important point.
And the question specifically that you're asking about
is the ADU?
No, I'm specifically asking about how homestays are defined,
which also Commissioner Jackson talked about.
But if you have a property, one property,
and either has an attached ADU or an adjacent ADU,
and somebody is there to oversee their role there
is the same as somebody that's the homeowner.
I'm not sure I see why that wouldn't count as a homestay
if someone is there.
So I'm gonna defer to Melanie,
but I'm gonna just bring the conversation
back to one thing that's really critical
is we're talking about the Big Sur land use plan.
And it's really important that I think
when we're talking about Big Sur
we have this context from the Big Sur land use plan.
So the Big Sur land use plan originally had caretaker units.
Those units were changed in an update to the Big Sur land use plan to become ADUs of which
there are 50.
That is the number of ADUs that are allowed in Big Sur, please correct me if I'm wrong,
but that there are 50 ADUs allowed in Big Sur.
So you really do I think have to understand the context that it's much deeper than a conversation
today perhaps saying can we allow ADUs to be operating like a guest house in other parts
of the county.
Because we do allow a guest house in this ordinance to be like a room in a house.
And you can either rent out the guest house and you're in your main house.
And you can offer some privileges to the kitchen because the guest house doesn't have a kitchen
in it.
It's a guest house.
but it's different from an ADU, which is a standalone home.
Okay, let me take it back to staff
because that's not how we interpret ADUs.
I mean, generally speaking, we have ADUs
that are attached to houses and we debate all the time,
you know, to make sure that they're rented
and available for rental, et cetera.
So I get the sense that Commissioner Lopez
and I are sort of seeing this the same way.
Can you respond to this, how homestay is defined
what we bring forward to include if someone is occupying is on the property
occupying an ADU whether it's attached or not attached what is your feedback
on that? Well currently as proposed as I think you just heard that would be
considered that wouldn't be considered a homestay as the way that the county has
defined it that would be and if it were more than three times and more than the
90 days or the 30 30 days each time that would be a commercial rental and so I
think what you're asking is could it be changed in certain circumstances that
the homestay definition could include if you had an ADU and you had another main
unit on the house or on the property could a homestay by definition allow
for that essentially and so that would be called a homestay as opposed to a
commercial rental currently as it's proposed that's a commercial and you
know more than three times that's a commercial rental and just one point of
clarification about Big Sur ADUs the county just recently adopted a new ADU
ordinance that eliminates the 50 unit cap it's it's actually pending with us
now we hope to bring it to the Commission in the near term future but I
just wanted to identify that so you're aware. Yeah I mean to me it's a great
opportunity. I mean, you know, again, I don't want to be in a position of overruling the
local community, but we have a leader of the local community, luckily, on our commission
that's indicated that this is something that's of great interest, it sounds like, to him,
and I agree. So I'm turning to staff to say, is that unreasonable? Is that something that
we could propose or how could and I don't know if I have a majority here on
that topic but anyway I'm just hoping to get some kind of response of that
something we could pursue here I mean there there are obviously ways of doing
it and if you were focused on the areas that have zero for the commercial right
and the Carmel Highlands a big sir you could focus it or limit it to those areas
for this special thing I mean essentially you're you would be changing
what the what the county's you know what they're proposing so that would require
mods but I think we understand what you're getting at if that's the will of
the Commission we could you know figure out a way to get there. Well it sounds
like two of us feel that way I think it's something that we have to get a
sense of the Commission. I'm gonna jump in with a question here if you don't
mind and I want to just drill down a little bit on this distinction between
ADUs and guest houses and I'm gonna direct this to staff to start I think
Can you talk to me a little bit about conceptually why one would consider a guest house that
is not a stand-alone unit, theoretically, separately from an ADU?
And I'm primarily thinking about the various streamlining ADU laws that are in place that
conceptualize ADUs as separate homes, as opposed, I think, to a guest house, which, and I'm
asking this as a question, do not have the same sort of streamlining rules and approaches
around them?
So, I'll start and then I'm going to hand it to Katie because I think she knows more
about the distinctions between the types of units, particularly in VIXER, but yeah, there
are certain streamlining measures that are associated with recent changes in state law,
basically exempting ADUs so long as, and those exempted ADUs aren't allowed to be used for
for short-term rental by state law.
But others, other ADUs that may have been created
under other processes, they're not necessarily prohibited
from being used for short-term rentals
in the same sort of way.
I'm not sure you're asking exactly that question
and I'll turn it over to Ms. Budler
with respect to guest houses and that sort of thing.
But I do know that the county, some not that long ago,
did the process that Supervisor Daniels talked about
and everything, not everything,
most things were converted to being called ADUs,
but I'll turn it over to Ms. Butler now.
I may need to defer to the county staff on this,
but I believe that guest houses do not have kitchens.
That's by definition.
The units that were previously considered caretaker units
are now considered ADUs.
I'm happy to jump in.
So for a long time,
the county had essentially three types
habitable accessory structures, a caretaker unit, a senior citizen unit, and a guest house.
The guest house is the one that wasn't allowed to have a kitchen. It was essentially a detached
bedroom, and it wasn't supposed to be rented separately from the main house. The other two
were separate units. State law changed and said, you can't really have senior units. It's based on
and then ADU law came along. We revised our LCP to say caretaker units, senior
citizen units, whatever we permitted in that respect is now an ADU and we put in
regulations for new ADUs and conversion of existing structures including guest
houses to make it easy to put in a kitchen in a guest house to make it an
So there are still remnants of our past permitting practices and zoning code, but that's kind of the difference.
All three of their caretaker, senior units and ADUs all separate rental units, fully contained kitchen,
cooking facility for a family and the guest house was not no kitchen.
Thank you. So I think there are a few people who want to comment.
I'll ask if someone has a question or comment about this specific issue um
Commissioner Jackson, thank you madam chair. So just to be clear the three
Units that are now 80 years
Are those under the new, California?
provisions that
Do not permit those to be rent obsessed TRS or those?
previous to the changes they've got with regard to ADUs?
Is the SB9, SB10, I believe it is?
Yeah, so they are considered ADUs now.
And except for caretaker units in commercial zones,
where you actually have someone living
on a commercial property to care for a commercial property,
we kept caretaker specifically for those kind
Commercial opportunities, so that's a little bit unique
But all of the all of the second structures accessory structures are now
considered a to use so
Some of those units could be rented
Sorry that that was what I was saying based on the way
State law works so the count just to be clear though. The county is proposing that ADUs aren't allowed to be used for actual things
Commission they are all ADUs now. Thank you guest houses are not
Right
Commissioner Kelly then Commissioner Wilson
I I just want to kind of comment maybe in a different context about this particular issue regarding accessory dwelling structures or accessory structures
that may or may not be defined as an ADU, but that are habitable for an overnight guest.
Meaning there is a bedroom, someone could sleep in it, but they may or may not be able
to live in it long-term because it may not have a kitchen or it may not have laundry
or, you know, but, or it may.
A number of unincorporated areas in Sonoma County where I live, where I was a planning
commissioner have the same particular issue.
Many and a lot of rural areas in the state have the same issue because of specific limitation
on resources, whether it's a septic issue
or an access issue, roads that are single lane,
gravel roads, where it was determined at some point
in time that adding more density for more people
to be living on site was not cohesive
with whatever the resource limitations were on this site.
Now whether that was nimbyism masquerading
as environmental protections or whether that was actually
reality of the local context, I want to just bring us back to the issue here is that we're
looking at very specific, you know, kind of like dissected areas of this county based
on a decade of a process that has happened at the local level with local expertise and
residents participating and that this entire region has a bunch of nuances to it just like
so many other regions along the coast and across the state.
And so I think there are avenues by which we've seen these accessory structures turned
into habitable units with kitchens and laundry or whatever you might need to live there full
time.
And then there are others that were built or permitted or not permitted in a way that
really is just a place to rest your head temporarily or otherwise.
And I think that there is so much nuance to how these exist just at baseline, and then
so much nuance to how they should be treated for the purposes of making money to rent your
place to guests, that there are really specific issues that are on a case by case or a region
by region that I think we should give deference to the local jurisdiction here because they
They have spent years working on getting to this point.
I agree that the hosted rental contacts
as it relates to organizations that do rentals,
many of which we've talked about today,
the companies that do this work,
they treat hosted and unhosted differently.
And I believe many jurisdictions treat hosted
and unhosted differently in part because of the impacts
the neighboring communities and on the impacts of access and otherwise. And so I
think the definitions as whether it's Airbnb or others have created this
hosted rental or homestay definition. Sonoma County also has homestays. We
also have hosted rentals and we also have unhosted rentals and many of which
are prohibited in certain areas for certain reasons. And so I think that this
issue is going to come up in other places along the coast, it already has,
and we have counties who treat their sub regions differently based on the
natural resource issues, the environmental impact issues, the access
issues, and when I say access I mean fire access, ingress egress, as well as coastal
access for people who want to visit the coastline. And so all of those things to
be said, I think the issues that are being raised are really important ones,
but there's so much specific nuance, two separate accessory units, two hosted
versus unhosted, two is this a commercialization of a property and is
someone living there full-time, is it a renter, is it a homeowner, it is like
mired with a lot of different landmines we're trying to navigate around, while
also ensuring that we're protecting environmental resources on the coast,
protecting access to the coast for everyone in California, and ensuring that
people still have the ability to afford to live in these communities and that
the people who are servicing and supporting this industry of tourism have
a place to live and all of those things on balance are very complicated and I
just wanted to echo that we are trying to not legislate for an entire state and
that's why we have these these local planning efforts and that is why we work
with local partners like the county in this instance and so I don't want to all
all of a sudden look at the whole state
on that every single region is gonna have
the same legislative issues,
but also I wanna make sure that we are incorporating
the feedback and the nuance that's been proposed
by the local jurisdiction here,
because I think they have the level of expertise,
especially within these subregions that we're looking at
in the coastal zone today,
and I wanna give a greater deference
to what we're hearing from them
and the definitions that have been proposed,
because I think there's a reason behind each of those definitions that's pretty specific.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'm ready to make a motion if that's all right.
Okay.
And then just briefly speak to it and we'll just kind of move on here.
So I see the motion and resolution here, is there only one motion or is there more than
one?
And I'm recommending a no vote, is that, do I have that correct?
Yes, it's the double negative.
It's a double negative.
I move that the commission subject okay and okay so motion to certify I move
that the Commission reject oh there it is that's the implementation plan
amendment numbers LCP dash 3 dash mco dash 2 4 dash 0 0 3 9 dash 1 as
submitted by Monterey County and I recommend a no vote if we get a second
second great I know there was some discussion about some potential changes
I want to say I'm probably not inclined so much based on the, but that I think commissioners
should do what they want to do, but just based on the, what was said by Commissioner Kelly,
I think, I want to say like, you know, if it was up to me that there would be changes
I would make to this too, right?
I'm just being really blunt.
I would say no increase in STRs in the community of North
County, specifically for access in relation
to if people want to move to the coast from the inland
to have affordable houses they might buy,
and the impacts that that might have on housing prices.
This is the classic conflict we have,
which is the conflict between access to visit and access
to live.
It's constant in this, it's embedded in so many
of our conversations on this board constantly.
And we're trying to find balance.
I lean more on sort of the access related to,
to places for people to live.
That's just my, and the impacts to that,
and how that creates community in our coastal zones
and as stated in the section that I mentioned before,
but those are the conversations we have.
So, thank you for letting me have that motion
and hopefully we can have something to happen here today.
Thank you.
Commissioner Preciata.
I'm wondering if the appropriate process
is to make friendly, attempt to make friendly amendments
or just go for the jugular and move to-
We make an amendment.
Amending motions.
So, I'll say three things that I'm interested in seeing
and see if any of those three things appear to be friendly.
Maybe the makers of the original motion
can point me in that direction,
because otherwise I'll try to do a substitute motion.
I'm very concerned about the impact
this will have on existing operators.
I believe I was instructed in my first opportunity
be on the commission that zoning processes can be used to change the conditions by which
investors or I'll call them families have a use and now we're saying you can't have
that use because it's taken us 15 years to figure out what we're interested in as a process.
So I'm just very concerned about the inability for us to grandfather folks in and so one
of the things that I'm interested in doing is amending to grandfather current users or
current operators.
That's one concept that I'm playing with.
The second concept is this idea of getting a coastal development permit for an existing
property that's just trying to change its use.
And I've heard 12,000 and I also heard 20,000.
But and then, of course, if it's appealed
and if it's appealed by everyone near you,
I'm just wondering how much that adds to the cost.
So I'm wondering if another condition that could be
considered as a friendly is that for those people applying,
that it be identified as something different
and a conditional, pardon me,
then a coastal development permit that it be
like an operating permit of some sort
for an existing property.
Obviously not for new properties
because those have to go through another process.
But it seems to me that there should be a process
by which existing and submit
and not have to pay $12,000
because it's a streamlined process, right?
It's just a different use of an existing facility.
And the third thing that I am interested in pursuing
conceptually is, so for me, I heard Dr. Hart describe
how camping was a possibility for her, going to Big Sur.
I think that would be impossible for me.
I think it would be impossible for me in many ways
and other members of my family that could join me.
and so I really do see where we're going to zero
as changing access.
I can see having conditions placed on these places
like you will clean out your septic tank every three months
and show proof or whatever appropriate conditions are,
but so those are the three areas where I'm concerned
And I don't know how it would be helpful,
but grandfathering.
Number two, creating a different fee structure
for these places that are not new construction
or new development, they're just change of use.
And then number three, where we are going to zero
to see if we can imagine a new process
that doesn't take us to zero,
but it takes us to something more balanced.
I think that's the word everyone's happy with, balance.
And so I'm wondering if any of those three
can be seen as friendly.
Thank you, Commissioner Presiado.
I'm gonna turn to our council
who I think will help you turn that into a motion.
Yes, I think rather than trying to amend
original motion which is already kind of complicated with the double negative
for example if you were going to make suggested modifications then the
Commission would actually have to vote yes on the motion that Commissioner
Wilson made so that it could reject the implementation plan as submitted and
then make suggested modifications so we would need to know ahead of time
essentially whether suggested modifications are going to happen. So what
What I recommend is that you make an amending motion, and actually, I recommend three different
amending motions, because some commissioners may be supportive of one or two of your suggestions,
but not all three.
So I think it could be, so the first one amending motion that's pretty straightforward would
be to eliminate the requirement for a CDP for operators who are seeking to get commercial
So that is pretty straightforward, I think staff may have some ideas on specific wording
on that.
And then you could also require that the existing operators be allowed to continue operating
for a certain number of years or, you know, have a phase out this is getting to your first
point about the concern about the existing operators.
And then the third one, where you're concerned about getting down to zero, and you're looking
for some balance, I think there needs to be a little more specificity about exactly what
balance you're looking for on that item.
But I see those as three different amending motions so that commissioners can support
each one as they see fit.
Oh, it's still on?
Look at me.
If I leave it on, I'll never mess up, but then it messes everybody else up.
Okay. So let me start with this one. I'm hoping to amend the main motion to add a condition
that existing operators be allowed to continue for seven years. Sounds like a number. I don't
know if there's a second to that motion, then I can speak to it.
I'll second it for you to comment.
The reason I believe in this motion
is when I hear the individuals who
speak about their investments, their private property,
and how they want to continue to use those,
I think what we're passing, the original motion,
if we don't have this kind of amendment,
this creates some significant losers in this process.
And I assume that they've had a lot of space
to give input and feedback in this 15 year process
they've been a part of,
but it just pains me as a councilman,
because I have to also think about what I would do
in my city if I was confronted with this,
that I just don't think the existing investors,
property owners, residents who are choosing
to add this activity to the way they live
or the way they use their property.
So I'm just encouraging to see if we can have,
consider this grandfathering clause to the amendment.
Thank you.
Commissioner Lopez, would you like to speak to the motion?
No, I'm in support of it.
Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Wilson.
Thank you, I think it was clear for my earlier questions where I was going initially and
I was inclined to start making some changes, I thought it might make sense, but I was moved
by Commissioner Kelly's very salient points that it's easy for us to say, well, let's
just grandfather these guys in, well, who are we grandfathering?
There are some that were permanent, some that weren't permanent.
Did they pay their T.O.T.?
Did they not pay their T.O.T.?
Anything we make is bigger than just as it appears.
And so we have to tread lightly.
I think the point that we all understand,
particularly as elected municipal in our respective cities,
these guys have been on the ground for 10 years,
I've been ironing this issue out, and the different reasons, as you know, Commissioner
Lopez, are different, and they have fleshed all these things out.
So it's easy for me to go, well, I don't agree, but I have to give deference to them.
They answer the question satisfactorier, and I think that is critical to our decision-making
today, that while it may not be perfect, and we may not like a certain provision of it,
see where it goes and you know it you can't just say we're gonna grandfather
these people in well who's gonna be grandfather under what conditions I mean
so and and and that goes for all of the other that goes for all of the other
potential amendments that you're considering commissioner so I am a no
on all three thank you Commissioner Jackson are we okay to go to a vote on
this one first motion or commissioner Wilson go ahead yeah I'm no partly
because most of these were done as code violations to begin with and it just
takes you down it takes you down the track of you know it I don't like where
that's going and speaking to Commissioner Jackson's comments thank you
so on the amending motion as made by Commissioner Presiado and seconded
seconded by Commissioner Lopez. I would like to ask for a roll call vote, please.
Chair, if I could just clarify what we mean by grandfathering in this
instance because of some of the issues that those other commissioners are
raising. I really want to be clear about. Can you speak up just a little bit? Thank you.
Excuse me. I want to be really clear about what it is that the Commission is
voting on. Um, so it's to allow existing operators who is there a way for the
county to define. Do they know who those people are? I just want to know what it
is that would be accomplished through this and I maybe we need help from the
county. It's too. So I believe the county could respond. But yes, through
T. O. T. We have those who have paid T. O. T. For years. So it would be those
good standing would have that opportunity to continue to operate to
phase out their operation. Thank you that is very helpful and then also because
this is complicated because we're talking about adding suggested
modifications that I think the way this needs to be framed is that this
amendment would add a suggested modification that would then officially
be adopted when the Commission makes later motions to adopt with suggested
modifications so this is just defining the suggested modification that the
Commission would ultimately adopt in a later motion it's complicated I'd love a
roll call vote on defining the suggested modification that we will then later
adopt thank you okay commissioner Bocco just maybe we should just do straw
votes on these because there's no reason to actually vote vote on them right so
The vote is on whether to allow
existing
STRs that are in good standing with the county that have paid to T to continue to operate as STRs
Okay, thank you. No
For seven years
Batsko, no commissioner Hart
No
Hart, no commissioner Jackson
No
Jackson, no commissioner Kelly. No
Kelly, no commissioner Lopez
Yes. Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Nodhoff. Sorry. Commissioner
Presiado. Yes. Presiado. Yes. Commissioner Wilson. No. Wilson.
No. Chair Harmon. No. No. The vote is two yes six no. Thank
you. Okay to the second amending motion please. So the second
amendment with all your cooperation is this idea of
potentially not requiring a conditional,
pardon me, a coastal development permit,
but creating some sort of a different fee structure
that doesn't charge you $12,000
and make you go through that process.
Staff commented that it would be streamlined already
because it wouldn't be new development.
So I'm just trying to see if that can be calibrated somehow.
I think we may need a bit more specificity.
Mr. Carl.
I'm just going to say if the motion is specifically to omit the CDP requirement, that's fairly
straightforward.
The other process that they have is the licensing process that's not a coastal permit process.
So there's already that quote unquote streamlined process I think that you're talking about.
So then yes, not require a coastal development permit would be my suggestion.
Second.
Any comments to this motion?
Mr. Kelly.
I think given the role of the Coastal Commission
and needing to evaluate impacts on coastal resources
or the challenges that we're trying to create balance on
for the purview of the commission,
I'm concerned about what potential impacts there may be
for certain uses.
For some vacation rentals, again,
there may be minimal impact,
and that's what you evaluate in a CDP,
but for others there may be massive impacts
on coastal resources and things
that we are tasked with needing to protect.
And so I think without an avenue to evaluate those
within the purview of the commission
and our staff and their expertise,
I have concerns, I've seen the degradation
of sensitive environmental resources
that we are tasked with protecting.
So to not have that process and to just do like a ministerial process where we're like here's your permit. I think that then kind of opens up the door for for potential impacts on coastal resources that I worry I don't know how we would be able to appropriately evaluate those impacts but for that process.
So because of that I'm a no vote on this motion.
Yes. Roll the vote please.
And this is moved by presidio and seconded by Lopez correct. Yes. Thank you
commissioner Hart
No
Hart no Commissioner Jackson. No
Jackson, no Commissioner Kelly. No
Kelly no Commissioner Lopez. Yes
Lopez. Yes, Commissioner presidio
Yes
Presidio. Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Yeah
Wilson, no Commissioner botchko. No, no
bachco no chair harman yes harman yes the vote is three yes five no okay to the third bucket
so my last amendment was associated with this going to zero in the two areas the carmel and
the big city carmel mountain carmel highlands look at that and uh the big sewer area so going from
existing activity to no activity, I thought was too much.
I was proposing that we consider balance.
I don't know if balance is 50%, but I did think
that it was too dramatic to go to zero,
especially when you have existing uses.
And I wasn't convinced that you couldn't monitor
For example, the use of the septic systems to mitigate.
So that's my point.
I think you were out, Dr. Hart, but camping for me is not a possibility.
Oh, I'll wait and see.
So I was just going to comment that big sewer has many amenities, many possibilities,
Camping would not be an option
for someone like me because of my mobility issues.
And so I think not every resource
that's available in Big Sur would continue
to be available or is available to all of us to use.
And it just seems that going from
the existing number to zero is too dramatic.
And that's why I'm making the point.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Unless you have specific suggestions here,
I'm gonna suggest that you actually consider voting yes
on the underlying motion.
I think that's...
I have a recommendation in terms of this specific issue,
Commissioner Preciado is trying to address here,
picking up on what Vice Chair Hart
and Commissioner Lopez talked about earlier.
One way to avoid going down to zero
in Carmel Highlands and Big Sur
would be to allow ADUs to be used for permanent residence and having an STR in the home associated
with that ADU or I think that was the direction they were going in so that would be one way
to address your concern about not going down to zero and creating some balance.
I don't know if that's what you had in mind.
Maybe commissioner I could tell you what my amending motion reads like and what I think
impact would be and see if that resolves any of your concerns. I will withdraw my
motion at this point if my seconder agrees because I don't think a motion's
been made yet so let's go to Commissioner Hart and see if that speaks to your
concern. Okay so my motion following up on my comments earlier is as follows
that hosted rentals in Big Sur and Carmel Highland areas would be defined as
as including the presence of a homeowner
or equivalent caretaker on the property.
And I think it's pretty clear that that means
if they're on the property in an ADU,
if they're on the property.
Is that clear enough in your opinion, Dan?
Or does it need-
Yeah, no, I think that that's accurate.
I think that reflects what you had suggested before.
Exactly.
Okay, so that's my motion.
Can I ask a question?
Yes, Commissioner Wilson, then Commissioner Bacheco.
Just clarifying, so then it would have to be
the primary residence of the caretaker, correct?
That's correct. So we could include that in the motion. Right. So have a primary resident of the care. You know it can be a resident or the caretaker. Right. Living there full time as their primary residents which is part of the.
Hosted. I hear you. I'm not sure I agree with it but I. OK. I just wanted to clarify. OK. So that's my motion. So I don't know. Commissioner Bacheco has a question. Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you Madam Chair.
So as you pointed out Dr. Hart, it really isn't zero because there are the 90 days running
off for 30 days for 20 grand a month or whatever it is.
So it's not really zero.
So is this in addition to those 90 days?
Yeah, I think it's really important.
I mean in my mind as I look at the overall situation in Big Sur where you have a couple
hotels that cost thousands of dollars each night.
I mean, I'm maybe, in general,
it costs somewhere between 500 and $2,000 a night.
There's really nowhere to stay there
unless you're camping or you're staying
in an expensive hotel, there's barely.
So in order to make this area accessible
and resolve the concerns of residents,
I think that where you have a house
that has either an attached ADU or an adjacent ADU,
you have somebody living there full time on the property.
that's the concept of hosted I just want to clarify that that would apply in Big Sur and Carmel Highlands specifically that hosted includes where there is a full time resident on the property and and they can be you know it doesn't have to be in that home as long as it's on the property for example if it's a detached
to you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Bacheco.
Yes, I just like to ask the county to come up for a second
and just tell us how you feel about this particular motion.
I understand what Commissioner Hart's going for,
and I am in sympathy with it because I do know how expensive
those hotels are.
But how do you feel after the 15 years of process
you've been through?
I know you came down on a different way.
Do you feel this is like a big old wrench in the works or not?
You know, I as a as a staff person,
not having reached out to our constituents, talked with my supervisors.
I feel like it's a reasonable request.
I'm sorry, you feel what?
It is a reasonable request. Reasonable.
From a staff perspective in Monterey County.
Thank you.
I would like to ask for the opportunity for us to either amend
the definition of a home state or create some other way in making you know making
happen what you're requesting happen yeah I'm fine with you working on our
staff sounds like our ED has a comment I would request that we take maybe a five
or ten minute break so that we can discuss with the county see if we can't
figure out something to address the concern and we'll go from there and then
come back and come through the chair I just want us to ask that I want a part
that conversation I would want to know what the implications that has on the
policies around multifamily housing everywhere because really you're
talking about two units on a site and so this isn't the only place where you have
two units and so I just want to if I don't I don't want to create a domino
effect in terms of the planning around the rest of the county by this and I'm
only I mean Commissioner Wilson I'm just applying it to the two Carmel Highlands
and Big Sur where zero OK.
OK let's take a break and come back at six forty five please.
OK. Thank you.
We will call this meeting back to order and I guess I will turn it to staff.
Yes I'm I'm going to try to articulate what is a pretty complicated concept.
And please correct me if I get any of the information wrong.
But I believe that the amending motion is intended to create two different
One that would apply in Big Sur the other that would apply in Carmel Highlands.
So for Big Sur, the amending motion would allow for any property with two legally existing residential units for one of the units to be used as a short term rental if the other unit is occupied by a permanent full time resident.
And that included in hosted a considered easy.
It would not require a CDP for that to be allowed,
but there would only for properties
where there are two residential units,
there would be a cap of 4% that could be used for SDRs.
So for the hosted rentals that the county has already defined
where there's one unit and there's someone living
in a in a bedroom, for example,
those would continue to be unlimited.
What is limited are these situations
where there are two legally existing residential units,
one of them occupied by a full-time permanent resident,
the other one could be used by an STR
but only up to 4% of the residential units in Big Sur.
How many residential units are there in Big Sur?
I believe there's 925, so that would be roughly 37,
4% would be 37 which is roughly what there are currently for STR's in big sir
So that is the first piece of this and then the second piece that would apply to Carmel Highlands is that for?
properties on which they're and
I'm not sure I said that before at two legally existing residential units on one property. That's important that it's on one property
so that would be the same so for Carmel Highlands, it would be a
property that as of August 13, 2025, has two legally existing units on one property,
then one of those could be occupied by a permanent full-time resident and then the other one could
be used by an STR, but you would have to go through the CDP process for a commercial
vacation rental in order to have that STR in Carmel Highlands. Does that accurately
Subject to the 4% cap does that adequately describe your motion? Yeah, the only thing I will say is just to not confuse things
There are yes, there are currently 37
Strs, but of course probably many of those do not have this separate unit, you know
They're probably just being rented by themselves. So I just want to make sure that there's a mechanism by which I
Guess you just get a license if if you fit into that category of having
to two
Homes on one property right right if it didn't under the motion if it didn't require a coastal permit
It would all be taken care of through the licensing process and the the thirty of the group of thirty seven that
Don't qualify for that. They have one month to terminate their
Vacation rental is that what it was two months two months, okay?
So that's kind of how it is. That's the best that I think we can get the
on the same page with the camera
There are a second or comments
any comments
Commissioner Lopez, I'll just say at this point. I'm becoming Ray Jackson. I don't know that I can support
I mean again, we're getting kind of complicated here in the end. I get it. So I'm just gonna you know
My I'll just I already shared with the chair. I'm hoping to make one more amendment after this and I'll stay there. Thank you
Thank you. I'm
Commissioner Kelly to the motion
I
think I'm envisioning two different scenarios that I want to paint out for
folks. I think there's one scenario that Commissioner Hart is trying to solve,
sorry Vice Chair Hart is trying to solve too, which is the, I, there is a home, there
are two dwellings on this property. One might be, let's refer to it as the
mansion and the other one is the caretaker ADU, for just the purposes of
this demonstration and in that instance it may make sense to allow for this
mansion to continue to be rented out or this beautiful cabin in the woods to be
rented out in this way by having a permanent long time you know caretaker
resident living full time on the property in the ADU. I do want to just
caution that there may be another scenario which is that you have two
units on a property that are both naturally occurring affordable housing
because there's two units, two dwellings on a property and that by creating this
amendment we might be then shifting away from that existing naturally occurring
affordable housing by virtue of the fact that you have neighbors living on top of
you or by virtue the fact that it's kind of a, I'm not calling it a duplex, but in
in the market of real estate, a duplex tends to be less valuable than more affordable than
say a mansion and a cottage.
And so the only scenario that I want us to be cautious of is that we're not then making
this housing less likely to be housing and more likely to be a short term rental, which
is, and so I'd love to just better understand how we can ensure that that's not the slippery
slope that we find ourselves going down by trying to create this this caveat
and I do appreciate some of the other components that were just mentioned in
terms of the cap and having the CDP be required in Carmel Highlands so I'm
open to that I'm just concerned that we may end up losing housing for folks who
can't afford the other concept or that the housing gets removed because people
want to commercialize it in this way I mean I think that the report that was
put together by staff talks a lot about the affordability anyway in Big Sur and
that you know the idea that there's going to be two small cabins on a
property in Big Sur I mean you know that's I'm not sure that that really is
realistic but in any event the way I see it is we're talking about how can we
address zero, zero SDRs, which is what is being proposed right now. How can we go from
zero SDRs in Big Sur for commercial, right, zero, and adjust that so that people at least
have some way of moving forward that have two, that are essentially it is really hosted
because someone is required to live there full time. I think the policy outcome or the
the policy goal here is to motivate people to rent
their cabins, et cetera, because they need to have someone
living there full time in order to accomplish this
versus other things.
I mean, I think one of the things that has to happen
in Big Sur is more rental properties have to become available.
And I mean, I think that this would motivate that.
But I think, look, we were talking about 4% anyway here.
So I assume that this is something that is going to be
followed up on, we're gonna be hearing back from the county
the county is going to determine how well this is working. I just have a
really hard time voting yes on this with zero commercial permits in Big
Sur. So just for clarification that was going to be my final amendment was a
report back acquire. Thank you. Commissioner Kelly has a question. Can I
just request from county staff, I know at the very beginning of this
presentation which felt like this morning, you talked about the four
different zones and what's currently existing in these categories and what would be allowed
going forward.
When I heard your presentation, I didn't hear that there would be zero in Big Sur, and I'm
just wondering if you can clarify under what's being proposed in the staff report what would
be allowed in Big Sur if we didn't modify it.
Big Sur only hosted vacation rentals or all rental days it all types of rentals
in Big Sur so I'm being corrected only home stays or limited vacation rentals
all categories of any use of a residence the four categories you talked about I
believe there were four categories oh yes you would still be allowed to build
than ADU. Well, caretakers you're talking about? No. So prior in this, apologies,
prior in this presentation you talked about the different types of vacation
rentals. Yes. One on the far end was the commercial rental that would basically,
that was being reduced to zero. Yes. In Big Sur. There was another that was
vacation rentals that you don't have to get a CDP for and that was also being
reduced to no. What was that number? Those were home stays and limited
vacation rentals and there is no limit on those. So in Big Sur you can have
unlimited home stays which means it's a hosted rental where someone's renting a
room in your home currently in this proposal and then the other category is
limited that means up to three times per year you can rent your home got it so
the limited rental category and the person I'm trying to get to hear me
can't hear me right now so I'm just gonna pause so the limited category that
allows all folks in Big Sur who want to rent out their house that limited
category can allow for them to have three different stays
per year.
So how many say everybody wanted to exercise that option,
which they won't.
How many units of housing is that that could potentially do
those three stays?
It's about 925 residential structures
that we've counted in Big Sur planning area.
Got it.
So all 925 of those residential units,
If they wanted to allow people to rent their home, could do it up to three times a year
for each one of those units.
Some of those could be 30-day stays.
Some of those could be one-night stays, but that's the—they could be one night, they
could be 30 nights, times three per year, times 925 housing units.
So that's not zero when you do that math.
It's not.
Some people won't do it, totally.
But some may.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Kelly. I will make my comments on to this motion and then I propose we move to a vote. Um, I agree with Commissioner Kelly's
Assessment that it it really is not going to zero in either of these two locations that we're discussing and I do have
concerns about
concerns about the
Okay, thank you, sorry, um about the implications of making a change like this
That I think could be quite extreme and and maybe it's warranted. Maybe it's not but
throughout this whole hearing I
Consistently have felt that the county has spent years and years in this process to specifically
Balance
their needs with the LUP policies and and so I I just I
Truthfully cannot say that I understand what impact this change would have on the existing LUP policies such that I can support it
but I can say for sure that it's not going to zero in Big Sur or in the highlands and that there's still
opportunity, ample opportunity, unlimited opportunity to have certain kinds of
short-term rentals in that area. So that's my two cents, but it's certainly a good conversation
and we're having an ask.
There was a motion by Vice Chair Hart
and a second by Commissioner Pachko,
and if we could please have a roll call on this motion.
I just wanna say one more thing to my motion
and I won't say another thing.
This prohibits a person that lives on a property,
that lives in a house full-time, full-time resident
that has a small cabin from renting the cabin.
That is, except for three times a year.
That's prohibited.
All I'm saying is, and the county had agreed,
it sounded like they stood up and agreed
that this was an acceptable change.
I thought that's what I heard from the County.
Is that correct?
I think that the staff indicated they understood it
and that that's just something that they could understand,
but I think they, I mean,
they don't know what the board's gonna do with it.
One other, I guess one other just to jump in.
I think we'll see where the vote goes
and what happens here. Right, right.
I think regardless, you know,
we're looking at a scenario and thinking through it.
There was, as you, it took us a long time out there
to even try to come up with language
because it's so complicated.
That doesn't mean we can't do that given more time
or we wouldn't work with the city if it,
I'm sorry, with the county if it does.
You know, you could request that they bring this issue back
and give you more information about how that's working.
Which just seems like a shame.
You have a place that you can lend
and some of those are full time.
Again, we don't know how the motion's gonna go
and I don't want to say, but I'm just putting that out.
There is a potential, there are multiple ways
to get to what you're trying to get to.
There's no, I mean, it's clear what I'm trying to do
is make it so that that scenario,
when you have somebody living full-time
and you have another house that it could be rented
to address the fact that there's barely going
to be any vacation rentals available in Big Sur,
which is the goal, I get that.
So, that's it, I don't know, okay.
We'll have a roll call vote, please.
This is amending motion number three
and moved by heart and seconded by Bosco, if I'm correct.
Commissioner Jackson no Jackson no Commissioner Kelly no Kelly no
Commissioner Lopez no Lopez no Commissioner Presiado yes Presiado yes
Commissioner Wilson Wilson no Commissioner Bocco no Bocco no Commissioner
Hart. Yes. Hart, yes. Chair Harmon. No. Harmon, no. The vote is two yes, six no. Thank you.
That motion fails and I will turn it to Commissioner Lopez for his amending
motion. So final amendment to include would be that we get an annual report
back one year from the date of implementation for two years
consecutively. So for two years from date of implementation because again there
could be delays. We get a report back on the numbers approved and how they're
going in what tax collection is. Second. I just want one comment to the second
which is I believe this body reviews more short-term rental ordinances than
any body on the planet. So I think we're probably right about that. And so and so
I think it's important that we get that information and that's why I support
this. Director Hucklebitch. Through the chair just wanted to make a comment that
we probably don't need a modification to the LCP to carry out that that request
we as staff can agree we'll work with the county bring back the numbers I just
don't think we need to modify and put something specifically in the LCP to do
that we will commit to that well we could do the update but but it might be
helpful to have the county indicate whether they would be willing to also
come and do this update with us willing committed and happy to provide a report
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is that acceptable, Commissioner Lopez?
Okay.
I believe we still have the original motion on the floor, no amending motions.
I'll entertain comments to that original motion.
Just to be clear, you asked if Commissioner Lopez was okay with that.
He said yes.
So we are interpreting that as withdrawal of his motion.
As was I.
Thank you.
Okay.
So on the original motion, I just want to make a couple of brief comments as to the
original, welcome my colleagues doing that as well.
You know, we have all said this, such a critical component of our mission here is access.
The idea of access isn't static.
It doesn't always mean the same thing in the same community for perpetuity.
So I'm not really looking at this through the lens of does it maintain the number of
of STRs specifically as it currently exists today,
but instead does it adequately balance
and is it consistent with the LUP policies?
And I really do, I'm convinced by our staff's analysis
and by the testimony that I heard today that indeed it does.
Particularly noteworthy to me, the very robust
over a decade public engagement process.
And our staff made the point,
I think it was also reflected very well
in the public testimony today,
that the solution that the county has come up with
really does appear to be a middle ground,
and it's not wholly supported by either side.
So on balance, when I think about unlimited STRs,
excuse me, unlimited hosted STRs in all areas,
plus the limited number of opportunities
three times a year in an unlimited way,
plus the opportunities for commercial STRs
in certain areas, you know, to me that is meaningful and balanced if different than
what currently exists framework for these kinds of visitor serving accommodations.
So I will be voting no, I believe, on the motion as it was presented by Commissioner
Wilson and if he would like to speak to his motion.
Yeah, and I concur or align myself with everything you just said just to make sure that my decision
is based on the staff report only nothing nothing that was not part of the standard of review.
Agree. Okay. With that there was a motion by Commissioner Wilson and a second by Commissioner
Kelly and they are asking for a no vote. And just to be clear the result of a no vote will be
certification as submitted. Correct. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Kelly. No Kelly. No
Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Presiado. Yes. Presiado. Yes. Commissioner Wilson. No.
Wilson. No. Commissioner Bocco. Bocco. No. Commissioner Hart. No. Hart. No. Commissioner
Jackson. No. Jackson. No. Chair Harmon. No. Harmon. No. The vote is two yes, six no.
Thank you the LCP amendment is certified as submitted.
Thank you very much.
Thank you to everyone for a very robust process.
We have one more item here.
Excuse me.
That brings us to item 17 a second as we shift people
in and out here.
All right.
So that does bring us to item number 17 a and this is an appeal
in Cambria in San Luis Obispo County and I'd like to ask Halle Boleg from our
Central Coast office to give our staff presentation. We do have a power point
for this. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Harmon and Commissioners. Item 17A is an
appeal of a San Luis Obispo County CDP decision that authorized the
replacement of a single-story bluff top home in the unincorporated community of
Cambria with a new two-storey residence set further back from the Bluff.
Slide one shows you a view of the shoreline in southern Cambria where the project is located.
Before getting started, I note that we prepared an addendum that was distributed yesterday,
the response to the appellate comments, but does not change the staff recommendation.
Next slide, please.
Slide two shows Cambria's location outlined in red along the coast in San Luis Obispo
County, between San Simeon in the north in Cayucos, Morro Bay, and Los Osos in the south.
Further south in Inland is the city of San Luis Obispo, and to the east in Inland is
Paso Robles.
Next slide please.
Slide 3 zooms in on Southern Cambria with the yellow star showing the project site.
The current Bluff Top home is located within a mostly built out residential neighborhood,
and is approximately 10 feet from the Bluff Top edge at its closest.
The proposed new house would be set back some 26 feet from the bluff top edge to ensure
its safety for the next 100 years without shoreline armoring.
Next slide please.
Slide four zooms in on the project site with the existing residents shown on the left and
a visual simulation of the county approved proposed residents on the right.
The appeals contend that the county's approval of the project is inconsistent with LCP provisions
related to visual resources and shoreline armoring.
However, as detailed in the staff report,
staff respectfully disagrees with these contentions.
The home was originally built in 1967
and has essentially reached the end
of its useful economic life.
The applicants propose a replacement home
that will be sited more inland
and away from coastal hazards threat,
some 26 feet from the bluff top edge
to ensure its safety for the next 100 years without armoring.
Per the LCP, the county also conditioned its approval
to require the applicants to waive any rights that
might exist to any future shoreline armoring.
In other words, the new home will
be set back a sufficient distance
to avoid potential future coastal hazards without armoring,
as is required by the LCP.
As such, the shoreline armoring and coastal hazard appeal
contentions do not raise substantial issues.
With regard to visual resources, the appellants
argue that the existing home is a historic resource
and that its loss would be inconsistent
with the LCP historic and community character provisions.
It is true that the home is relatively old,
having been built in the 1960s,
and it is also true that it has a unique
fort-like geometric facade
designed by a known designer of that era.
But more importantly, it is also true
that it is not designated historic in the LCP.
And to err on the conservative side,
the county required a historical resource evaluation
to be prepared, where that evaluation determined
that the home does not meet the eligibility criteria
for the California Register of Historic Resources.
And a second set of experts peer reviewed that evaluation
and concurred with it.
In short, it is clear from the county's record
that the home in question enjoys no particular historic
or protected status under the LCP.
The replacement home also will generally blend
into the existing residential aesthetic
and does not raise any significant visual
for historic resource concerns.
Next slide, please.
Thus, staff recommends that the Commission determine
that the appeal contentions do not raise
a substantial LCP conformance issue,
and that the Commission declined to take jurisdiction
over the CDP application for this project.
In fact, the county approved project
appears to be LCP consistent,
and actually represents an example,
an important example of the type of residential adaptation
that should be applauded,
namely, removing residential development from harm's way,
shifting residential development inland,
and avoiding shoreline armoring.
The motion and resolution are found
on page five of the staff report,
and this concludes staff's presentation.
Thank you very much.
I'll begin by asking if there are any ex partes
on this matter.
Okay, seeing none, I will open the public hearing,
and we will go with three minutes.
We'll begin with the appellant, please.
We have two appellants, Christina Galloway.
And she should be in person.
And then Jeff Litz is on soon.
Thank you for waiting.
Okay.
And thank you for having me.
Just want to clarify, I'm Christina Galloway from Cambria representing the NCAC, the North
Coast Advisory Council.
Our contention has nothing to do with historic status.
policy-based. So I just want to make that really clear because we've been kind of getting
bucketed with the other appellants. So okay here I go. I'm Kristina from Cambria. I chair
the North Coast Advisory Council. I serve on the board of the Cambria Chamber of Commerce
and I'm here representing the NCAC on this appeal. 2675 Sherwood Drive lies within the
mapped Windsor Boulevard Scenic View Corridor, a map-sensitive resource area, both confirmed
by the staff report and seen in the documents before you.
Under our certified LCP, either designation alone triggers a full application of Title
2304210, Visual Resource Protection Standards.
With both present, the procedural requirements are mandatory.
A qualified visual analysis, SRA findings showing avoidance or minimization of impacts
landform alteration review under 2305034. 2304 210 B1 explicitly requires
visual analysis, possibly including story polls, to evaluate compliance with
sighting, visibility, and development standards. No exemptions here apply.
These are not discretionary guidelines. These are required steps before an
approval can lawfully be found consistent with the LCP. The procedural
gap is clear. The county did not require this analysis, and staff does not acknowledge this
omission. Without visual simulations, line of sight studies, or an alternatives analysis,
there is no evidentiary basis to evaluate the additional protections the LCP requires.
Here, staff acknowledges that the county misinterpreted the Windsor Boulevard Scenic
View Corridor Policy, limiting protections to North and South views, a limitation not
found in the LCP, yet they still conclude that the project will not significantly affect
east-west views.
This conclusion is based on staff's opinion, not the qualified, evidence-based analysis
that the LCP mandates.
When the county applies the wrong legal standard and fails to produce the evidence required
under the correct one, there is no lawful or evidentiary basis to conclude that the
project is consistent with associated LCP policies.
Additionally, the outhouse and mead biological report confirms five mature
Monterey Cypress trees will be removed.
None are identified as dead or dying.
The staff report incorrectly claims three are dead or dying
and that the remaining of the two are part of a retained cluster.
In reality, only one tree will remain.
This misstatement undermines the scenic resource evaluation
and bypasses required consideration of alternatives or mitigation.
There is existing precedent here.
For example, in Bond or Wreath, the commission found that substantial issue even with a partial visual documentation because full analysis was missing here.
Here, no such analysis exists, yet staff recommends no substantial issue.
This is part of the coastline that defines Cambria, a scenic treasure in California and the gateway to Big Sur.
Approving a project here without the required evidence in review is a dangerous precedent
Allowing applicants to bypass mandatory scenic protection standards required by our LCP
We are not opposing a newer safer or bigger home
We're just asking the Commission to apply the LCP as written this approval lacks the substantial evidence needed for a lawful consistency finding
We respectfully request you find substantial issues so the project can be reviewed through the required evidence-based process
Thank you
Thank you Kristina. Next is Jeff Linz. Jeff Linz, I've asked you to unmute. Go ahead and speak, you have...
Good evening.
Speak up Jeff.
First slide please.
No, sorry.
Put my earring but it says...
We're getting feedback. Do you have another window or something open or your phone or anything?
No.
Okay, go ahead. No feedback. Go ahead.
First slide please. The owner describes this as the most unique and cozy cottage you'll ever
vacation at. He's correct. It's in every, it's in great condition, fully booked and profitable,
renting for 600 dollars a night. It's clearly not beyond its useful economic life.
far from it, yet it will be demolished. Next slide, please. And replaced with this. The
CEQA exemption is the critical problem here. It was flawed from the start and wrongly granted
by the county. An accurate visual analysis of the SRA should be required. The Bluffin Beach are
the actual scenic resource. I've learned much over the years with your guidance,
building several seawalls here in Cambria. Next slide please. Rip-wrap when we required that
or concrete when that was your preference. Permitting was difficult, took at least a year
or more than two. Construction took anywhere from a day to less than a month. The paperwork was often
more costly than the construction itself. As a result there are many
unpermitted structures here on the marine terrace. From north to south
probably more than half with no oversight. Next slide please. If this is
ignored here without review a precedent will be set that there are no
consequences for building these structures. Next slide, please. The Leopold House doesn't really
need a full-on seawall, just a soft protective strategy to buy some time. It's lasted 30 years
now with no bluff or treat at all. The base is buried below the beach at the plus six-foot high
tide elevation. Waves are deflected before reaching the block with a massive amount of
gravel accumulation, probably several tons, raising the beach five feet improving public access.
Surprisingly inexpensive to build on both private and public property, it took five years to compete
Gradually. That's complete gradually. Adapting to storm events one by one,
I expect it to last another 40 years or more. Sorry, next slide please. I'll go through this
quickly. Please require a visual analysis of the SRA. These are more than substantial issues.
it's pervested and overwhelming for Cambria. Please intervene and grant a full de novo hearing
to resolve these problems. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Next is Bill Isaman.
He should be in person, the applicant. Good evening, Chair Harmon and Commissioners. My name
is Bill Isaman. I'm an architect representing the applicant this evening. Thank you, staff,
for your presentation and staff report, I obviously had read through it and don't have
revisions to it. I do however think it's important for the Commission to know that I met with
the appellant multiple times, both on site and at the County of San Luis Obispo's offices.
At both those meetings I offered to listen to them and hear their concerns and then take
those back to my client and come back to with potential alternative solutions to
their concerns, which we did do as part of an effort in addressing some of the
building massing which seemed to be a concern at first and so one of those
solutions we brought back to them was removing 30 inches of building mass on
either side so ultimately five five feet of it but what was concluded was that
they didn't want that, that was not acceptable.
And so at that point, it seemed obvious to me
or at least that they weren't necessarily looking
for a modification to our design solution.
They didn't want anything there.
So the project before you is in full conformance
with all land use ordinances and policies.
And as far as the view study that they're referring to,
the staff can speak to this, but the project is not
located in the sensitive resource area as mapped.
So I'll let you have some more,
get some more definition to that.
But I'm here to ask you to upheld the approval
of the playlist, San Luis Obispo Planning Commission,
as well as approval of the San Luis Obispo
Board of Supervisors and the findings of your staff.
And so thank you for your time.
Certainly can answer any questions if needed, but thank you.
Thank you, next we have Claudia Harmon.
She is on Zoom, and that's the last speaker.
Claudia, I've unmuted you.
Hi, this is Claudia Harmon,
more than I've lived in.
Yeah, hi, this is Claudia Harmon,
more than I've lived in Canberra for 40 years,
and I did know more on Leopold,
the man whose home they wanted to tear down.
I only just, I'm just gonna say a couple of things
because I've been through this process so much.
a lot of things I could say but I think most importantly for us, for me, I am the group that
I'm the chair of, the president of the non-profit and we're interested in and certifying cameras
for our sky community. The project with all the windows and you've all looked at the ocean side
of this, it is all windows by all windows and the CZLDO 2304 300 says that the light directed onto
what the light sources are to be designed and adjusted to direct away from
any broader street and away from any dwelling outside the ownership of the
applicant. The lighting will be coming mostly from the inside of the house but
when you have a two-story building that's all light, it is going to be blasting
out into the ocean. I heard earlier today because I've been here all day
that you're, you know, doing these wonderful things for young people to
teach them about how to protect the ocean and how to protect the beach and
And yet, here you have a project that's going to destroy the night sky for all of the ocean
life and all of the things along the ocean.
So there cannot be any glare, it can't be transmitted, the light, this is all part of
the CTO, you cannot have light trespass, it has to be shielded, and it's violated all
of those things.
So those are the major things that I wanted to say about this.
And not holding the, my mind just won't blank here for a second, the review environmental
impact report is crazy.
All of Canberra is in Esha and so when the gentleman said that it's not in Esha, it is.
All of Canberra is in Esha and this particular part, of course, is as well.
So it needs to be protected, it needs to be reviewed, you need to go back and take a look
at this and really analyze it yourselves. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the time.
Thank you very much. So that will close the public hearing and return to staff if they have
any response. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Harmon. I'll keep it short and sweet given the time.
Just real quick, I also believe that all the issues that were addressed today are well covered
in the staff report and addendum. But just real quickly, the LCP includes a series of visual
resource protection policies, some of which are more broad, some of which are more specific.
We walk through all those in the staff report, some of the more specific ones that are listed
by the appellants today regarding the sensitive resource area are inapplicable for this particular
project.
This project is not located within the mapped area, and so we explain all this in the report
of what is the appropriate standard of review here.
With respect to trees, Monterey Cypress are not afforded Esha or given a certain level
of protection under the LCP in Cambria.
And then lastly, with respect to coastal hazards, this is actually kind of an exciting project
in terms of pulling a structure away from the coastal bluff in a non-armoring manner
and using kind of non-armoring alternatives in that regard to address coastal hazards
issues.
This is kind of a managed retreat in action here.
So from that perspective, if this is a good project,
it meets the LCP.
Otherwise, we're available for questions.
Thank you, Mr. Khan.
Okay, to the commission.
Comments, questions, or a motion?
Commissioner Wilson.
I just, I can't make the findings
to go against staff's recommendation here.
But I do wanna say this house is super cool,
really interesting.
And just because it was built in the 60s does not make it
beyond its useful life because I live in a house
that's much older than that.
And I was built in the 60s myself, so I was going to say it.
So there you go.
But all I'm saying is that I see where this house is coming from.
I do wish this house could exist somewhere on the planet
beyond this time in space.
It would be really cool.
If you could maybe pick up and move it to another lot across the street, that'd be awesome.
Give it away instead of tear it down, but I just can't make the findings.
I'm sorry. Thank you.
Vice Chair. Oh, Commissioner Nada.
Yeah, I was going to make the motion and and also just to be clear
that the standard of review in front of us for appeals is set forward
in the staff report and is and has is clearly is consistent.
So I will make the motion had it in front of me.
Do you have it?
Oh, I move that the commission determine that appeal number a dash three dash SLO
dash two five dash zero zero two one raises no substantial issue with respect
to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603.
And I recommend a yes vote moved by Commissioner Notoff, seconded by Vice Chair
heart they're asking for a yes vote may unless there's any objection to
unanimous consent seeing none no substantial issue is found thank you and
I'll ask our staff are there any statewide items tonight no not that I'm
aware okay thank you everyone for a long but productive day see you tomorrow