Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Friday Friday session of the California Coastal Commission
We will begin by calling this meeting to order and asking for a roll call, please
Commissioner O'Malley present
Commissioner Eckley
She's here, but just stepped out. She's back Commissioner Escalante here
Commissioner Jackson here
Commissioner Ketchum here Commissioner Kelly here
Commissioner Larson here Commissioner Lopez
Commissioner not all here
Commissioner Wilson
Presenting accounted for Commissioner Turnbull Sanders here
Chair Harvey here
Thank you very much now, we'll move to the virtual meeting procedures, please
All right. Good morning. This coastal commit 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-span.org.
If you have internet access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak
on an item, we recommend you use the CalSPAN website.
Those who wish to address the Commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform
or by phone.
The speaker request forms may be found on the Commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittal are available on the Commission
and staff table just outside the meeting room
or just inside the meeting room today.
For those on Zoom, we have posted virtual hearing procedures
on the Commission's agenda webpage,
which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public speaking
during general public comment may be given up
to two minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
Request to speak during the general public comment period
will not be accepted after 9 a.m. 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 comment
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 webpage
and click on the link to fill out a speaker request.
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 telephone 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 the commission,
the organizer 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 now I will turn to our chief counsel
for a report out this morning.
Thank you, Chair Herman.
Good morning.
At the end of the day yesterday,
the commission met in closed session,
it received litigation information and advice
and took action on the following cases.
Benedetti et al versus County of Marin et al,
Bookout versus Coastal Commission,
Hottian versus California Coastal Commission,
City of Trinidad versus Tri-Ancestral Society et al,
and Roads versus California Coastal Commission.
It also received litigation information and advice
on City of Bragg versus Mendocino Railway.
That concludes my report.
Thank you very much.
And now we will move to agenda changes, please.
Thank you and good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
We have eight changes to the agenda today,
all of which are also noted on the agenda changes memo
posted to the online agenda.
First, item 8A has been moved to consent.
The CDP application by Chevron for the decommissioning
and removal of oil and natural gas pipelines
from the beach and sea floor in Carpinteria.
Next, item 13A has been postponed
for a Monterey County LCPM amendment focused on ADUs.
Next, item 13b has been moved to consent for a Santa Cruz County LCP amendment focused on ADUs and code updates.
Next, item 13c has been moved to consent for a Santa Cruz County LCP amendment focused on updates to their zoning code.
Next, item 15b has been postponed for a CDP application involving shoreline armoring seaward of a residence in Pismo Beach.
And finally, items 15B, 15C and 16A have been moved to consent for CDP applications or amendments
for the restacking of Shoreline Revetment Boulders, c-word of residences in Santa Cruz County.
This concludes the changes to today's agenda, and that brings us to item four,
general public comment. With that, I'll turn the mic back over to you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Toyful. Okay. So, Chris, I'll turn it to you. Thank you.
Okay, for members of the public,
I'll be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers
and invite you to speak when it is your turn.
Each speaker will be allowed two minutes
during general public comment
at the discretion of the chair.
In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom,
we will be bringing you in as panelists.
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,
but please remain muted and keep your video off
until we ask you to speak.
after your time is up, you'll be moved back to attendee mode.
For members of the public present in the room,
I'll call your names in the order
that they appear in our signup list.
When you hear your name, please line up behind the podium
and introduce yourself when you approach the speak.
There is a raise your 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 nine.
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 is your time to speak,
we'll invite you to unmute and turn on your camera.
You can unmute yourself on a phone by dialing star six.
So it looks like today we have a total of 22, 23 speakers.
We'll start with the people in the room.
We have, it looks like nine in person.
We have Mitch Silverstein, Mary Glanville,
and Hannah Leibold to start, so Mitch.
Good morning, commissioners.
Mitch Silverstein, California policy senior coordinator
for Surfighter Foundation.
You know, yesterday, while the gentleman from LA
was presenting about the Venice sewage pump plant,
he had mentioned that like the worst case scenario there
would be only a little bit worse
than what's happening every day
down in South Bay San Diego in the Tijuana River Valley
and affecting Imperial Beach in South San Diego.
And it made me realize I hadn't heard for a while
at the Coastal Commission,
one of the regular informational updates
on the trans-boundary pollution crisis
in the Tijuana River and Tijuana River Valley,
which was happening pretty regularly,
I think most of last year or even up to earlier this year.
So I just wanted to highlight that
and see where the commission was on that
and see if that was something that was still
gonna be irregularly updated,
especially since in December,
you'll be back in Imperial Beach
and I'm sure the community there would love to hear,
you know, is gonna bring that to you.
So yeah, hopefully, you know,
I'm hoping that we'll see that again.
And then, since I'm up here,
I wanted to just mention a couple recent developments
that I can quickly share.
Two weeks ago, UC San Diego and SDSU
published an air quality study
in the peer-reviewed journal Science,
and their study revealed that frontline communities
are exposed to dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide gas,
with the levels down there in the pollution hotspots
peaking out at 4,500 parts per billion.
For comparison, 7.5 parts per billion
is the chronic exposure limit set by the state of California.
So that really confirmed what communities down there
already know, that they're suffering health impacts
from the air quality from the sewage.
Also, the EPA has showed a real interest
in accelerating solutions.
They announced intentions to speed up
the IBWC's incremental 10 million gallons per day expansion
of the international treatment plant
by the end of last month.
but I haven't heard anything concrete
on whether they've completed that job yet.
And then I'm out of time, so I'll stop there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mary Glanville, Hannah Lee Bull, and then Marcy Snyder.
Hello, can you hear me?
I'm Mary Glanville of the Four Brag Headlands Consortium,
and I'll be talking about mill pond removal
on the Four Brag Headlands.
The mill pond specifically is a symbol
of the environmental damage caused by historic industry,
disrupting natural hydrology, altering habitat,
and degrading the health of the surrounding
coastal ecosystem.
Now with the Skunk train owning this land,
there's a rare opportunity to do something truly meaningful,
to repair the damage,
restore the natural function of the landscape
and set an example for responsible land stewardship.
In addition, it would open up the beach
and lowlands to public access.
This is a vital access point to the ocean.
This isn't just an environmental cleanup,
it's a chance to demonstrate what can happen
when private landowners, communities and agencies
come together with a shared vision for ecological healing.
Georgia Pacific, the previous landowner,
only put one option on the table for pond removal,
shipping it all to Kettleman City.
This is a flimsy straw man that is easily dismissed.
As John Gallo wrote in a letter to Sierra Railroad
and CC Coastal Commission staff Melissa Kramer
on February 28th and discussed on Wednesday,
there are many new scientific and technological approaches
for cleanups such that only a small portion
of the sediment needs to be shipped to Kettleman City.
We will update that letter and send it to all of you too.
The Skunk train has a chance to be a leader,
not just in tourism, but in showing how past damage
can be acknowledged and repaired
for the benefit of future generations.
I urge the Coastal Commission to support
full ecological restoration of the Mill Pond site
and encourage the Skunk train to step into this opportunity
for real environmental leadership.
I respectfully ask that the Coastal Commission
asks DTSC to add this common sense alternative to the list of alternatives
to be studied in the feasibility study and the EIR. Thank you. Thank you. Next is
Hannah Lee Bull, Marcy Snyder, Vincent Paterka. Good morning, my name is Hannah
Lee Bull. I'm a resident of Fort Bragg and a health care provider in this area.
okay did you get who I am on Wednesday I gave public comment on taking
precautionary measures to mitigate health risks on future development and
industrial enterprises in Fort Bragg today I want to speak more to the
housing plans for the former mill site having participated in Wednesday's tour
which was slanted towards the Mendocino Railway.
For health risk reasons, I'm opposed to building housing on the Noyo Headlands.
Friends and associates have told me they would not consider the headlands for
housing, mostly because of the toxic contamination presented by the milk ponds.
Potentially, the toxicity can migrate through the soil to other areas.
Disruption to the earth through large building equipment could further
Reveal more talks in contamination the thought of children playing in the stirred up dirt near the new housing
Gives me cause for concern for their health
It makes more sense to place new housing on the empty lots around town rather than on the Noyo headlands already polluted by the mill site
Additionally the current federal administration actively promotes fossil fuel extraction and use
Therefore, we are likely to be more prone to toxicity due to
climate change factors for the foreseeable future.
The increased humidity and lack of sun this summer created
conditions of toxicity in our own existing homes.
When we combine health risks regarding climate change
toxicity with the existing toxic contamination on the
mill site, the health of humans occupying new housing on the
mill site may be put in significant jeopardy.
Too many unknowns exist to reasonably move forward
with housing development and also ensure the health
and well-being of life on the Noyo Headlands.
Thank you.
Marcy Snyder, Vincent Pultureka, Peter McNamee.
Good morning, commissioners and staff.
My name is Marcy Snyder.
I'm a resident of Fort Bragg.
I'm a retiree.
My main point here today is that the citizens of Fort Bragg
have been left out of the decision-making process.
We've been making comments to the city
for about 20 years on the development, or not development,
and restoration and remediation of the mill site.
And for the most part, the plans remain the same.
The public decision-making is currently being made
behind closed doors, it's not public.
And Mendocino railroad is just another one
of our roadside attractions.
It is not an interstate railroad.
It can't go anywhere.
There've been three meetings that have been said
that we've had an opportunity to comment.
The first one was on October 15th,
where buried in the agenda under item 8A
was a change in the housing element.
People didn't know about it.
The second meeting hundreds of people showed up.
There were beautiful, colorful maps
on the walls of this room,
just covering them like wallpaper.
We were given sticky tags to make comments.
Many people commented, remediation first.
No extensive train tracks next to the ocean or anywhere.
No railroad station, no extensive development.
and day lighting of the creeks and developing,
redeveloping the estuary that was originally there.
Then on June 26th, the MOU was introduced to the public
in the Big Cotton Auditorium on the east side of town,
where the workshop, they called it, aims to initiate MOU.
There were more big colorful maps with train tracks,
train stations.
We have been left out of the process.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Vincent Pottarica, Peter McNamee, Steve Ray.
Hey, good morning, commissioners and staff.
I am Vincent Pottarica.
I'm a Fort Bragg resident since January of 2021.
I'm a public employee at Mendocino College.
I'm the father of two wonderful kids
who are in first and third grades.
And I'm also a local property owner
who plans to live in this lovely community
that we're grateful that y'all are visiting
for the long term.
All I wanna share is that whatever happens
with the Fort Bragg headlands, the old mill site,
I urge strongly the commission to recommend cleaning up
all the remaining toxic substances
to the absolute maximum standard
and to please require whoever leads and funds the cleanup
to be very clear about what standard
is being used for the remediation.
That's all I got.
Thanks very much for giving me the time
to voice this comment, and I apologize
that I was unable to make it yesterday.
It's just tough to be working and parenting to make these.
So thank you, I gotta go now, bye.
Thank you, sorry for mispronouncing your last name.
Next, Peter McNamee, Steve Ray,
and then we'll move to our Zoom speakers.
Good morning, Peter McNamee.
I just wanted to come in this morning and say goodbye.
I want to say, for those of us who live here
in this paradise, we understand that it's a little bit
difficult to get here.
And we really appreciate the fact
that all of you have come here, along with the Coastal
Commission staff.
We wouldn't live in paradise if it
wasn't for the work of the Coastal Commission since the 1970s. So your work
is the wall that keeps places like this incredibly beautiful and you're not
alone by the way in being in awe. Over two million Californians come to
Mendocino. We have a population of 90,000 in this county and two million
California come to appreciate the same beauty and serenity that we hope you
experienced during your visit here. We really hope that you will continue to
come back and because there are so many things that you didn't see when you're
in your three-day tour here. There are so many different tours that you could be
taken on that we think make the case for why this place needs to be conserved and
why it needs to be retained, why we choose to live here.
And I just want you to know that our paradise knob
for the Coastal Commission will always be turned to 11
at the Golden West.
Have a good day.
Thank you, Steve Ray.
And then our first Zoom speakers will be Steven Dennis,
Christina Coggins, and then Melan Ali.
Well, good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners, staff,
and members of the public, I'm Steve Ray.
It's great to be here in Morro Bay,
and it's not only the scenery, not only the great food
and vibes here and everything, it's mostly the people.
You just saw a couple of them, Peter and Marcy here,
and of course, Donna Brownsey,
the former commission chair who lives here.
I come here for the people, frankly,
and when I come here, I usually either come up
Highway one or come down Highway one,
depending on which direction I'm heading,
or come up to 101 and cut across on 128 to get here
and go through three redwood forests on the way.
It's exciting just getting here.
And speaking of exciting,
when my wife and I arrived the other night, Tuesday night,
we came up to Willets and brought Highway 20 across.
And that's a very exciting road.
It's very scenic.
It's beautiful and all that.
But it's known as challenging.
And as a matter of fact, right across the street,
right through that wall there,
there is a store that sells shirts that said,
I survived Highway 20.
And if you've written it, you understand what it means.
But when we came, it was dark,
it was foggy and raining all the way.
And so I told the people in the store,
if you have a shirt that says, I survived Highway 20
with the dark, with the rain, and with the fog,
I'll buy a dozen of them.
Anyway, it's so great to come to these small towns
along the coast because the people here are so genuine
and they have real issues.
And so I wanna invite you to another town, Morro Bay.
You came last year and we wanna invite you back
this coming year.
In April and August there will be hearings
in the Central Coast and we would like to help you arrange
to have another visit to Morro Bay because like this town,
Morobie has a lot of great people
and a lot of big issues coming up.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Now, moving to our other speakers,
Stephen Dennis, followed by Christina Coggins
and Milan Ali.
Good morning, commissioners and staff.
My name is Steve Dennis,
and I was a resident of Carmel Highlands
for almost 30 years.
I lived just a few miles from Point Lobos
and drove past the reserve on Highway 1 almost every day.
This should be a peaceful and beautiful commute
along our iconic coast.
Instead, it's become a corridor of stress,
unpredictability, and danger.
Every day, I've driven Highway 1 outside of Point Lobos,
and I've witnessed hazardous conditions,
cars pulling onto the very narrow shoulder
in a disorganized scramble for space,
often without fully clearing the roadway.
Drivers backing into traffic with no visibility,
making U-turns, and suddenly stopping,
unsure what to do when they're looking for parking.
The road was never built to accommodate the level
of spontaneous parking or foot traffic.
Hordes or visitors are walking along the highway,
children, seniors, families,
some of them pushing strollers,
just inching from fast-moving traffic,
but nothing to protect them.
There's no designated walking pass
and no enforcement or signage.
As a local, it's heartbreaking and frustrating
to see what is now a constant public safety risk
and navigating it is stressful, risky, and dangerous.
I've been on the steering committee member of Parkit,
founded by the late Ernest Chung,
who was the past chair
of the California State Parks Commission.
Parkit is a well-thought-out plan for immediate change,
a reservation-based access system with shuttle service
that provides safety for the visitors and drivers
while also preserving the environment that we value.
Parkett is currently in the permitting process
with the County and has been reviewed
by the Coastal Commission staff.
I hope you'll support this as something we can do
to make a difference.
Thank you for your leadership and for hearing me today.
Thank you.
Next, Christina Coggins, Melanne Ali,
and then Bruce Reiterman.
Christina Coggins, and we have your presentation.
Good morning, commissioners.
Slide one, please.
My name is Christina Coggins,
and I'm here today to respectfully urge you
to reconsider your approval
at the proposed development at 501 Sandpoint Road
in Carpentaria.
It sits directly adjacent to the Carpentaria salt marsh.
This isn't just any parcel of land.
It borders one of the most ecologically sensitive wetlands
on the California coast.
The carpentry assault marsh is a rare and fragile habitat
that supports over 200 species of birds,
fish and native plants,
some of which are threatened or endangered.
It also serves as a critical buffer
against sea level rise and coastal flooding.
The development you approved
risks irreversibly damaging this ecosystem.
Construction will disrupt wildlife corridors,
increase runoff and pollution and alter hydrological flows in the marsh, all at a time when climate
resilience should be our top priority. No matter how well-intentioned or designed, building
in such close proximity to this habitat sends the wrong message that private development
can take precedence over coastal environmental protection.
to please. Your mission as a commission is to protect California's coast for the benefit of all,
not just the few. Reversing this decision would affirm your commitment to that mission
and set a precedent that ecological integrity outweighs short-sighted development interests.
I urge you to stand with the science, the community, and the generations who will inherit
this coast. Please reverse the approval for 501 Sandpoint Road and protect the Carpentaria salt
marsh all these different things. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Milan Ali, Bruce Reutherman,
and then Carrie Hedrick. Milan Ali. Good morning. My name is Milan Ali and I live in South Central
Los Angeles. I am Black, non-binary, queer, unemployed, and not from a place that has had
coastal access. My barriers to accessing the ocean safely are vast. Last month I had the opportunity
to attend a queer surf camp at Imperial Beach in San Diego. The weekend included surfing, snorkeling,
and skating in community with folks spanning race, class, gender, and sexuality. One of my favorite
queer surf slogans is all bodies, all boards. This statement was fully embodied at the San Diego
camp in many ways, barriers to accessing the coast were greatly reduced or eliminated that weekend.
I was able to attend the camp due to a generous BIPOC scholarship which reduced financial barriers.
I was able to access transportation to and from camp eliminating transportation barriers. I was
able to room with other BIPOC folks and receive surf lessons from a black instructor which was
safe and affirming reducing racial barriers. I was given every piece of equipment that I would need
to be safe in the water, and there were daily water checks for water quality, removing safety
barriers. My gender and sexuality were affirmed and celebrated, which removed homophobic and
transphobic barriers. All skill levels were welcome, which removed barriers around needing
previous skill or knowledge to be in the ocean. And my absolute favorite part of the weekend was
watching, was catching the last wave of the last day, and finally being able to stand up on the
board. That moment was largely in part to three queer surf instructors, Kai,
Lozell, and Jodi, who gave me body-specific modifications and
affirmations all weekend in the water. I felt safe, confident, and joyful enough to
try something new and scary in the ocean. The feeling was euphoric. I don't get to
have these moments often in my day-to-day life, and I appreciated that
level of joy and clarity. Core Surf has never failed to create environments
where those moments are plentiful and available to all bodies on all boards. I
I hope you continue to fund this organization. Thank you and thank you. Next is Bruce Ritherman,
Gary Hedrick, and then Peter Kaz. Bruce Ritherman. Hello and thank you all for this opportunity to
speak about my concerns that the proposed residents at 501 San Point Road has been approved without
adequate environmental review. My name is Bruce Ritherman. I've been a resident of Summerland,
the community near the carpentry assault marsh for 36 years, during which time I've been a county
approved biological consultant and conservation director now retired of land trust for Santa Barbara
County. I speak today as a concerned citizen. The carpentry and marsh habitat is precious and
valuable. About that I think there's very little controversy. Whether it is vulnerable to the
significant impacts likely to be caused by the project is the critical question and it's one
that has an important spatial element relative to birds I would like to present to you today.
Previously described patterns of bird utilization of the marsh by ocean-loving species, beach-combing
shorebirds, and abundance of songbirds, including a subspecies, the building savannah sparrow,
listed by the state as endangered, and a variety of raptors all provide a useful lens through which
to consider the potential for significant harm to the marsh's avian inhabitants. Slide one, as you
see here, shows an oblique view of the entire marsh with the location of the project indicated in red.
Slide 2, please. Close review. Slide 3, please. Shows a closer vertical view now with a rough
approximation of the project site surrounded by a red circle, one with an arbitrary radius of
500 feet as this area appears during a moderately high tide. Slide 4, please. Shows the same view
during a low tide, exposing the sandbar habitat where birds are often especially active.
slide five please shows the same area now from a higher perspective that takes in the entire marsh
and slide six please now with an overlay of a heat map of bird activity presented to you
previously by dr andrew books these figures suggest to me that there's a high potential
for negative impacts i believe it requires further review and i don't believe that standard
get them back. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, Gary Hedrick, Peter Kaz, and Dr.
Andrew Brooks. Gary Hedrick. Good morning Coastal Commission. Gary Hedrick with San Clemente
Green and I'm glad to see everyone in Fort Bragg. I miss that place. It's beautiful and
hope you're all doing well. I'm just calling from the San O'Fray region and I've been informing the
of the Coastal Convention for several meetings now
about the condition of nuclear waste containers
that have been damaged.
And we have photos that I shared with you
and I don't have a presentation for you today
but I do want to just share some quick update
and then move on because we've so far,
the pressure that we've asserted to Edison
through in the last six weeks,
there's been six important articles
written about this issue.
Edison has agreed to consider sharing all the photographs
of the damaged canisters.
They have a plan to share information about the canisters
on October 16th.
And we want to be sure we get the photos before then,
so we understand what they're going to tell us
about the conditions.
We want to see it for ourselves first.
visual inspection should have photos to accompany it. So main thing I want to share, I just got an
email from Congressman Mike Levin this morning. I want to share it with you. He just said,
well his deputy chief of staff said, hey Gary, I talked to Congressman Levin about this, and he
agrees that Edison needs to be transparent in all regards, especially the results and information on
inspection of canisters. So you know that's one more voice speaking loudly to have the
photos. We'd like the Coastal Commission to schedule a special workshop, hopefully before
a lesson does, but let's see the photos please. We're all clamoring for it and you have the power,
so please get the photos. Thank you. Thank you. Next Peter Kaz followed by Dr. Andrew Brooks and
and Stanton. Peter Kaz. Good day commissioners and staff my name is Peter Kaz. Newport Beach's
local coastal program certified by this body specifically seeks to and I quote continue to
provide shore mooring and offshore moorings as an important source of low cost public access to the
water and harbor close quote. This is accomplished through the permit system wherein the risk and
expense is bore by the pyramid holder and where the morning equipment is owned and maintained
by the state. You and the state have seen and heard over many months how the city plans
to implement a wholesale change in the permit system but only for morning permits, taking
over the personal property morning tackles and the associated risk and expense which
which are not significant.
The city would like you to believe
that the morning permits convey some sort
of real property interest,
but they are not deeds or title to a land
or any kind of land submerged or otherwise.
This is clearly stated various places within the court.
Permits simply allow for the payment of rent and fees
for the temporary occupation of state land.
The city would have those fees to go more than 1300%
higher than the current state land commission bench rates.
More in permits, simply transfer the more in tackles
and the permission to use it.
Permits, holders had no choice
but to follow mandated government policy, which is in place.
Please do not penalize vessel blowers
who pointed out that the city has been gifting
the state land on their docks for over a decades.
Please do not allow the city to take away
our coastal access through the ongoing use
of misinformation and false narratives, thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Dr. Andrew Brooks, followed by Ann Stenton
and then Ann Marie Weibel.
Dr. Andrew Brooks.
Thank you, good morning everyone.
My name is Dr. Andrew Brooks and I am the director
of the University of California's
Carpinteria Saltmarsh Reserve.
I'd like to speak today to encourage the commission
to reconsider their decision to permit the construction
of a single family home at 501 San Point Road
in Carpadouria immediately adjacent
to the Carpadouria assault marsh.
While I have many concerns
about the expected impacts of this project,
one of my foremost concerns is impacts to shorebirds.
Shorebird populations are declining rapidly
along California's coastline.
The Carpadouria assault marsh provides
vital shorebird habitat.
Next slide, please.
Here you can see a heat map showing the density of birds observed in the Carpentaria Saltmarsh.
This map was, this figure was shown previously by Bruce Reitherman.
I'll give you a little more details.
The data were collected by weekly observations of birds in the Carpentaria Saltmarsh in 2024.
Higher density of birds are shown on the map in yellow or white.
As you can see, the greatest number of birds
are seen on or adjacent to the Papros Project.
This includes several species listed as endangered
or threatened, including the Western Snowy Plover
and Lee's Turn, as well as many other species
protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
I urge the Commission to reconsider
allowing this project to proceed.
Please act to conserve California's coastal resources,
not aid in their development.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Anne Stenton and Marie Weibull
and then Diana Sandoval.
Anne Stenton.
Good morning, thank you.
And thank you for pulling up my slides.
Good morning commissioners and staff.
My name is Anne Stenton.
I'm a mooring holder and president
of the Newport Morning Association.
Thank you for your time today and your interest
in better understanding the coastal access issues tied
to Newport Harbor's new mooring license program.
I respectfully urge this commission
require the city's mooring license program
to undergo a coastal development permit review.
On August 21st, the Lieutenant Governor,
in her role as chair of the state lands commission,
said that setting rates is up to the city,
it's not state lands.
And up until now, we've heard staff say
that jurisdiction between coastal and state lands
was still being kinda sussed out.
But from Peter Douglas' 1993 memo here,
it seems that CDPs are required
when imposing or increasing fees,
including for parking lots, boats, boat launching piers,
et cetera.
And that seems to establish costals oversight of rates.
The city, as you've heard, is proposing rate increases
of 300 to 500% along with changes that reduce access,
such as replacing the long-standing system
where mooring tackle is owned and maintained
by mooring permit holders
with high-cost city-owned short-term moorings.
This change risks turning what has been
nearly 100 years of affordable access
into something inaccessible for our community.
For decades, the current system has enabled school teachers
like myself, as well as mechanics, lifeguards,
fishermen, missionaries, retirees, and others
to keep voting accessible in Southern California.
Next slide, please.
The second slide shows a more recent instance
of this commission seeking review
of future local rate increases.
I'm grateful that the Coastal Commission
requires coastal access remain within reach
for working families like mine.
I respectfully ask that the commission
require the city to obtain a coastal development permit.
So these major changes received the full review
and public input that they deserve.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Next Anne-Marie Weibel, Diana Sandoval and Julie Bauer.
Anne-Marie Weibel.
Anne-Marie you're still muted.
There you go.
Okay.
Good morning, I'm respectfully asking for increased transparency from the Skunk Train
plan and maps regarding the development of plans and maps.
There's a lack of publicly available maps showing what development the Skunk Train plans
for the Fort Bragg Headlands.
This lack of clarity creates confusion for the public, local agencies and community groups
and raises concerns about compliance with coastal act policies especially around public access and
environmental protection. Accurate accessible maps are essential for the public to understand
what's being proposed on the land and to engage meaningfully in any planning or oversight processes.
Transparency builds trust and ensures accountability.
I believe that the Scunk Train as a private operator with a public facing presence should
be held to that standard.
I respectfully urge the Scunk Train to make their maps and development plans publicly
available especially for any areas that may impact public access or the coastal environment.
On the tour I noticed a healthy big beautiful buck and it's nice to see that since the logging
stopped and remediation happened some remediation that the nature can recuperate to some degree
I am concerned that the community's input has not been included enough and so I'm really
hoping that you stay in touch with what's happening here on the ground.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Next Diana Sandoval, Julie Bauer and then Adam Lebrunz. Diana Sandoval.
Good morning commissioners. I am Diana Sandoval and this is my 10th time
discussing the Block Public Equestrian Hiking Trail at 3215 Foothill Road, Carpentaria.
To recap, a private polo field was built in an environmentally sensitive habitat area
and a hiking and equestrian trail was promised. The polo field was built and is used, but the
public trail, which should be accessible to the public, has gone unrecorded and blocked for years.
Santa Barbara County has known about this violation for years,
including the last 16 months, and the commission has known for 15 months.
Yet nothing has changed. The public trail remains unrecorded and blocked.
The 15 foot wide public equestrian high control easement was required to be recorded
prior to land use clearance, yet this condition was not met,
but the permits were unlawfully issued, violating the Coastal Act and the permit
condition set forth in several CDPs. Slide please.
Since the trail has gone recorded, the commission has the opportunity to
require the County to immediately open a southern entrance via Cerapola Drive, a public street which
we see here. This would allow immediate public to public access once recorded. Slide please.
Santa Barbara County is using a one-foot buffer, again one foot, at Cerapola Drive which the same
property owner owns as the excuse to deny this southern entrance. As we see in the grant deed,
the one-foot buffer is part of the same deed and should not be used as an excuse.
Santa Barbara County has a document pattern of unlawfully exempting this property from
permit requirements and the Coastal Act. Santa Barbara County allowed the construction of new
vehicular bridge and road in Inasha, the installation of a hazardous gas line across the creek and even
the placement of a new gas meter directly within the Inasha. Therefore, I urge enforcement staff
and new commissioners to uphold the Coastal Act and ensure that the polar trail is promptly recorded
immediately open to the public. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Julie Bauer, Adam Levrens,
and then I'll start calling names that we haven't been able to find. So, Julie Bauer.
My name is Julie Bauer from Wallala, and I'm reading a letter from my father-in-law,
John Bauer, who has lived in Wallala his whole life. He owns about 50% of the property affected
by the Wallala streetscape project. His letter reads, my concerns about the loss of the existing
parallel on-street parking and our streetscape project have been summarily dismissed for decades.
Imagine if fire engines and ambulances trucks with trailers like fishermen, tree servicers,
contractors, utilities. If they can't park then they can't spend money in our grocery stores,
peaches shop, restaurant, galleries, or even go to the post office. And tourists with big
RVs and travel trailers. You know that everyone in Wallala relies on tourism dollars.
None of the parking lots downtown have turnaround space for these vehicles.
do we really want to prevent people from supporting our local businesses?
Everyone here depends on our existing on-street parking.
My family has had numerous conversations with Calstrans who is
responsible for the streetscape project and we're told that we're losing this
parking because of the Coastal Commission's requirement that there be
no on-street parking along Highway 1 throughout the state.
But the Coastal Commission hasn't required that anywhere else. Point Arena
has on-street parking for its main street businesses.
So why not in Wallala? Why is the Coastal Commission discriminating against Wallala
businesses this way? Without on-street parking our businesses will suffer greatly and it will
be the Coastal Commission's fault. My commercial tenants don't own the land or buildings they
occupy but Caltrans and the Coastal Commission have not approached them to be a part of the
conversation about this negative financial impact that they will suffer from the theft of their
customers parking. The Coastal Commission's demand for the removal of on-street parking is likely
likely going to make the town less safe and less inviting
because these types of vehicles are going to double park
or attempt to park unsafely in our small private lots.
I don't have time to read your mission statement,
but you do.
And you're failing to live up to the mission statement
with the Wallala Street Skate Project.
The Coastal Commission needs to converse
with the people of Wallala and Caltrans
to come up with a better solution.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Adam Leverns.
Good morning.
Is my audio coming through?
Yes, we can hear you great.
Okay, thank you. At meetings over the past several months, after general public comment,
I've heard from a commissioner in response ranges of figures that they stated are sourced
from Google. The first time this occurred, even though the figures were inaccurate given
the locality that was being discussed, I appreciated the initiative of someone having the interest
to look up things during the meeting.
Yesterday, however, the high-end figure
was more than $800,000 off for the locality in question.
And I, myself, was shocked to learn
that everything you find on the internet
isn't true or accurate.
And I would encourage that real facts be used.
There is factual data available.
And it's not always popping up on Google searches.
and the issues are so incredibly important that sound bites or something
read through a quick search really isn't appropriate and I'm just hoping that due
diligence is exercised on some of these very critical issues and again thank you so much
for all you folks do. Thank you and we did have two more sign-ups that we're unable to find in the
Zoom list. Jim Holtz and Chris Bliss. If you are in the meeting please raise your hand.
Again Jim Holtz and Chris Bliss. I see one person with their hand raised under the name
Hermosa Beach property owner. You should be able to unmute. Please state your name.
My name is Jim Holtz. Sorry I'm trying to change my name on the settings.
Go ahead.
Could you pull up my, could you pull up?
There you go.
Good morning commissioners, in December, 2023,
the commission held a discussion for affordable housing
in the coastal zone.
Professor Wasmusch was on the panel
and he presented research from the Los Angeles area.
His work was commissioned by Better Neighbors LA
who was owned by United 11, a hotel employee union
that campaigns to eliminate short-term rentals
to benefit the hotel industry.
Unsurprisingly, he framed SCRs
as the major driver event increases,
unit loss and nightly homelessness.
Many commissioners at the time
praised his comments after he spoke.
Later your staff looked into the urban findings,
translate to the coast and concluded
they do not map cleanly to the coastal communities.
They also caution that cutting SDRs does not by itself
produce affordable housing.
Let's see how this aligns with the New York
short-term rental ban.
Two years ago, the city residents reported
that nearly 40,000 Airbnb listings,
that's the reason for high rental rates.
New York responded with local law 11
that effectively ended most SDRs
and most vanished from Airbnb overnight.
As you can see here, after two years,
no improvement in the housing supply,
rents near record highs and very low vacancy.
Google this for more details.
The takeaway is simple.
Blaming SCRs for housing shortages is not the solution.
New York results and your own staff cautions
point the same way.
I get it.
The commission wants affordable housing in the Crystal Zone.
Reducing or restricting SCRs alone
does not create affordable housing
and much of the coastal zone is already beyond
the average household price range.
As our coastal commissions, cities extend inland,
have you considered building more affordable houses
a bit further away where it's cheaper?
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I am not seeing Chris Bliss on Zoom.
No more hands raised, Madam Chair.
Great, thank you very much.
And many thanks to the public
for sharing your testimony with us.
So before I bring it back to my colleagues,
I just wanna remind all of us that the purpose
of our conversation following public comment
is really just to determine if we wanna put an item
on an agenda, not to have an extended discussion
about any specific topic.
So with that, are there any colleagues that,
okay, Commissioner O'Malley?
Thank you.
Just wanna kinda call out the attention,
the comments made by Mitch from Surfrider
about the updates from Tijuana history,
obviously being a resident of something in San Diego.
I'm also interested and I understand now supervisor Aguirre
is on, is still on the case of getting this thing solved,
but I, you know, maybe not the same frequency,
but I think at least at December or prior to December,
it'd be really nice to have an update
since we'll be down there anyway.
So thank you.
Commissioner Kelly.
I just had a question for staff regarding some
of the comments about the Department
toxic substance control and the alternative options
that would be potentially studied,
whether that's in the feasibility study or in an EIR
and the discussion about the remediation standards.
And I'm wondering if we could get a better understanding
maybe at a later date about what the commission's role
in consultation would be at this time or going forward
as the DTSC and the parties in this project
at the Noyo Headlands are looking
at environmental review and remediation, thanks.
Through the chair, just a quick response.
Thanks, Commissioner Kelly.
I think we can work on getting some type of a briefing
or something from DTSC or at least through us,
but with information from the DTSC to answer your questions.
Commissioner Nada.
Yes, thank you.
I too wanted to thank Surf Rider for reminding us
that regular updates on what's happening in Tijuana Rivers
would be really great to get back in the habit of
and also be actively engaged.
But I also, I've raised the issue before
and I was glad to hear from Mr. Dennis
and the public comments about just my concern
about the safety at Point Lobos
in the state park there.
And yesterday when the representative
of the local state parks was here
and celebrating the collaboration between state parks
and Caltrans on solving some solutions here
on the North Coast, it made my heart sing to think,
okay, good, state parks and Caltrans are working on that
so that hopefully they will carry that collaboration
to the Point Lobo situation
because it is a very dangerous situation
with the cars parking and families walking along highway one
with the cars speeding by at 50, 60 miles an hour.
So I know that there's some proposals
that are gonna be working their way
through the County of Monterey,
but there's also some other things that I think we could,
and I'm very glad that Mr. Karl
from the Central Coast Office has been communicating
with the county and with concerned citizens there,
and I just want to encourage that
and see if we can really get some action
sooner rather than later.
Through the chair, just wanted to thank you
for those comments, Commissioner Notoff,
and just to confirm that I think
the very thing you're talking about,
that sort of collaboration, facilitation of a discussion
between Parks and Caltrans and Coastal
exactly what's going on right now. So and we are aware and it's going where we're talking
with the county. So I would expect I don't know what the timeline is exactly for this
to come in front of you. But we are actively working towards solutions on this one.
Can't come soon enough. Commissioner Lopez. I'll just jump in there as well and say that
I support that conversation happening sooner rather than later knowing that the project
is we put in place at the county of Monterey was a pilot. So as it comes forward, I think
that needs to come to an end
and we have to have a long-term solution.
And so look forward to the collaboration
that's necessary to get us there,
especially while maintaining the access,
but look forward to that conversation.
Thank you.
Commissioner Preciado.
Yes, I just wanted to comment here in San Diego County,
there is significant developments occurring
about the challenges and tragedy that's underway,
that has been underway for over 40 years in the Imperial Beach coast and the communities
of San Ysidro and Nester.
And so, the development, I look forward to hearing if there is any federal updates or
any state updates as well, but you should please know that in San Diego County, there
is extensive reporting.
All the media outlets create updates, provide updates.
And so I appreciate the community's interest in Imperial Beach and the water quality that
continues to impact Southern California's most beautiful beach, in my view, but certainly
one of the most contaminated.
And we need to figure out as we plan for our Imperial Beach meeting in December, what kind
of engagement we want to have there. Certainly, one of the things that I'm concerned about
is if it is as contaminated as it is, I wouldn't want anyone to be doing tours or going in
the proximity of the area. And so I look forward to talking to staff about what we will do
or what we'll be engaged in when we visit the Imperial Beach when we have our
meeting in Imperial Beach thank you okay oh excuse me wonderful thank you very
much and thank you again to the public oh yes I apologize I threw the chair
just wanted to do one quick clarification that just that came out of
public comment we've heard a couple of public comments related to 501 Sandpoint
Road and that was a project if many of you will remember we approved as it was
the takings approval that was done, I think in May.
And several folks have come and requested
that the commission reconsider that decision.
I wanna clarify the process here.
Reconsideration is a process that can be requested
by the applicant within 30 days
of authorization by the commission.
It's not a process that the commissioners or the public,
they can't make that type of a request.
I also wanted to know we are in active litigation
on this particular development.
So there may be more later, but just want to clarify
that's not the appropriate process for us to consider.
Thank you.
Thank you, that's very helpful.
Okay, with that, we will move to the consent calendar,
please.
Thank you, Chair.
The next item, item five, is the consent calendar
for all districts on the agenda today, excuse me.
We do not have any items agendized
on the consent calendar today, so we can move to item six.
Item six is the items moved from the regular
to the consent calendar for all districts
on the agenda today.
As mentioned during the agenda changes earlier this morning,
there are six items that staff recommends
be moved to the consent calendar, and those are.
Item eight A, the CDP application by Chevron
for the decommissioning and removal of oil
and natural gas pipelines from the beach
and sea floor in Carpendria, Santa Barbara County.
Item 13B, the Santa Cruz County LCP Amendment
focused on ADUs and code updates.
Item 13C, a Santa Cruz County LCP Amendment
focused on updates to the zoning code.
And finally, items 15B, 15C, and 16A,
CDP applications or amendments for the re-stacking
of Shoreline Redentment Boulders Seabird of Residences
in Santa Cruz County.
I'd like to note that we received correspondence
from one commenter objecting to item 13B,
the City of Santa Cruz's proposed updates
to its LCP ADU regulations.
The commenter doesn't raise a specific concern
regarding the amendment's proposed language,
but rather takes issue more broadly
about whether ADUs are appropriate at all
in the city given water, traffic and other concerns
and questions whether a de minimis LCP amendment process
is appropriate.
In response, staff notes that the LCP
already allows ADUs in the city's coastal zone,
and that this amendment simply makes
some relatively minor changes to reflect updates
to state housing law.
And these changes have been reviewed and approved by HCD.
In addition, the city has approved numerous ADU CDPs
over the years, and we haven't seen any sort
of significant adverse coastal resource harm.
And for any subsequent proposals,
the LCP's coastal resource protection framework
can appropriately address any potential issues.
So, in short, we continue to believe
that de minimis processing is appropriate
and that the LCP amendment will continue
to be appropriately protective of coastal resources
when ADUs are considered.
And we continue to recommend that the LCP amendment
be approved on the consent calendar.
I would also note that we receive correspondence
from the Surf Rider Foundation on item 15B,
Walsh Revetment Restack in Santa Cruz County. While they generally support the staff recommendation
to approve the CDP, they suggested including additional provisions addressing public trust
resources and mean high-tide line monitoring. We prepared an addendum that responds to their
suggestions and made some changes to our conditions to include our typical public trust requirements,
which were inadvertently admitted. So we thank SurFider for their comments and continue to
recommend you approve the CDP on the consent calendar. Staff is not aware of any further
opposition. The projects moved to the consent calendar and the applicants are in agreement
with the staff recommendations. We're therefore recommending that the commission vote and
approve this item. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Toifel. Are
there any ex partes? Seeing none, are there any members of the public who wish to speak
on any of these items? Yes, we have Mitch Silverstein here in person, which is a speak
on item 15b, move to consent.
There it is.
All right, Mitch Silverstein,
California Senior Policy Coordinator
for Surf Rider Foundation.
So yeah, I really appreciate working with Central Coast staff
on some of the suggestions that we had.
And I wanted to just highlight them to all of you,
the commissioners, and to go over them really quick.
So next slide.
So this was, you know, I commented on one
of these REVENTMENT restacks, but there were three of them.
And we all know Surf Rider opposes Shoreline
and armoring, but these are actually good developments
because it's basically homeowners restacking their boulders
where they're supposed to be,
where they're permitted to be,
because they've been strewn all across the beach.
So that's a good thing.
One thing I wanted that I felt was a standout detail
that I haven't seen, I'm sure it's out there,
but I haven't seen it across all districts
that have these kind of CDPs,
was that the Central Coast staff included
revetment, redevelopment status as a special condition
that the applicant had to agree to.
So in this case, it was only 5% redeveloped
and other two is 15 and 16% redeveloped.
And that's a really meaningful detail for the applicant,
for the Coastal Commission and for the public
to know where that shoreline protective device stands
relative to this 50% redevelopment threshold
when they would require a completely new CDP
for the structure.
And that would kind of, you know, in our mind,
allow the commission to impose better mitigation
or better standards on the negative effects of that.
structure. Next slide. So, yeah, we'd like we'd love to see standardization standardize the addition of redevelopment status in CDPs that involve
redevelopment of existing structures, especially shoreline protected devices or houses on the beach. And the next slide
the this one in particular the revetment you can see it's very on, you know, it's it's
basically that you could make the argument that the bottom rocks there whether that are mossy are already encroaching on public tide lands.
So another recommendation I had was to add in the in within the regular
Monitoring of the revetment that the applicant needs to have is that they add a condition to do an MHTL survey
That way it gives the Commission better knowledge on where if it's encroaching and then if it is encroaching
State lands if they would choose could have been pay rent for imposing on public tight lands. Thank you
Thank you. We have no one no other speakers just those available for questions. Okay. Thank you very much
much. Well, I will bring it back to the Commission. Does any Commissioner wish to remove an item?
No? Okay. I will entertain a motion. I'll move to approve. I'll second, but I did want
to just highlight that I had pulled out that recommendation about redevelopment status
as a standard set of analysis. I think that's a good idea. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion
by Commissioner Kelly a second by Commissioner Nada. I'll ask for a roll call vote please.
Commissioner O'Malley. Yes. O'Malley yes. Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante yes. Commissioner
Jackson. Aye. Jackson yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly yes. Commissioner Lopez.
Yes. Lopez yes. Commissioner Nada. Aye. Nada yes. Commissioner Perciado. Aye.
Prisciato yes commissioner Turnbull Sanders
Turnbull Sanders abstains Commissioner Wilson. Yes, Wilson. Yes, chair Herman. Yes, Herman. Yes, the vote is
Nine yes with one abstention. Thank you. The consent calendar is adopted. Okay. Now we'll move to item seven
The energy ocean resources and federal consistency report, please mr. Toyful
Thank you, Chair.
As you said, item seven is the Deputy Director Report
for Energy, Ocean Resources, and Federal Consistency Division.
We have one waiver and one immaterial amendment
for the Commission's consideration,
along with two negative determinations to report.
I don't believe there are any speakers signed up today,
and would therefore ask whether three or more Commissioners
object to the waiver or immaterial amendment
in the Deputy Director's report.
Thank you, any ex partes?
And Chris confirming there are no speakers signed up.
no speakers, three available for questions.
Awesome.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the deputy director's report?
Seeing no objections, the commission can curse.
Thank you.
Now, I guess we're at 9A.
That's correct.
Thank you, Chair.
9A is the consistency determination
by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
I'd like to invite Annie Rosen, environmental scientist
within the Energy, Ocean Resources
and Federal Consistency Division
to provide the staff presentation for this item.
Thanks, Cassie.
Hello, commissioners.
This item is a consistency determination
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to reissue and modify its nationwide permit program
for California coastal areas.
The Army Corps reissues this permit program
every five years.
The proposed program includes 57 new, modified,
or reissued nationwide permits.
These nationwide permits are pre-approvals
for the discharge and placement of various types of fill or dredged materials into waters
of the United States for a wide range of specified activities identified in the various nationwide
permits.
Next slide, please.
These categories include oil and gas pipelines and structures, mining, outfall and intake
structures, expansion or reconfiguration of existing marinas, hydropower projects, cleanup
of hazardous and toxic waste, commercial and institutional development, and agricultural
activities.
If a project falls within the scope of the nationwide permit program, it can, in many
cases, proceed without further notice to the Army Corps.
A Commission concurrence with this CD would effectively pre-approve all authorized nationwide
permit activities without providing for any additional review opportunities by the Commission
under its Federal Consistency Authority.
For the past 32 years, the Commission has objected to the Army Corps' consistency determinations
for its nationwide permit program because of the potential for adverse impacts to coastal
resources resulting from activities authorized under the program, and because pre-approval
of broad categories of activities does not ensure consistency with the Coastal Act's
policy regulating dredging and the placement of fill within wetlands and coastal waters,
Section 30233.
This policy protects wetlands, estuaries, and coastal waters by limiting dredge and
fill activities to only certain listed allowable uses.
The list of allowable uses in Section 30233 is significantly more limited than the more
than 57 broad categories of activities and projects proposed for the Army Corps' nationwide
permit program.
The Coastal Act's dredge and fill policy also ensures there are no less damaging feasible
alternatives to such projects, and requires mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts
to coastal resources.
Pre-approval of projects through concurrence with the Nationwide Permit Program would not
provide an opportunity for these important coastal resource protections to be applied.
To summarize, the proposed Nationwide Permit Program is inconsistent with the dredge and
fill policies in Section 30233 of the Coastal Act in several ways.
In many cases, the development activities authorized by these nationwide permits are
not among the specific allowable uses identified in Section 30233A.
Likewise, approval in advance of any development proposal does not allow the Commission to
evaluate whether the proposed development is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
Finally, while nationwide permits include a range of resource protection measures, many
Many of them do not include requirements for mitigation of adverse impacts to coastal resources
such as wetlands, estuaries, and sensitive marine habitats.
It's important to note that staff's recommendation of objection to the Army Corps' consistency
determination for its nationwide permit program will not eliminate nationwide permits in the
California coastal zone nor add to existing regulatory requirements.
Instead, an objection would maintain the current and historic practice successfully used by
the Commission and the Army Corps over the last 32 years for the nationwide permit program.
Next slide, please. Using this approach, most activities qualifying for a nationwide permit
can proceed without any significant delays. Applicants with nationwide permits for activities
involving dredging and fill activities in the coastal zone or affecting coastal resources
would continue to need to receive individual commission authorization, generally through
a Coastal Development Permit or concurrence with a consistency certification before the
Army Corps permit becomes valid.
Waiver of further Commission review can also occur for minor projects that would not affect
Coastal resources.
This is a well-established and understood approach for both Commission and Army Corps
staff and its continuation through the Commission's objection to the current consistency determination
would allow the long-standing and successful coordination
between these agencies to persist unchanged.
In conclusion, the staff recommends
that the commission object to the Army Corps'
consistency determination.
The Army Corps has indicated that they understand
our position and do not object to the staff recommendation,
and a representative from the Army Corps
is here with us today for questions.
The motion, excuse me, the motion and resolution
are on page four of the staff report.
This concludes my remarks,
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, commissioners.
Thank you very much. Okay, um, are there any ex partes? Okay, did the
representative from the Army Corps wish to make a statement or just available
for questions? They're signed up as available for questions, but I will move
them in as just in case. Okay, great, thank you Chris. If they are just here for questions we will move to public comment please.
They declined to be promoted, I think they're okay. Great, thank you for being here.
we have no other speakers all right well then I will return to the Commission
for comments questions or a motion I'm happy to make the motion okay I move
the Commission concur with consistency termination CD 0 0 7 to 5 the product
described there and is consistent to the maximum extent practical with the
enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program and asking
for a no vote.
Second.
That is a motion by Commissioner O'Malley,
a second by Commissioner Wilson.
They're asking for a no vote.
Would either of you like to speak to the motion?
I will just say that I appreciate
the continued engagement and partnership,
and I know we are all working closely
and will continue to do so.
So my thanks.
With that, we will go to a roll call vote.
And just a reminder, we're asking for a no vote here.
Commissioner Escalante.
No.
Escalante, no.
Commissioner Jackson.
No.
Jackson, no.
Commissioner Kelly.
No.
Kelly, no.
Commissioner Lopez.
No.
Lopez, no.
Commissioner Notoff.
No.
Notoff, no.
Commissioner Presiado.
No.
Presiado, no.
Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders.
No.
Turnbull-Sanders, no.
Commissioner Wilson.
No.
Wilson, no.
Commissioner O'Malley, no.
O'Malley, no.
Chair Harmon, no.
Harmon, no.
The vote is unanimous.
Thank you very much.
And this has been found inconsistent.
Thank you.
OK, now we will move to item 10, the deputy director's report
for the North Central Coast District.
Yes, thank you.
Item number 10 is the North Central Coast District director's
report.
And this month, we were putting one waiver for improvements
at the Olympic Club golf course in San Francisco.
We are not aware of any objections or controversy
regarding these matters.
And so the question is whether four or more commissioners
object, and if not, then the commission will concur.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Are there any ex partes?
Seeing none, are there any members of the public
who wish to speak on any of these matters?
There are no speakers.
OK, thank you.
Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the report?
Seeing no objection, then the commission concurs.
Thank you.
Now we'll move to 11A, please.
Yes, thank you.
11A is the post-certification map update for Sonoma County.
And I'd like to introduce Chris Layton, a research data specialist
in the commission's mapping unit who will give the staff presentation.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
Item 11a is a post-LCP certification map update for Sonoma County.
The map update replaces older cartographic and hard copy maps with digital maps that
show the areas within Sonoma County where the commission retains CDP authority and where
that authority has been delegated to the county.
The maps also illustrate where county CDP decisions are appealable to the commission
for geographic reasons.
Next slide, please.
The Commission first adopted post-certification maps
for Sonoma County in 1981, and these updated maps modernized the effort
using GIS and other mapping technologies.
The maps provide the county and the public with updated digital maps
that are more accessible and more accurately reflect conditions on the ground
in relation to CDP and appeals jurisdiction boundaries.
While today we are talking about Sonoma County the Commission's mapping unit is
working on these sorts of updates for LCPs up and down the state, focusing on
areas where there have been recent LCP updates as with Sonoma. Both the current
and updated maps are only illustrative and it is the Coastal Act and its
implementing regulations that govern all the jurisdictional boundaries. The
updated maps may show more details than before such as for wetlands and that is
because we have a clearer and more accurate understanding of the location of such features
and they can now be mapped.
Again, it is not the maps that define an area as appealable, but rather the resources on
the ground that govern jurisdiction.
Every effort has been made to be as accurate as possible and the data can be revised as
conditions on the ground change.
The updated maps are a technological upgrade from the current maps, all designed to make
existing jurisdiction information easier to access and interpret. The purpose of
the maps is to use best available data to illustrate jurisdictional areas for
planning, transparency, and efficiency. This update is not an LCP amendment, does
not establish any new policies or regulations, and most importantly does
not alter the determinations of how jurisdictional boundaries are established
by the COSL Act and its regulations. The county worked with staff on the map updates as a next
logical step in the ongoing process of updating their LCP. The land use plan was comprehensively
updated and approved by the Commission in November of 2024. The county intends to round out and
complete the process with an implementation plan update in the near future. Next slide please.
The updated maps are in a five map set from north to south and numbered one through five
as shown here on slide three. Slide three also shows the map legend for the updated map set.
The index and legend can also be seen on exhibit one of the staff report if it's easier to follow
from there. Per the legend, the commission's continuing permit jurisdiction is shown in red
crosshatch and the geographic area where county decisions are appealable to the commission is
shown in light blue. Each of the different types of lines below that in
the legend describe why an area is located in an appeal zone based on
proximity to coastal resources such as 100 feet from streams or 300 feet from
the coast of love. The appealable area in the county is primarily established in
areas where the first public road parallels the sea which is illustrated
by a black solid line typically mapped to Highway 1. Next, staff will present
to present each map and note items of particular interest.
These maps can also be found on exhibits two through six
of the staff report.
Next slide please.
Map one starts just south of the Mendocino border
at the Wallala River and largely focuses
on the sea ranch area.
Map one includes a map note calling out the region
potentially affected by the Bainville,
which is explicitly called out in the Coastal Act
and which exempts certain single family
residential developments from certain permitting requirements in the sea ranch area.
Next slide, please.
Map two shows the Salt Point area, which is currently only sparsely developed and includes
Salt Point State Park.
Map two also illustrates the many coastal streams in this stretch of coast that establish
appeal jurisdiction depicted by the dark blue outlines.
Next slide, please.
Map 3 shows the Timber Cove and Fort Ross communities south through Russian Gulch.
Highway 1 extends atop large bluffs along much of the coastline here.
At the bottom of the slide, circled in red, just north of Russian Gulch State Beach, the
map illustrates areas where the appeal jurisdiction is based on bluffs and stretches landward of
the first public road.
Highway 1 is very close to the shoreline at this location.
Next slide, please.
Step four shows the Russian River area and the communities of Jenner and Serrano Del Mar.
In this stretch, the first public road does not primarily dictate the appeals jurisdiction.
The appeal boundaries are instead established by the first row of parcels or 300 feet from
the mean high tide line along the Russian River, whichever is the greater distance.
Also of note in this area, both the coastal zone and the Commission's retained permit
jurisdiction stretch relatively far inland and slightly east of the community
of Duncan's Mills due to close proximity to the iconic Russian River. Next slide
please. Map five shows the region containing the town of Bodega Bay from
Carmett south to the Marin County border at Estero Americano. Around Salmon Creek
the first public road crosses the inland extent of the mean high tide line at the
area circled in red. Therefore, in this stretch, the Commission's retained permit jurisdiction
aligns with the boundary of historic title areas. There is also a map note for the Bodega
Harbor subdivision, which is subject to a 1977 settlement agreement excluding some development
from local permit requirements. Next slide, please.
Commission staff received several questions from stakeholders about apparent expansion
of appeal jurisdiction, especially related to the appearance of wetlands and streams.
Staff coordinated and met with these stakeholders and clarified that these changes reflect improved
mapping technology rather than regulatory changes to appeal jurisdiction boundaries.
Further, for areas in question, formal site-specific boundary determinations are available as requested.
Next slide, please.
In summary, the map update replaces older hard copy maps and allow for greater accuracy,
transparency and ease of use for county and commission planning staff and for the public.
Staff recommends that the commission adopt these updated digital post certification maps
for Sonoma County.
The motion and resolution to carry out staffs recommendation can be found on page 5 of the
staff report.
This concludes the staff presentation.
Thank you.
Hey, thank you very much.
I think we have an ex parte to report.
Mr. Kelly.
Yes, I received an email from Rue Furch
regarding this item earlier this week,
and the nature of the communication
was about some of the sub areas being put
into other specific named sub areas
and what that means for purposes
of ongoing jurisdictional challenges.
Are there any other ex partes?
I'm seeing them.
Okay, do we have a representative from the county
who wishes to comment?
Yes, we have Jacob Sedgley from Sonoma County on Zoom.
Morning commissioners, staff and members of the public.
My name is Jacob Sedgley.
I am a senior planner with Permit Snowman
currently serve as the coastal team lead.
Just briefly, I wanted to thank coastal commission staff,
especially Esther, Chris and Luke for their work on this
and their collaboration on these maps.
The Coast Commission staff was incredibly responsive, thoughtful, and genuinely incorporated the local jurisdiction comments into these maps to make sure that these would be a good tool for our staff for years to come.
So thank you all very much for your work on these.
Second, I wanted to underscore how valuable these updated maps are, as well as GIS data for our staff here at Permit Sonoma.
As Chris mentioned, we're currently using some outdated maps to measure where jurisdiction is, which is these big old things.
So we are very excited to have online versions available.
Having authoritative digital data will streamline our reviews, improve consistency and transparency for the applicants and the public.
and reduce overall processing time.
So our staff is very excited for these maps.
Thank you again to staff and the commission
for taking this forward.
Otherwise I'm here to answer any questions
that there are about the local permitting process
and how we use these maps.
Thank you.
Great, thank you.
Chris, are there any members of the public
who wish to speak?
There are no other speakers.
Okay, well, I will return to the commission
and just start by echoing the thanks.
Really appreciate great presentation
and clear collaboration here.
Are there any of my colleagues
who wish to, Commissioner Kelly?
Thank you and I just wanna also echo that
thank you to staff and county staff
for working collaboratively on this.
I know there's a number of folks
in the Sonoma County community
who have been eager to have these digital maps available
because of so many questions around jurisdiction
and where we retain authority.
So really appreciate the work
and certainly long overdue on getting these digitized
and available.
I did have a couple of questions, so...
and maybe this is better directed to county staff,
but for properties that you're aware
that have been dissected or bisected parcels
or parcels that have...
do those exist within this map,
and how have we reconciled that?
And do you feel like there are challenges
that may come before us that will be more complicated
because of not reconciling those bisected parcels
at this time?
Yeah, so, yeah, obviously there are parcels on there
that have different kinds of jurisdictions given
that there are three different types of jurisdictions.
I don't necessarily foresee any challenges.
That's a, you know, it's a thing on the current maps.
Yeah, I can't think of anything else
to add to that.
Esther or Luke, did you have anything you wanted to add?
I can jump in.
Thank you, Jacob.
So there are two types of commission jurisdiction.
There's a retained jurisdiction CDP authority and there is appeals jurisdiction.
When a property is bisected by a retained jurisdiction, generally, it would either need
a permit from both the local government and the commission or a consolidated permit.
cases where property is bisected by the appeals jurisdiction and there is a project on that
property, only the portions of the project within appeals jurisdiction are subject to
review in terms of whether or not they're inconsistent with the local government policies.
And if it is found to be inconsistent, then the entire project is reviewed de novo on
the Coastal Act.
Thank you.
For some of the sub areas, there was a question
that came up about the Serrano Del Mar community,
and I know that this was something
that was being discussed with county staff.
And I'm curious if it's true,
if that area has been split into two separate sub areas
within this mapping process,
and what that actually means for purposes
of this mapping exercise
and challenges that may exist going forward.
I'd be happy to take that question. Thank you, commissioner Kelly.
I've had a little bit of back and forth with rooferch as well about this
question. And I think we, I think we sorted it out,
but I'll just briefly clarify some of the background here.
The question about the sub areas is specifically relating to the
hundred or so maps and figures that are
And what we're seeing is.
Basically an appendix to the county's comprehensive.
Excuse me.
The county's comprehensive LCP update that they did for the land use
plan about one year ago.
And so those sub area designations were approved by the county in
2023, and then approved by the commission in November,
to revisit at some point in the future and divide the sub areas differently that
would be an option. I think there was a little bit of confusion in terms of the
way the maps were are portrayed because as Chris showed in the presentation we
have five different maps of course it's just one county but it's so the you know
Sonoma's coastline is 16 miles it's so big that we had to arbitrarily kind of
just decide where to put the line in terms of like here's map one here's map
to but in terms of the way that is divided up on what's before the
Commission today it has no impact over the sub areas or any other local
jurisdictional question so that's not really what's before the Commission
today and I'd be happy to pass it to Jacob Sedgley with the county if there's
any other additional context around the the nine sub areas or that particular
area. Yeah I mean at the end of the day these are jurisdiction maps so they're
separate from you know any of the sub areas that are mapped out in the LCP or
any of the policies within the LCP so they're just meant for jurisdiction only.
Thank you and that was my understanding as well I guess my question is is if
there's residents in the community who have continued to raise challenges
regarding how those sub areas were created and that it's in the county's
jurisdiction to reconcile those should the county be interested what is the
appropriate avenue for those residents to feel heard? And is
there any interest on the part of the county to try to fix some
of those things that seemingly don't sit well with the
community after that mapping effort was concluded in 2024?
Yeah, I mean, there's still a lot of work to be done on this.
All of our updates were for the local coastal plan, we still
have upcoming implementation and updates to our local or
our zoning code, coastal zoning code, as well as the administrative manual. So we're definitely open
to, you know, discussing any further changes or fixes that need to be done to the LCP as part of
implementation later on. Great, I really appreciate it. I know that, you know, this is a continue,
we're continuing to push this boulder up a hill, but I think just hearing the frustration in the
community and obviously there's a gratitude along with that of the work that's been done thus far,
but really wanting to get those changes
and that feedback memorialized in some way,
I think it's gonna continue to bubble up
in these other unrelated but related exercises
that we're doing, so it would be wonderful
to try to get collaboration with the county
and those residents so that they feel like
their participation in this process
is being memorialized as we continue to move forward
with all of those components yet to come.
So thank you for your willingness to collaborate
and and do that work appreciate it any other comments questions or a motion
it's on page 5 Commissioner Jackson I move that the Commission approve map
adoption number ma dash two zero two five dash zero zero one pursuant to the
staff recommendation and I recommend a yes vote second that's a motion by
Commissioner Jackson is second by Commissioner Kelly. May we have a roll
call vote please. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson yes. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly
yes. Commissioner Lopez. Aye. Lopez yes. Commissioner Notoff. Aye. Notoff yes.
Commissioner Presiado. Aye. Presiado yes. Commissioner Turnbull Sanders. Yes.
Chairman will Sanders yes Commissioner Wilson yes Wilson yes Commissioner O'Malley yes O'Malley
yes Commissioner Escalante yes Escalante yes Chair Harmon yes Herman yes the
vote is unanimous wonderful thank you okay I think in the interest of time
we're gonna just keep moving right along if anyone needs a bio break I think we
have quorum so just be aware of who leaves one please so that will bring us
Item 12 the deputy directors report for the Central Coast district. Yes. Thank you
In the Central Coast district directors report this month
We are reporting one coastal permit amendment three permit extensions and one emergency coastal permit
We are not aware of any objection or controversy regarding these matters
And so the question is whether three or more commissioners object and if not, then the commission will concur
Great. Thank you very much. Are there any ex partes?
Any speakers signed up to speak on this? I know just one available for questions. Great. Thank you
Do three or more commissioners object to the deputy directors report?
Seeing no objections the Commission concurs
We will move on to item 14a, please
That's right
item 14a is an appeal of a mixed use project in car you goes in San Luis Obispo County and
I'd like to introduce Sarah McGregor a coastal planner in the Commission Central Coast District office
who will give the presentation on Zoom.
Thank you, and good morning commissioners.
And we have a presentation for this, thank you.
Item 14A is an appeal of a San Luis Obispo County
coastal development permit to construct
a new roughly 4,200 square foot mixed use building
consisting of two motel units on the ground floor
and one residential unit on the second floor
on an undeveloped lot.
Slide one shows a rendering of the proposed project.
Next slide, please.
The project is located in the unincorporated community
of Cayucos in San Luis Obispo County.
The site is noted here in the middle of slide two.
Next slide, please.
And slide three zooms in on the site and surrounding area
with the site noted in the red rectangle.
The project is located
on an approximately 7,500 square foot vacant lot.
The site is designated as commercial retail, has frontage on South Ocean Avenue, and is
one block inland from Cuyco State Beach.
The appeal primarily contends that the county approved project raises LCP consistency questions
related to parking requirements and standards, including that the project does not provide
adequate parking for the proposed uses.
However, the project provides seven
standard sized parking spaces numbered here in red,
including one ADA parking space and one EV charging space,
which means the LCP requirement for parking
for the proposed uses.
And the parking lot design does not raise
a substantial issue of LCP conformance.
The appellants also contend that the project raises
stormwater and drainage issues.
However, the county approval requires submission
drainage plans and a stormwater control plan for review and approval by county public works,
and thus this does not raise a substantial issue. Furthermore, the appellants contend that
conditions related to prior approvals at the site are applicable to the approved development.
While there was a CDP approved in 2000 for a hotel development at this site and the two
sites to the north, the hotel was never constructed and the CDP has since expired.
All in all the appeal contentions do not raise a substantial issue. Next slide please.
As a result staff recommends that the commission determine that the appeal contentions do not raise
a substantial issue and that the commission declined to take jurisdiction over the CDP
application for this project. The single motion necessary to implement this recommendation
is found on page four of the staff report. This concludes staff's presentation.
Great. Thank you very much. Are there any ex partes?
Commissioner Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I participated Wednesday morning at the zoom
discussion regarding this project with Dan Boradari, Ann Sturgis, Harley Dubois, John
Carcel, and Vicky Tomash. And they expressed their concern specifically regarding the parking design
this proposed project. Thank you. Commissioner Lopez. Yes, thank you Madam
Chair. Also on 9-8 I met with Dante Borodori, Vicki Dimash, John Castle, and
Ann Sturgis on the same project with concerns based on primarily the parking
but also on the characteristics of the neighborhood. Thank you. Great, thank you.
Okay seeing no other ex partes we will open the public hearing and go first to
the appellant. I am NOT seeing the applicant's or the appellant's
representative Dan Borodori but we do have on Zoom Ann Surgis and Harley
Dubois. I'm moving Ann Surgis in right now and then Harley will follow. Ann Surgis
No, thank you.
Yes.
Go ahead when you're able to.
Hello.
Hi, we can hear you.
Okay.
Good morning. My name is answer just, and I live in.
For 13 years.
I love the small town of atmosphere.
I am opposed to the project, San Luis County approved.
It, even though it violates its own statute.
The construction of the new
Your staff report addresses this issue as a polite request when it is actually a governmental mandate.
The commission staff say that the adjacent property owner might agree to turn out as the county requires,
but the staff report indicates that it is not necessary for the developer to adhere to the law.
There is no way to build in a turnout after the driveway is constructed.
It has to be required now before beginning
to build this development.
Caiucas is a small town,
and if you approve the variance for this developer,
it will be the beginning of the end for us.
We can't afford to set the precedent.
We don't have enough housing,
and every vacation home that goes up
takes another opportunity for people who work in Caiucas
to find a place to live here.
we want to keep our parking spots for tourists
coming from inland,
the development will make a bad parking problem worse.
I believe it is a substantial issue
and that the county follows it.
Thank you.
Thank you, and before we move on to Harley,
I wanted to ask both Ann Surgis and Harley
if Dan Bordeaux or Vicky Tamush
are with you sharing a device.
I'm still not seeing them on Zoom.
Yes, they are available.
I'll go to Vicky right now.
OK, we can go to Vicky, then, if you're sharing your device.
Well, I'm not sharing the device yet,
but I'm going to do that right now.
OK, and then go to.
Yeah, OK, we'll move to Harley.
Hi, thank you all.
I'm Harley DuBois, and I'm directly
behind the Donaldson property.
And I really want to talk about a larger picture, where
this is leading us down the road.
And I do think if you looked at the largest picture,
you'll see a substantial issue.
The supervisors of SLO continue to not use the tools
that they have that have already been established
as Ann spoke about ordinance 23.05014D.
We discovered after just recently,
and so that's why it isn't all of your paperwork
from us already.
But it does say that a turnout is necessary
and it's for safety.
We can't get an ambulance in there or a fire truck in there
if there's an issue without the turnout.
So that is our main concern at this point.
Other businesses and Caillou kids
have all had to make adequate parking.
So it's, I don't know why we're changing the rules
for new developments.
I personally love the idea
of putting vacation rentals and mixed use
into the business districts.
I think it's a great solution,
but we'd have to provide the parking.
Otherwise, our streets are very narrow and they get jammed up.
We're gonna hunt parking lot jams
or parking in the street jams.
And it's gonna change the way our town is.
If you take the bigger picture, if we continue on this path,
we're gonna only have more richer people
coming to our town.
We're known on the coast for a really good place
for the inland people to come.
It's gonna change our restaurants.
It's gonna change the way our, like even having a bank,
we don't even have a bank in town now.
It's gonna become like Santa Barbara or these other places.
We wanna preserve our community
and what we're known for, our culture here,
as a small town, it's very important to us.
Thank you.
And then back to Vicki Tamoush if they're with you,
Ann Sturgis?
Yes, I'm here using Ann's device.
Are you able to hear me?
Yes, we can hear you, great.
Thank you.
We own the property directly behind the Donaldson development.
And I oppose this project for three reasons.
First, there is a 160-foot driveway,
which is the only entrance to the little parking lot.
The driveway crosses two other properties,
but there is no way to access the Donaldson lot
except to risk the long drive down.
And then when the driver sees that there is nowhere to park,
they put the car in reverse and try to navigate
this very narrow driveway out to the street.
Your staff report admits that the county requires
that a turnaround be provided,
but they inexplicably refer to it
as though the requirement may be ignored.
Please note this vague language
from page nine of the staff report,
it seems likely that a driveway turnout
could be provided along the access easement.
And yet based on this nebulous statement,
the staff report concludes that no substantial issue exists.
My second concern is the size of the parking lot,
as my colleague Carly just mentioned.
And my third concern is the one that will do the most harm
to our town in the future.
If these variances are approved,
it will set a devastating precedent on the Central Coast.
These are not towns with public transportation
or rideshare services.
These are towns where families come to cool off
on a summer day, expecting to find street parking.
By allowing the Donaldson development
to provide only a fraction of the parking spaces they need
and no turnaround space,
the Coastal Commission will set a precedent in Cayucas
that will damage the ability of our businesses to thrive.
They all provided sufficient parking,
but now a new business comes in
that will take away spaces meant for the public,
not for the developers and Richmond.
Please, before you decide whether a substantial issue exists,
consider the effects of this decision on our town.
And I'd like to mention that I know that Dan Borenthory
is on this call.
He submitted a speaker card and also six slides in advance.
And I'm not sure why you couldn't see me or him
and both of us submit a speaker request.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes, we do have both of their speaker requests,
but we do not see them in the Zoom meeting.
Is it possible that they might be watching on CalSpan?
We do not see Dan Bort or Dory,
and that would be the last remaining appellant speaker.
It is possible, and I don't know how to rectify that.
I myself didn't know that there was more than one way
to join the Zoom call, so I don't know how to rectify that.
Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
So we'll move on.
Is there a representative from the applicant?
Yes, we have two people with the applicants,
Adriana Cook and Rebecca Newman,
and they're both on Zoom.
They indicated they're available for questions,
but I see Adriana with her hand up.
Ms. Cook, did you wish to speak?
Yeah, so based on these appeals,
we are not asking for any variance.
We have the required amount of parking stalls
that we were asked to have.
They're all full size.
I think there is some confusion
with the turnaround versus turnout.
We have approval by fire.
So we're not, our goal as architects is fire and life safety
and to make sure the wellbeing of the public is good.
That's our job.
And so that is definitely a factor for us
requirements. And so we did not
design this without thinking
that. The turnout is required
by the county and we do meet it.
It asks for a specific width in
the drive aisle which we exceed.
And so we meet all the
requirements and we're not
asking for a variance on any of
them.
Get some folks back
Yes, we just sent them
Initial zoom link and they should be joining shortly
Thank you
While we wait Chris, is there a local government representative who wishes to speak? I
Don't believe so. We just had one member of the public. That was John Carsell who is on zoom. Okay
Let's please go ahead with mr. Carsell
Okay, John Carsell you're moving in right now when you're able to please unmute and go ahead
John Carsell
Thank you. Good morning, commissioners and staff
I am mostly concerned with a couple of things. Let me let me go back for a second
As you saw with kayak is we're not next to any other major
Metropolitan area the biggest town around us is moral Bay. We don't have major public transportation
We don't have a train hub or buses or ubers or things like that coming to town
When people come here for day trips, they drive, they drive cars, and those cars come
from all kinds of places, from North County of San Luis Obispo, from Fresno, from Bakersfield.
These are people coming to enjoy the coast.
If you have insufficient or unusable parking in sites that are being built, then you're
forcing those people to go into the public parking and are approximately 90 or 100 public
parking spaces start to be taken up by these people, and it's a real discrimination against
the day trippers. People who build hotels should have enough on-site parking to manage the hotels.
The presidential value of this type of hotel, however, is wonderful. I mean, I'm all in favor
of putting vacation rentals in the commercial zone, but it needs to be done right. The requirement
under the statute for a turnaround, not turnabout but just a turnabout, I'm sorry, space to
get off of the easement and allow vehicles to get by you, that space is mandated by county
statute. I don't understand the ignoring by everybody on this commission, it seems,
of the fact that there is a statute that says there will be this turnabout in a driveway
of this length. Your staff report acknowledges it's there and just says, okay, it's just
a hope that because coastal access has to be required on both sides, that it's going
to be fixed and the turnaround will have to be made. However, there's no condition for
it. How do you approve something that forces people to back out of a 160-foot driveway?
I don't get it. Thank you.
Thank you and we do have Dan Bortori on Zoom now and then I see you're still muted I've
asked you to unmute you should see the thing on your screen. Okay now we got it
there you are. Okay the Donaldson parking lot was approved by the San
Louis County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and next slide
please following the regulations written but did leave a few regulations
out. There's seven parking places, four for two guest rooms, one for a residence, one for ADA,
and one for EV charging. There's no parking for the employees. Spaces are 10 feet wide,
18 feet long. The 22-foot drive aisle way in the center. This allowed the developer also to reduce
the setback from the neighbor's property line to two feet, eight inches from five feet. In doing so,
They didn't put stop blocks to stop vehicles from pulling into the buffer zone on the property
line. They didn't require a turnaround at the end of the lot and a turnaround midway in the driveway
even though it is in the county regulations. Next slide, please. Sorry for the orientation.
According to the California New Car Dealers Association second quarter, 2025, 73.6% of the
of the vehicles sold in California and 82.4
in the United States are light duty trucks.
The new light duty truck
or the number one light duty truck is the Ford F Series
with the most popular configuration to crew cab.
Some of these trucks can be as long as 22 feet,
two and a half inches with a trailer hitch, 23 feet plus.
Next slide please.
That would mean that five and a half feet
would be parked in the aisle.
If you had two of these parked across from each other,
It could reduce the 22-foot aisle to 11 feet.
Next slide, please.
I used their parking lot drawing
and put vehicles in randomly for purchase statistics.
As you see, you may drive to the end of the motel parking
and find no parking.
You would now be 161 feet from the street
having to back out because of no turnaround or turned out.
A turnout will not provide enough space to turn around.
Next slide.
As you see, this is slightly exaggerated,
but this is what it would look like
if you were at the end of the parking lot.
Okay, thank you.
We don't have any other speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
Okay, so we will close the public hearing
and return to our staff for any closing comments.
Yes, I believe our district manager, Kevin Kahn,
is on the Zoom.
Yes, thank you, commissioners.
Just real quickly on this one,
a couple quick observations. So first, this is a pretty small project. It's three units,
two of which are a standard operating hotel, and then one residential unit that's envisioned to
serve as the manager's unit. Excuse me. It also meets all LCP requirements with respect to parking,
provides seven parking spaces, and it does not eliminate any of the existing on-street spaces
because it uses that existing shared driveway. And then lastly, with respect to the turnaround
that's been discussed today, as we say in the staff report, yes, technically that's something
that should have been addressed kind of more explicitly on the county's plans as part of its
local approval, but it is conditioned in the county's approval to work with the fire department
project. And with the adjacent
property owners to prior to any
building permit issuance to
address any residual parking
issues. We think the issue was
adequately addressed. I think
largely for this commission.
This is a pretty site-specific
issue about parking
maneuverability and not
necessarily on coastal resource
by the Board of Supervisors.
With that, we're available for any questions,
or Sarah, if you have anything else
you would like to provide her.
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Khan.
So I will return to the commission
for comments, questions, or a motion.
Commissioner Wilson.
I'm happy to make a motion,
but before I do, I wanna note that this was approved
by the Board of Supervisors on July 8th of this year,
brought an appeal in, looks like less than 60 days,
for zero dollars to the applicant and to the county
to have a substantial review
and of the coastal act and an adjudication of that,
which then again is, relieves them of some liability
and I would point out what a service that is
that we provide for those,
for those jurisdictions and those applicants.
So here we go, I'm gonna do the motion.
I move that the commission determine
that appeal number A-3-SLO-25-0027
raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds
on which the appeal has been filed under section 30603.
I recommend a yes vote.
Second, and I'd like to just add that this
You know, it is this is this this property is vacant. So, you know, there is there is there is at least a presumed
Entitlement for development and in mixed use and and it provides one residential unit and two hotel units
Which then in my mind relieves pressure on the short-term rental markets and then in the in in terms of the you know
In that perspective, so I think it's good for housing
And on those levels and I think it's good for if you want people in your restaurants and you want people to
Maintain a sustainable economy in these small towns, especially tourism towns
You need you need to provide the space for people to stay so I'm happy to support this project
Thank you. It's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner not off. They're asking for a yes vote if we could have a roll
Call, please
Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Kelly yes. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Lopez yes. Commissioner Nadal. Aye.
Nadal yes. Commissioner Presiado. Aye. Presiado yes. Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders. Yes.
Turnbull-Sanders yes. Commissioner Wilson. Yes. Wilson yes. Commissioner O'Malley.
Commissioner Escalante. Yes. Escalante, yes. Commissioner Jackson. Aye. Jackson, yes. Chair
Harmon. Yes. Harmon, yes. The vote is unanimous. Thank you. No substantial issue has been found.
I think this brings us to our last item for the day, item 15a. No. Item 15a has been postponed.
Okay, that's the end. Then that is the end. Amazing. Well, I will close first by thanking
our staff for their excellent work and the city of Fort Bragg. We always love to be here. It was
just a really fabulous week and so much to love about being in this town. And our team at AGP,
you guys are the best. Thank you for keeping us online and available and in line as well.
so thank you everyone. We'll see you next month at Redondo Beach. We're adjourned.