Good morning everyone. Welcome to the Friday session of the California
Coastal Commission. We will begin with a roll call vote or a roll call please.
Commissioner O'Malley. Present. Commissioner Jackson. Here. Commissioner Kelly. Here.
Commissioner Larson. Here. Commissioner Lee. Here. Commissioner Lopez. Presente.
Commissioner Preciado. Oh I can do that. Commissioner Wilson. Buenas días. Chair
Harmon. Here. You have a quorum. Thank you very much. Now we'll move to the virtual
meeting procedures please. Good morning. 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 the item, we recommend you
use the Cal-SPAN website. Those who wish to address the Commission today can do
so in person through the Zoom platform or by phone. The speaker request forms
may be found on the Commission's webpage. Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless
submittals are available on the Commission staff table just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the Commission agenda's webpage
which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone. Members of the public speaking
during general public comments may be given up to two minutes to speak at the discretion
of the chair requests to speak during the general public comment period will
not be accepted after 9 a.m. 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 who speak those speaking on an
agenda item that is not general public comments are typically allowed two to
three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair. We will accept a request
to speak on a regular agenda item up, item up until the chair opens the hearing
on that particular item. If you have internet access please go to the
Commission's web page and click on the link to fill out a speaker request. If
you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone please call
commission staff at 562 477 9 0 8 9. Again that number is 562 477 9 0 8 9.
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's your time to
address the Commission the organizer will invite you to turn on your video
and microphone and provide instructions on how to unmute the phone. Madam Chair
that concludes the virtual hand procedures. Great, thank you Simone.
Before we move to agenda changes I'll ask our Deputy Chief Counsel to give us
a report out from closed session please. Thank you Madam Chair. The Commission met
at the end of the day yesterday on October 9th in closed session. It
received litigation information and advice and provided direction on the
following cases. Bel-Air Bay Club versus Coastal Commission, lookout versus
Coastal Commission, Hottian versus Coastal Commission, Casamira homeowners
association versus Coastal Commission, San Mateo Farm Bureau versus Coastal
Commission County Farm Bureau, pardon me, versus Coastal Commission, friends of
Oceano Dunes versus Coastal Commission, and two matters of potential
litigation. And I'd just like to clarify as reflected in the August meeting
minutes approved yesterday in closed session at the August 2025 Commission
meeting the Commission set aside and revoked the Commission's March 2021
action on an amendment to CDP 4-82-300. During closed session yesterday the
Commission also received information about City of Fort Bragg vs. Mendocino
Railway, Mendocino Railway vs. Hucklebridge, Rio Del Mar Beach Island
Homeowners Association vs. Coastal Commission and Space Exploration
technologies corporation versus coastal commission and that concludes my report
thank you good morning chair Harmon and commissioners all told there are six
agenda changes for today item 10 a the Linda Isle consistency determination for
dredging in Newport Bay with ocean disposal move to consent item 13 a San
Luis Obispo County LCP amendment updating flood hazard provisions move to
consent item 14 a law heed CDP application for armoring in Pismo Beach
move to consent item 14 be Lewis CDP application for armoring in Caillou coast
move to consent item 15 a potbelly Beach HOA CDP amendment application for
revetment restacking in South Santa Cruz County moved to consent and item 15 be
the Coligan slash burns CDP amendment application for revetment restacking and
landscaping in the Live Oak Beach area of Santa Cruz County moved to consent. I
would note that the proposed agenda changes memo is not quite accurate.
Item 13B is no longer moved to consent and that's the Monterey County ADU
provisions. There will be a full hearing on that item today and that concludes
the agenda changes for today. Great thank you very much. Now we will move
to general public comment please. For members of the public I will be
announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite you to speak when
is your turn. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes during general public comments
at the discretion of the chair. In order to allow for live video testimony on Zoom, we
will bring you in as a panelist. As we bring you in, your Zoom will reload. This may take
a moment to speed up this process. We will bring several people in at a time, but will
remain muted and keep your video off until we ask you to speak. After your time is up,
will be moved back to attendee mode. For members of the public present in the room, I will
call your name in the order that they appear on our sign up list. When you hear your name,
please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you approach to speak. There
is a raise hand function that will help us find you in the attendee list. If you are
using a phone for audio, you can raise your hand by dialing star 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 will invite you to unmute and turn on your camera. You can unmute yourself on a phone
by downloading Star 6. First up, we have Walter Lamb followed by Brian Renaro followed by
John Donati. Good morning commissioners. I'm Walter Lamb represented by the Wetlands Land
Trust. I think there's a presentation for my... Yes, it's coming up right now. One second,
okay? All right. Well, while that's coming up, I just want to say, here we go, the drains
that you've been hearing a lot about for many, many years were finally sealed below
grade.
So these were drains that were put in the 1990s, discovered by Bina Wetlands nature
photographer in 2013.
In 2017, you met to discuss removing the drains.
We had a lot of discussion about instead of removing them, which would cause a lot of
impact and cost a lot of money, to instead, again, abandon them by capping and sealing
them below grade.
So the picture, the timer's kind of in the way a little bit,
but you can see they are gone.
And so the Bionawetlands is a really special place.
It doesn't look like a lot of ecological reserves,
because it is in a very urbanized setting.
So when we can score these little incremental victories,
it's cause for celebration.
So sometimes it takes a long time to get there,
and that process can be frustrating.
But when we get there, it helps the ecological reserve,
and that's what we're trying to do.
So we're going to celebrate this little milestone
and move on to the next one.
If you go to the next slide, please.
And so we're very excited for this ecological reserve.
I know for about 20 years, 21 years,
it's been a lot of contention.
But we see an opportunity now to kind of move past that
and get into a next chapter for the Bionawetlands.
And so we really have four little prongs here.
One is equitable public access, obviously
wildlife-friendly, culturally sensitive for nature education habitat stewardship. We think
we're getting closer to that, along with enhancement of native habitats, right? So we
really don't want lots of mustard and castor bean. We really want more things like alkali heath
and crescentruxelensis. And then, of course, underlying all that tribal engagement,
traditional ecological knowledge, and all decision making. And then the fourth one,
and this is, you know, gets into that project that you've been hearing about for a long time,
To just kind of go back to the drawing board see if we come up with a project not everyone's gonna like it
but we might be able to find something that's feasible that's actually doable and
That you know gets us most of what we want or most of what everyone wants to buy in a wetlands
without another 20 years of delay
Kind of you know pursuing that white whale of the project that we think is there now. So again, thank you
Keep moving forward and really appreciate your time today
Thank you next is Brian Roneiro followed by John Donate and then from zoom we have Cindy Abbott Naomi Maurice
Patricia
Opas and Carl Lambert and then Diana Sandoval
Good morning commissioners and welcome new commissioners
My name is Brian Roneiro. I'm a founding member of Pacifica homes or not hotels a grassroots organization involving hundreds of Pacificans
We're working to update our short-term rental ordinance in Pacifica
We are delighted that the Pacifica City Council voted unanimously to adopt our new ordinance this year and
The community celebrated this achievement by writing what the new ordinance means to them on this banner, which we all wanted to share with you here today
The new ordinance goes into effect in the non coastal zone at the end of this month
We asked that the Commission approved the ordinance when it comes before you
Before you
in the coastal zone where the majority of the STR's in Pacifica exist.
We in Pacifica are eager to share our beautiful beaches. We want visitors. We thrive with visitors.
But the accommodations must be safe.
These STR businesses pose a real danger to guests.
Visitors have a right to safe accommodations,
but many STR's have converted garages into unpermitted and wholly uninspected dwelling spaces.
The SDR across the street from me has done such an unpermitted garage conversion and
Advertises itself as accommodating 12 persons in a 1080 square foot space
These houses have no fire rated doors. No secondary egress and no panic hardware
It is not a matter of if but when a fire or a stampede breaks out in one of these overpacked party houses and
and someone gets seriously hurt, imagine a child or a disabled person caught in one of these STRs
in such an event. We are dealing with a time bomb here. These houses are not ADA compliant.
Operators exploit this regulatory gap for profit. If allowed to continue, it risks putting local
hotels, which must adhere to these safety and accessibility codes, at risk of running out of
business. That will eliminate disabled persons access to safe accommodations in the postal
zone. The new ordinance changes that. Please help us complete this journey and approve
the ordinance for our community and visitors. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Next is John Denate.
Hello commissioners. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name
is John Denate and I speak today in full support of the many environmental community groups
Supposing the project development on the narrow spit of land at the Carpentry Marsh Reserve where it meets the Pacific Ocean
commonly known as 501 Sandpoint Road
We know this project opposes an unacceptable threat to California's most fragile ecosystems
And that any disturbance here risks accelerating erosion and disrupting the delicate balance of the protected preserve
the logistical concerns are just a serious
The only access to the site is a 12-foot wide sand and gravel road just inches from the high
tide line and bordered by homes that have stood here for generations. And over the course of more
than a year during construction, this narrow lane will be pounded by heavy concrete trucks,
steel and lumber deliveries at daily construction worker traffic.
This road was never designed for that kind of load or frequency.
Let's be honest, one slight driver error while turning or backing a large vehicle and we could
have a truck toppled right into the salt marsh spilling fuel oil and debris into the protected
ecosystem. It seems that it's not a matter or question of if but when something like this
will happen. It appears that the commission cannot stop the project outright so we at least urge you
to protect the public and the environment by requiring the landowner, who's doing the
development, to post a substantial bond, one large enough to cover the multi-million dollar
cost of potentially removing the structure from the site, repairing the road that could
be damaged, compensating neighbors for the loss of use and access and the loss of their
property value, and the possible extraction of a toppled vehicle and a cleanup of contamination
from the protected Salt Marsh Reserve.
Without any such bond, the simple bankruptcy could allow the developer to walk away, leaving
destruction and the expense to the neighbors, the city, and the state, so please protect
our coast with strong financial safeguards.
And to the developer, I say, don't nade the land to future generations to enjoy.
Your name should be synonymous with your preservation and not a memorable California man-made disaster.
You can go ahead and unmute yourself on Zoom.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and all coastal commissioners.
I'm Cindy Abbott, a resident of Pacifica in San Mateo County.
A grassroots network began forming in June of 2022 when Pacificans began to see the loss of community members due to displacement and neighborly connection was being replaced by a revolving door of strangers.
door of strangers who don't volunteer, go to our schools, or support local stores and
services on an ongoing basis. This was because of an increasing number of homes and apartments
being converted from long-term housing to short-term vacation rentals. In June of 2024,
this issue came to the Coastal Commission. At that time, the City of Pacifica brought forward
an amended ordinance to implement a cap on the overall number of short-term rentals in the city.
While you approved the cap several on the commission at that time
questioned why stronger action wasn't being taken
even including a moratorium on new short-term rentals
and Pacificans agreed recognizing that a citywide cap
wasn't going to stop the conversion of homes to many hotels throughout our
residential neighborhoods. As you just heard after years of
meetings the Pacifica City Council passed a new ordinance
earlier this year. The revised ordinance reflects common sense regulations that have been implemented
in other coastal cities such as a maximum of 60 days of unhosted rentals and a primary residency
requirement. This maintains support for homeowners who want to take part in the sharing economy
by opening their home to visitors while moves moves away from the commercialization of our homes.
With implementation of the new ordinance, we're delighted to share that we've already
seen changes in our neighborhoods with new families moving into places that had been
vacation homes. But we still need relief in the coastal zone and we look forward to this coming
to you very soon and your approval to provide the relief for our coastal neighborhoods. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Naomi Maurice.
Hi there. Awesome. Well thank you everyone. Oh I think I have some visual aids as well.
Yes we're bringing it up right now. Thank you. Well I can just start with my intro while that's
coming up. Thanks everyone for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Naomi Maurice and I'm a
water quality data analyst at Hilda Bay and I'm here to talk to you all about our beach report
card and our river report card annual reports which were released last month. You can go to
Next slide, please. So just as an overview, Healda Bay's beach report card is a program that
started over 30 years ago. And for this program, we provide A through F letter grades to beaches
across California on both a weekly and an annual basis. And these grades are based on state water
quality bacteria standards and just provide an overall indicator of what water quality is like
at a specific beach. And we have a webpage as well as an app that allow you to check weekly
water quality results. And then our annual reports provide grades for the full year.
And really the goal of all of this is to educate the public and to provide them with information
necessary to make their own decisions about where they'd like to swim. And then we also
use this information for advocacy to talk about the health risks associated with coming
in contact with contaminated waters and also to assess trends at beaches over time. Next
please. So within our report that came out last month, we provide statewide regional and county
overviews describing what water quality was like this past year and how it compares to historical
trends. And then we also have our honor roll and beach bummers lists. And those are just lists that
compile the least and most polluted beaches across the state. You can go to the next slide. And then
In addition to providing annual grades to beaches, we also had two special sections this year to
highlight issues around the state. The first focused on pollution in the Bay area and the
impacts they're seeing from the combined sewer system overflows. And then the second is on Ash
to Action, which is heal the bay's post-fire water quality testing and the possible link
between fire runoff and beach report card grades. So if anyone's interested in those topics,
we suggest taking a look at the special sections. And then you can go to our last slide here,
which also just talks about our river report card. The goal of this is very similar to the
test cards, but here we're issuing grades for 35 freshwater sites in LA County. So thanks for the
opportunity to speak and hoping that folks go ahead and look at our reports there. So yeah,
Thank you so much. Thank you, Naomi. Next is Patty Opats. Patty, if you can unmute yourself.
There we go. All right. Patricia Opats, support brag. I have two points. The lawsuit with
Mendocino Railway and reading between the lines of the surface transportation board September
decision. While negotiating with the city this July, Mendocino Railway partitioned the surface
transportation board and this September it clarified its jurisdiction-free railway status.
The question is why? Point two. For Fort Bragg to settle the lawsuit to save legal cost is
ironical. A 300 plus acre coastal bluff resort development in a water challenged area
with active DTSC issues will change. This month, Fort Bragg City will approve the
memorandum and the settlement. This pressurized process has been fleshed out, pushed through
during three 30-day stays. Plans will change. The future will find Fort Bragg back into litigation
to enforce these agreements. Last, I want to send oceans of thanks to the Commission for their
forward-thinking strategic plan draft. Your goals, humility and hard-earned wisdom are needed
in these times. I'll close with your goal too which ties to my points. The commission supports
local governments in balancing development that fosters vibrant inclusive communities with the
coastal acts mandate to protect coastal resources, prioritize public access, recreation, and
environmental stewardship. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you.
Thank you. Next is Carl Lambert. Carl, are we going to meet yourself?
My name is Carl Lambert. Yes, go ahead.
my camera's not going on. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you Carl, go ahead and start
talking. Alright, anyway I want to thank you very much for the affirmative vote
for the restoration of our historic restaurant and theater. You gave me the
vote the other day. I want to clarify that there was a comment made about an
ATF and a fine and the reason was because the city of Los Angeles even
Even though they approved the project, I had all my permits for the hotel operation.
They failed to notify the coastal commission for two years due to, as a clerk said, we
filed it in the yellow file instead of the red file.
That said, I ended up with the black eye.
So on this project, I've received over 30 permits.
Every agency in the city of Los Angeles building and safety planning, everybody has reviewed
it and they looked at every guest room, light housekeeping room, kitchen, everything has
been approved. The head of building and safety said, Carl Lambert your project is exemplary.
Now then, over time I have dedicated over 20 units in the coastal area for low and moderate
housing. In fact, I even remodeled a 20 unit building one door away from the Venice Waldorf
And I handed it to Venice Community Housing Corporation with a zero mark-up.
It's now 20 low-income housing units.
After the earthquake, I was the president of the apartment association in Santa Monica
and Tom Hayden asked me after the earthquake, how do we put our housing back together?
I said, you can't because of all of the regulations from the city.
He said, no, really, how?
And I gave them an outline in an hour and they passed it and two months later the city
council passed it and we put buildings back together.
I don't know if I'm going to rebuild my home in San, that we lost in the Palisades because
it's just, we're exhausted after this particular process.
But if you want to figure out a way to build housing in this, in coastal donuts, happy
to help, come up with a program that would actually work.
for all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Last is Diana Sandoval but we don't see
her on zoom so that concludes our public speaking. Okay great thank you very much
now we'll move to the consent calendar please. There are no items on the regular
consent calendar but I'll move to item six which is items moved to consent. As I
described earlier today we have six items that have moved been moved to
to today's consent calendar, which I will quickly identify.
Item 10A, this is the Linda Isle Consistency Determination
for dredging in Newport Bay with ocean disposal.
Item 13A, this is the San Luis Obispo County LCP Amendment
updating flood hazard provisions.
Item 14A, this is the Lahid CDP application
for armoring in Pismo Beach.
Item 14B, this is the Lewis CDP application
for armoring in Cayucos.
Item 15A, this is the Potbelly Beach HOA
CDP Amendment application for revetment restacking
in South Santa Cruz County.
And item 15B, this is the Colligan slash Burns
CDP Amendment application for revetment restacking
and landscaping in the Live Oak Beach area
of Santa Cruz County.
I would note that we received several comments
raising some objections to a couple of the items
moved to consent, so I'd like to note and respond to those.
First, with respect to 14B, the Lewis armoring proposal
in Cayucus, staff received comments
from the Moro Coast Audubon Society concerned
about the project due to potential nesting
and other bird related impacts,
both during and after construction.
In response, we'd note that we prepared an addendum
that incorporates Audubon's suggestions,
including adding into the special conditions
enhanced bird protections during construction,
as well as integrating bird nesting perches
and other elements into the contouring
of the seawall itself.
With such changes, staff, including the commission's
ecologist, believe the specified bird issues can
be effectively resolved, and both Audubon commenters
were satisfied that such issues were addressed.
I would also note that the Surf Rider Foundation was
in support of this project as well.
With respect to 15A, the Potbelly Beach Revetment
restacking in South Santa Cruz County,
staff received comments suggesting
that some of the homes being protected
may no longer constitute existing structures,
allowed shoreline armoring under the Coastal Act,
that additional conditions should be applied
to provide better notice that a full analysis
will be necessary to determine
if armoring is allowable at all
once the revetment here
reaches the 50% replacement threshold
and asking for clarification
that previous unpermitted rock work at the site
was included in the roughly 10% redevelopment
noted in the staff report.
In terms of the redevelopment accounting,
yes, staff can confirm that such prior work
was included in the accounting of work to date.
As to the other suggestions, staff does not disagree
that these are important concepts,
but notes that all of these issues
are already identified in the staff report.
The report makes clear that those issues,
including whether a replacement armoring structure
is allowable in relation to existing
versus non-existing structures,
will be evaluated in the future
if or when the preventment replacement status,
when the revetment reaches replacement status
after passing the 50% threshold,
but are not the critical question now
with this more minor repair project
where the commission's review lens is necessarily more narrow.
Accordingly, while staff very much appreciates the comments
and generally shares the sentiments expressed,
staff does not believe that any changes are necessary
to the staff recommendation at this time
and continues to recommend that this item will be approved
on the consent calendar.
For the other items, only support correspondence
was received.
Thus, for all of the items moved to consent,
the applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations.
We have described known objections on these items
and have made changes via addenda
or explained why they don't change the staff recommendations
where applicable.
Thus, we continue to recommend the commission
to approve these six items through the consent calendar.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes on these matters?
questions or comments.
I see none any public comments.
Yes, so we have.
Keith Markle he's available for
questions on zoom and then Steve
kensley for F 14 a.
He is attending and he would
like to speak so.
And then we have Steve kensley.
Who would like to speak on F 15
brought that person in, or F-13A.
Great.
OK.
Thank you very much.
So I will return to the commission
for comments, questions, or a motion on these items.
I'll move consent, but I do have a comment,
and I think Commissioner Lopez did you have a motion?
Great.
OK.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, and I know just one comment,
and I think it's on the same item
that Supervisor Lopez was gonna comment on.
I appreciate the work done on the ADU provisions for-
There was actually a change on the Monterey one.
Oh, Monterey.
Yeah, I got, but we're gonna have a full-
We're gonna have a full hearing on that item.
Oh, it did get pulled.
Okay, I thought it was still on consent.
Man, I need another cup of coffee.
My motion still stands.
Amazing, all right.
Well, we have a motion from Commissioner Wilson, a second,
from Commissioner Lopez.
Any objections to unanimous consent?
Seeing none, the consent calendar is adopted.
Thank you.
And now we will move to the deputy director's report
for the North Coast district, please.
Good morning.
Item 7 is the deputy director's report for the North Coast
district, which includes one waiver and one immaterial
amendment for development in Humboldt County.
Staff is not aware of any opposition to these items, and we are asking whether three or
more commissioners object to any item in the report.
Great.
Thank you.
Any ex partes?
Any public comments?
None.
Great.
Do three or more commissioners object to any of these items?
Okay.
The commission concurs.
Thank you.
Now we are on to 8a.
Item 8a is a Caltrans application to amend a previously approved permit for Highway 101
corridor improvements in Humboldt County. Abigail Strickland, the Transportation Program
Analyst in our North Coast District, will be giving the presentation.
Good morning Chair Herman and Commissioners. Item 8a is an application by Caltrans to amend
their existing permit for the Eureka Arcata Highway 101 corridor improvement project.
This amendment relates to the timing of Caltrans sea level rise adaptation efforts for the
corridor. As you can see from the slide image before you, Highway 101 here sits directly
adjacent to the ocean at Humboldt Bay and flooding of the highway is an increasing concern.
Next slide please. This amendment concerns a six mile long stretch of Highway 101 between Eureka
and Arcata in Humboldt County. Highway 101 through this area was constructed in the 1920s
and is inland of a now defunct railroad constructed decades earlier along the eastern margin of Humboldt
Bay. The railway and highway were built across Humboldt Bay tide lands and along with significant
farming resulted in the diking of natural tide lands and blocking tidal sloughs located inland
of the highway corridor. Next slide please. In 2019 the Commission approved a CDP authorizing
Caltrans to undertake the Eureka Arcata Route 101 corridor improvement project for various
highway safety improvements throughout the corridor as shown on the slide. Essentially the approved
project authorized construction of a new interchange at Indianola Cut-Off, replacement of
the southbound Jacobi Creek Bridge, and various other safety and drainage improvements. The project
also included funding for the City of Arcata and Humboldt County to complete segments of the
California Coastal Trail and Great Redwood Trail along the bay, shown in yellow and blue.
And the construction of the 101 corridor improvement project is partially complete
but is still ongoing. Next slide please. As mentioned the highway here sits directly
adjacent to the Humboldt Bay and at the time of approval the risks to the highway from
sea level rise were clear. Required vulnerability analysis showed segments of the highway vulnerable
to as little as one foot of sea level rise which under projections at the time could be in the
early 2030s as shown here in the red segment of the corridor near its southern end. Because of the
high vulnerability of the project due to flood risks, the commission required two conditions
related to sea level rise and the emerging threat at post the highway 101. Next slide please.
Special condition one included various monitoring and reporting requirements. Caltrans has been
submitting these reports and has presented updates to this commission several times.
Caltrans will present the results of its latest annual monitoring effort in just a few minutes.
Special condition two requires Caltrans to develop and submit a comprehensive adaptation
and implementation plan, or CAPE, for the highway by December 31, 2025. The purpose of the CAPE is
to identify if suite of adaptation alternatives is necessary for adopting the highway corridor
to minimize flood risks. The condition also requires the CAPE to reflect public outreach,
as well as extensive coordination with the long-term planning efforts of Humboldt County and the
cities of Eureka and Arcata, all of which are in the process of comprehensive LCP updates.
Given that the project is adjacent to or connects with significant development in the area
of these local governments, that collaboration and LCP planning is essential to determine the
appropriate range of adaptation options. In this amendment application, Caltrans is requesting more
time to complete the final CAPE, specifically to allow submittal of the final CAPE by December
2027 rather than 2025. Next slide please. Here again we can see the highway and its close
location to the bay. This photo was taken a few years ago prior to the completion of the
bay trail along the railroad corridor. Completion of the bay trail along this stretch has contributed
to some stability and protection of the highway but the area remains highly vulnerable to flood
risks including from the inland side. As you'll hear Caltrans has made considerable progress on
the Cape, including through a productive partnership with Cal Poly Humboldt to complete a refined
vulnerability assessment for different segments of the project corridor and various pathways for
flood risk both from the bay and from the inland side of the highway. This study is close to but
not quite complete and additional coordination with the technical advisory committee and local
governments is needed. The county and the two cities are undergoing comprehensive LCP updates,
which will have implications for land use planning in the corridor. One example of the LCP
connection to the corridor is the county's Murray field airport that is adjacent to the most
vulnerable section of the corridor. Currently that facility which is below sea level rise and
difficult to maintain is accessed via the 101 corridor, but to what extent future adapted
highway corridor needs to maintain connection to this airport or whether the county may consider
that are relocating the facility elsewhere
is a fundamental question that needs an additional analysis
to inform consideration of the different alternatives
under the CAPE.
Next slide please.
Staff therefore recommend that it's appropriate
to extend the timeline for a submittal of the final CAPE
under special condition two.
As mentioned with the extension,
the final CAPE would incorporate recommendations
from technical studies and public outreach
and would be submitted by the end of 2027.
It's also important to note
that the existing permit conditions will remain in effect,
including a requirement that Caltrans expedite
and submit the CAPE within one year of the time
that any significant flooding of the highway occurs.
The motion to implement the staff recommendation
is on page five.
That concludes my presentation and as mentioned,
Caltrans staff is here to present the results
of the annual corridor monitoring
and reasons for the CAPE extension.
Thank you.
Great, thank you very much.
Are there any ex partes?
Okay turn it over to our team for public comment please. We don't have any public
speakers but we did have the person from Caltrans signed up a Lorna McFarland but
we're unable to see them on the zoom meeting if Lorna or okay we do see a
hand raised now it's under a device that's okay you're being moved in as a
panelists right now you should be able to unmute when you're ready. Is she
available for questions or wants to make no she has a presentation. Oh she does
okay excuse me. How much time would you like ma'am? Can you hear me? Yes we can
hear you. Great I think I should be able to get through this in just about six or
seven minutes if not faster. Okay great thank you so much. Okay so as you just
heard from Abby I'm here to present on the Eureka Arcata corridor and we're
seeking a time extension of two additional years. Next slide please. So as Abby went
through our original permit was conditioned with two special conditions, one that required additional
monitoring, sorry annual monitoring and reporting and of course the CAPE which is the Comprehensive
Adaptation Implementation Plan. Next slide please. So the annual monitoring, I just wanted to
present this year's data. So this is a report that includes water elevation from the North
spit tidegates, an analysis of coastal hazards along the one-on-one, and then a report on any
maintenance activities or hazard responses that had to take place within the last year.
Next slide please. So the big takeaway here is that the maximum water elevation has been similar
across all reporting years. There was no flooding or coastal hazard impacts this year along the
highway, and there was also no need for repair of maintenance of dikes or berms, and no impacts
that required a planned response. So we had a fairly uneventful year. You can see on the bottom
is this past year, 24-25. And then on the right, the colored bars, you can see is the reporting
across years. Next slide please. So I'll take a minute to report on the progress that we made
so far on the Cape before getting into what we need next. So you can see where you received the
CDP in 2019. Everything along the bottom where you see a wave is king tide monitoring that we have
conducted. Everywhere you see that scroll is an annual monitoring report that we have submitted,
and then everywhere you see a blue star along the bottom is a presentation we've done to the
Coastal Commission. So we've been pretty active with all of our monitoring and reporting,
and then we've been working with Cal Poly Humble, as Abby mentioned. We've got a contract in place
and we are continuing to work with them. Next slide please. So just before we get into what we
need next. This is what we've done. We've established a climate change adaptation unit at Caltrans. This
is new. We have a senior environmental scientist myself, two environmental scientists, and a senior
environmental planner. We've expanded our tide monitoring. So this year's tide monitoring has
a lot more data than previous years. We've been undertaking significant coordination with the
county of Humboldt on planning efforts, including adjacent land. Same with city of Arcata for
for parcels they own.
We've been having extensive coordination with CDFW
about the Faisaloo Wildlife Area.
And we currently do have a draft of the Cape completed.
Next slide, please.
So this is our future timeline.
This is kind of why we need the extension.
We are continuing to work with Cal Poly Humble
and we are continuing that local coordination,
all of which are incredibly important.
Our public outreach,
which is something that the Coastal Commission
specifically wanted will begin next summer.
And then, of course, we would need time to wrap up the comments from public outreach,
doing reviews, and get it submitted. And so that would bring us to
2027. Meanwhile, we will continue all of our monitoring and reporting efforts.
Next slide, please. So on the right, you do see an outline for our cape just to let you know that
we have made substantial progress. This additional time will allow us to complete more analysis,
including effects of Indianola which is the overpass that Abby mentioned along with zero
M270 which is an interim sea level rise project that will take place and will go to construction
before the CAPE projects are implemented. We also would like to continue our coordination
with local governments and the technical advisory committee as well as key land owners and lastly
to fulfill our public engagement plan. Next slide please. So the Cal Poly Humble Vulnerability
Assessment is a huge part of our CAPE. We have very detailed methods that integrate
information from coastal and hydraulic hazard analysis modeling and this has been done on a
sub-corridor scale so we've divided the corridor into six segments. Next slide please. As you can
see here each segment is represented in a different color. The reason it's not three segments in the
in the north and southbound lands are different colors
because they do exist at different elevations
at the moment.
So different treatments would be needed in the short term
or different vulnerabilities are expressed now.
Next slide, please.
So here again are those corridors I just talked about
and a handy little key at the bottom
that lets you know the vulnerability.
So red will tell you the number of days per year.
We expect to see more than four inches of water.
This is somewhat of an arbitrary number,
but it does represent something that you would see water hitting the bottom floorboards of low cars.
So you can see we're still working on our northeastern corridor numbers, but you can
see some areas of the corridor are as vulnerable as early as 2030, and some areas are vulnerable
not until 2060. Next slide please. Quickly, this is a northbound lane profile. Just wanted to show
you the point I made earlier that the road is not at a single elevation, and it does change
quite a bit. We've got low areas and then, of course, we've got the higher peaks. Next slide,
please. So I just want to introduce ZeroM270, which is an interim sea level rise project.
So I'll start by saying the CAPE is a significant planning level document that will result in
exactly that, a plan. We then need to find money to program these projects and get them built.
This will take time. ZeroM270 was identified because we do have those low-lying areas of
the corridor that you just saw, and we need to do something now. We do have available climate funds,
so this project will be programmed in July, and then we'll go to construction in early 2030.
Next slide please. 0M270, what you can see on the right, I know it's a little small, but I just
want to let you know everything that we are proposing in this project. We have worked closely
with our local Coastal Commission staff to ensure that it is compatible with all future
CAPE suggested projects. So this is not a massive overbuild, it's really just what
we need to do now to buy us some time until 2050 to ensure our highway stays
open. This project will include steps to enhance hydraulic connectivity, tidal to
improve the tidal prism, and then also some upsizing of culverts and upgrading
of tide gates. Next slide please. So just summary, I know you've heard it quite a
few times now, but because we've made substantial progress on the CAPE and we
really want to get this document right. We want to have that public outreach and continue
our partnership with Cal Poly Humboldt. We need a little more time to do that in-depth
analysis and thus we are asking for two additional years. Next slide please. I'm Will for questions
and if after the meeting any commissioners want additional information I'm also around.
Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Now any members of the public wish to speak?
Okay, thank you um I will close the public hearing and ask if staff has any
further input no I'll bring it back okay I'll bring it back to the commission
comments questions Commissioner Wilson yeah I just want to give my support for
this extension the meeting where we impose these conditions on Caltrans was
Well, my first meeting was my first meeting at the Commission
And I think there are the the Commission put a lot of conditions
on Caltrans at that time one of which was to
be actively promoting and building the
Trail between Arcadia and Eureka as part and the corridor which is finished now. So hooray for that
as well as some
removal of some billboards along the Bay and there's other things too and I will say that as
an
Adjacent agency in this process. I witnessed it's been difficult
To get everybody on board and I will say the Lorna has been doing a really good job
Dogged leave trying to pull this together
and and you know, even our agencies had a bit of challenges around our airport situation and and
If anyone doesn't notice, we've had a few airport directors since then, so there's been
a lot going on, and so I just want to say that I think they're hard charging as best
they can.
I think the two-year extension is completely reasonable, and I'll make a motion to that
point, I suppose, as soon as I bring it up here on the screen.
The number again?
8A.
This is item 8A.
8A, okay.
Sorry about that.
maybe while you're doing that through the chair if I could just provide a quick
comment just wanted to appreciate the partnership that we have had with Caltrans
on this and other projects this is an example of where through that
partnership we have our staff have been working really close together and to kind
of pull move these things forward as best we can and so we feel really
confident in recommending it to your extension because we have seen and have
been working with them all along and see the progress these things do take time
and and so we think that's totally reasonable to your to your point
Commissioner Wilson so just again wanted to appreciate Lorna and all the staff
that we're working with on this and and again appreciate the partnership in
general. Okay I'm in the Commission approved the proposed amendment to
Coastal Development Permit number 1-1 8-0 excuse me 1-0-7-8
pursuant to the staff recommendation I recommend a yes vote. Second. The motion
by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly any objections to
unanimous consent seeing none the motion passes thank you okay now we will move
on to item 9 the deputy directors report for energy ocean resources and federal
consistency thank you as you said this is item 9 the deputy director report for
energy ocean resources and federal consistency we're reporting five
negative determinations this month but don't have any items that require
Commission action. I also don't believe that we have any speaker signed up so
this is a very short and sweet Deputy Director's report. Wow indeed okay now
we'll move on to item 11 thank you very much. Thank you. Item 11 is the North
Central Coast Deputy Director's report and in the report this month we are
reporting one waiver for a small coffee shop expansion in Pacifica. We are not
aware of any objections or controversy regarding this matter and so the
question is whether four or more commissioners object and if not then the
commission will concur. Thank you. Any ex partes? Any public comments? Okay.
Thank you. To four or more commissioners object. Seeing no objection, the
commission concurs. Thank you. Thank you. That brings us to item 12, the
Central Coast Deputy Director's Report. And in that report this month we are
reporting one waiver, three coastal permit amendments, and one LCP
certification review. On the latter, I would note that we received an
objection, which is in the correspondence package for this item, and I would
further note that we distributed an addendum in response. I won't go into
significant detail on the points raised, past saying the objections suggest that
Santa Cruz County did not properly adopt the Commission's suggested modifications
and takes issue with the mods themselves.
As further explained in the addendum,
we believe that the county's action
to accept the changes directed by the Commission
was legally adequate,
which is the standard that applies here,
and the objection does not change
the Executive Director's determination in this regard.
Further, as noted in the addendum as well,
the objector's opposition to the Commission's action
is immaterial at this point.
Namely, at this juncture,
the Commission has already deliberated
and taken a final action on the amendment
and any sort of re-review or re-litigation
of the issues associated with that action is not possible.
Thus, the executive director continues to report
the county appropriately accepted the mods
as directed by the commission
and the objection does not change
the executive director's determination in any case.
Also, and to be clear, LCP certification review
does not require any type of commission concurrence.
Rather, the regs simply require
that the executive director report
that the county has made the changes required
by the commission in its conditional certification
in a legally adequate manner.
Once that is done, as it is being done today,
then the amended LCP is certified in that form.
I note that to help make clear
that this is not a time to revisit any substantive issues
associated with the commission's conditional certification.
Rather, the sole question is whether the county
appropriately adopted the suggested modifications
identified by the commission.
And in this case, it is the executive director's determination that they did.
For the items that do require concurrence, we are not aware of any objections or controversy
regarding these matters.
And so the question is whether three or more commissioners object, and if not, then the
commission will concur.
Great.
Thank you.
Any expertise?
Any public comments?
Yes.
David Miller.
Thank you.
David Miller, if you can unmute yourself.
Sorry.
There you go.
I had a secondary mood on.
Good morning chair and commissioners, David Miller on behalf of William and Susan Porter.
I don't have a lot to add.
We submitted our comment letter last Friday.
I hope that you all have had a chance to review it.
I would just like to reiterate that the, you know, the process around the adoption or the
second reading of the ordinance was confusing.
a lot of interested parties that were concerned
about their development rights for their properties
that are affected by this ordinance were caught kind
of unaware of the correct date of the hearing
and were not informed that they had received a response
from HCD and therefore did not know that this item
was passed quickly on the consent calendar shortly
after it was continued.
So like I said, the process was confusing
and we're simply asking for remand
to allow the county to provide these individuals
an opportunity to address the issues.
Thank you, that's it, no more speakers.
Okay, thank you very much.
I will bring it back to the commission
and ask whether three or more commissioners object
to any item in the report.
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs, thank you.
And now we'll move on to item 13B, please.
Thank you, and I believe we have a presentation.
Okay, item 13B is a proposed Monterey County LCP amendment
to update ADU regulations
in the unincorporated county coastal zone.
Slide one here includes an image
of the iconic Big Sur coast,
which comprises a large portion
of Monterey County's coastal zone.
Next slide, please.
Monterey County, outlined here in red,
is located to the south of the San Francisco Bay Area
between Santa Cruz and San Luis Obispo counties
at approximately the midpoint of California's coastline.
Next slide, please.
The county's coastal zone encompasses a wide range of areas
from the rural agricultural North County
to the resort focused
and single family residential built environments
within the Del Monte Forest and Carmel areas
to the largely undeveloped and mountainous Big Sur coast.
Given this vast geography
with distinct characteristics and development patterns,
the Monterey County LCP is broken out
into four separate area plans.
One each for North County, Del Monte Forest, Carmel
and the Big Sur coast, each outlined here
in different colors, north to south.
This amendment would constitute
the county's first ADU regulations update in a decade
and is in part intended to reflect the many changes
to state ADU law that have occurred since 2015.
The proposed amendment would make a series
of area specific and overarching changes
to ADU and JADU permitting and permissibility.
The net effect of which would be to allow ADUs
more places, introduce JADUs as an allowable form of housing, and to streamline ADU and JADU approval
all while still ensuring ADUs and JADUs are appropriately cited and designed to protect
coastal resources. Next slide please. Perhaps the most significant area specific change proposed in
the amendment is lifting the current ban on ADUs in the heavily agricultural North County area.
This ban is currently in place due to water supply limitations.
The region's entire water supply is sourced from groundwater within overdrafted aquifers
experiencing saltwater intrusion. The Coastal Act and the LCP require the protection of agriculture
as a coastal priority use, including the prioritization of scarce water for agricultural use.
As such, additional non-coastal priority water-using development, such as ADUs and
JAD use presents a challenge. To help offset the potential increase in water
use caused by new units, the county's proposal includes a suite of water
conservation requirements for properties in North County when such units are
constructed. These measures include water efficiency standards for water using
fixtures on all structures on the property and replacement of irrigated
ornamental landscaping with drought tolerant landscaping. Furthermore, many
Many areas of North County are environmental justice communities with a critical lack of
housing and the region's agricultural economy is dependent on workers who are part of these
communities.
Housing, particularly the smaller scale housing provided by ADUs and JADUs that is more likely
to be more affordable, is both an environmental justice issue and critically important to
the region's agricultural economy.
As such, commission staff believe the proposed changes strike an appropriate balance and
adequately protect coastal resources including agriculture in the recent
region. Next slide please. Another significant area specific change in the
is the removal of the 40 acre minimum parcel size for ADUs in the unincorporated
Carmel area. This area has long had water and wastewater issues including
septic contamination into wells and coastal waters. The 40 acre minimum
parcel size was intended to address these constraints by significantly
limiting the number of ADUs in the Carmel area. Where properties are served
by public water and sewer services, ADUs should not pose a significant issue in
that respect. However, significant issues remain for neighborhoods relying on
private wells and septic systems such as the Carmel Highlands area. To address
private well and septic issues in these areas and throughout the county, the
proposed amendment requires review and approval from the County Department of
health for proposed ADUs and JADUs. This requirement will allow ADUs to be
constructed where they can be safely accommodated and will prevent their
construction where they're inappropriate. Next slide please. This approach where
ADUs are generally allowed subject to coastal resource protection requirements
can be understood as the overall ethos of the proposed amendment. The current
LCP includes various general and area specific lot size requirements. It does
not allow ADUs in some residential zoning districts,
they caps ADUs in Big Sur at 50 total,
and it prohibits ADUs in Monterey Cypress habitat.
The proposed amendment lifts
all of these blanket restrictions
and instead relies on new and existing
coastal resource protection policies
to ensure ADUs and JADUs
do not have adverse coastal resource impacts.
Next slide, please.
Finally, with respect to permitting,
the proposed amendment would streamline permitting review
for better consistency with state ADU law
and would exempt some ADUs and JADUs
directly attached to single family homes
from CDP requirements.
These exemptions would be limited
to those allowable under the Commission's regulations.
For instance, attached ADUs could not be exempt
if they would impact Esha or wetlands,
if they were located within 50 feet of a coastal bluff,
or if a past CDP required future changes at the site
to have a coastal development permit.
Next slide, please.
Staff believes that the proposed LCP amendment
would appropriately expand housing opportunities
in the Monterey County coastal zone
while protecting coastal resources.
Staff has worked with county staff
over several years on this amendment
and appreciates the county's collaboration.
Staff recommends that the commission approve the amendment
as submitted and the motion to do so is found
on page four of the staff report.
This concludes staff's presentation.
Great, thank you very much.
I'll ask for ex partes on this matter.
Okay, seeing none, we will open the public hearing.
Chris, so there are representatives from local government.
We should speak, okay, get started.
Yes, we have two in person.
Oh, they're online now.
Sanchez, Edgar.
We're moving them over right now.
Great, thank you.
And Sarah, you should be able to unmute yourselves, Edgar.
Hello everyone. Can you hear me? Yes. Awesome. Yeah. I have just a brief update.
So good morning commissioners. My name is Edgar Sanchez and I'm an assistant planner
with the Monterey County Housing and Community Development Department and I'm here to express
the county's strong support for the commission's staff recommendation to approve the county's
local coastal program amendment for accessory dwelling units. This amendment is a critical
step that can help address the severe housing shortage throughout the Monterey County's
coastal communities.
ADUs have the potential to create new housing opportunities without requiring large scale
subdivision, high density housing or major new infrastructure which is especially important
for environmentally sensitive habitats in the coastal zones.
For years the county's LCP has included restrictions for ADUs such as the large minimum lot size
requirements and numeric caps and even prohibitions in some areas like North
County. So Modern County has been working for more than a decade to modernize the
coastal AD regulations. These updates to the coastal AD regulations started in
2011 when the Board of Supervisors adopted an LCP amendment to that
replace references to caretaker units with accessory dwelling units in our
coastal zoning ordinance. In 2015 following these changes to state
Housing Law the county further amended the ADU policies and established updated development
standards and in 2020 in response to new legislation once again the county began updating these
regulations which leads us to today's update. The update before you today will remove those
updated regulations and aligns the coastal regulations with the state ADU law. All while
maintaining LCP's strong resource protection framework.
Overall, I think the amendment modernizes the LCP
to allow ADUs throughout all areas
where single-families homes are allowed
and supports the county's housing goals
and furthers the Coastal Act's objectives
of providing housing opportunities
while safeguarding sensitive coastal resources.
We appreciate the Coastal Commission staff's
collaborative work over the past three years
and to help shape the program.
So thank you and we urge the approval
of the amendment as submitted.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, so next we'll go to the public.
Oh, does Sarah need to speak as well, Sarah?
Wickel?
Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, commissioners.
My name is Sarah Wickel.
I'm a principal with our advanced planning team.
I also wanted to note that we have our chief
of planning here, Melanie Berretti,
and we're happy to answer any questions.
As Edgar noted, we strongly support the Coastal Commission
to approve the LCP amendment as submitted.
There's been a lot of really good collaborative work
on the county side and with the coastal commission.
So I just wanted to extend our sincere appreciation
to the collaborative nature
of getting this before you today.
So again, we're happy to answer any questions you may have
and again, encourage the approval
of the amendment as submitted.
Thank you.
Perfect, so we have about eight speakers via Zoom
but only showing four so far.
so we're gonna go with Marislava Magallen,
followed by Pat Cronlund and Martha Shaveria
and Brianna Shaveria, that's who we see so far.
Christina McGinnis, Jessica Ayala and Lucas Handy
and Aidy Rangel, if you guys can use the raise hand function
and we'll start off with Marislava Magallen.
Okay, you can go ahead and start talking Ms. Lava.
You're unmuted.
Okay, maybe you're having some technical difficulties.
Let's go.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you, go ahead and speak.
Okay, thank you.
Commissioners and as far as the AV unit
for the North fundamentally coastal zone
is a meaningful and necessary step toward
the need to help our children to live in this area
and help our parents to be able to have care by us.
It will benefit the many families in our area
that are struggling with the high costs
that we have in Monterey County.
Permitting an ADU is a practical and much needed in our area
and I would urge you to please help our residents
to adopt this policy that allow for the development
of the ADU units in our area.
And that's all I have to say, thank you.
Thank you, next is Patty Cronelow.
Yes, good morning.
Dear Chair Harmon and commissioners,
my name is Patty Cronelow.
I am the executive director of the Community Association
of Big Sur, also known as CABs.
CABs submitted a public comment letter on October 3
in support of the Monterey County's LCP ADU amendment,
and in support of the Coastal Commission staff's report.
CAB strongly supports the following Big Sur
specific areas of the amendment,
removing the existing 50 unit ADU cap,
removing the current two acre minimum parcel size limit
for ADUs and JADUs,
allowance for ADUs and JADUs on land with watershed
and scenic conservation and rural residential land use
designations, required in 90 day minimum rental
to prevent short term rentals.
ADUs continued requirement to meet the land use plan's
critical view shed requirements,
which prohibits new development within view of highway one
and other public areas.
Streamlining the permitting process for ADUs and JADUs.
Adding that CABS believes that ADUs must still align
the land use plan, avoid sensitive areas, and follow slope and zoning requirements.
CABS respects and understands community concerns and that these changes do not
mean unchecked development or disregard for planning framework in place or the
Big Sur land use plan. There is an important element that CABS would like to
suggest and be considered by Monterey County staff and the California Coastal
Commission. These are yurts, modular homes, and tiny homes on wheels as an ADU option.
They are more affordable and quicker and quicker long-term housing. Thank you. We support the
amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Martha Shaveria followed by Brianna Shaveria.
Marte, are you going to meet yourself?
Yes, good morning.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Great.
Thank you so much.
My name is Marte Chavarria.
I am a resident here at North Monterey County,
and I'm also president of North County LULAC,
and I'm also board trustee of North Monterey County Unified
School District for the last 12 years.
I cannot tell you how excited I am about this finally coming
on the Coastal Commission agenda,
because we've been advocating for this for exactly two years
ago in October, 2024, when we addressed this concern
with Supervisor Church, and then we
started collaborating with Craig Spencer and Edgar
Sanchez, and what we can do to make
this amendment and this proposal.
So I am so excited to be here today,
and I strongly advocate for this.
And I have a statement that I'd like to read.
And this is the statement that I'm really happy that right now
we're addressing this issue, because the current housing
crisis is not an abstract issue.
It directly affects the stability, health,
and educational success of our community.
In our local school districts,
over 80% of the students are classified
as social-economically disadvantaged,
and 30% are experiencing homelessness.
These numbers are not just statistics.
They represent families struggling to survive in regions
where housing has become increasingly inaccessible.
So permitting ADUs is practical, community-based solution
that can provide much-needed, affordable,
and flexible housing options
without altering the character of our neighborhoods.
80s is the support of multi-generational living,
enable aging in place,
and offer rental opportunities for local workers
and families who otherwise cannot afford to live
near their jobs or schools.
So expanding access to 80s in the coastal zone
is making history, and I really look forward to,
and I urge you to prioritize the needs
of our most vulnerable residents,
especially our children, and adopt these policies
that allow for the development of additional dwelling units
in the North Monterey County Coastal Zone.
So thank you for your leadership and commitment to a more inclusive and resilient community.
And I really, again, want to thank the collaboration with Edgar and Sarah and all the alignment
and all the work that you guys did to make this happen, and we're actually here today
to make this happen, thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Brianna and Shavarra, and the other four that we weren't seeing available, if
you guys can raise your hand function, that'd be great on Zoom.
If not, then this will be the last person.
Hi, good morning commissioners.
My name is Brianna Chavria
and I'm a longtime community member of North Monterey County.
I've been patiently and eagerly waiting for this meeting
hopeful that we can finally move forward
with allowing ADUs in the North County Coastal Commission.
It's been confusing to see surrounding areas
permitted to build ADUs while we continue
to face restrictions,
especially when many of our properties
have more than enough space
to responsibly accommodate an additional unit.
There are students that are experiencing homelessness
and these families really do need safe, stable
and local housing, which I believe ADUs
would be the answer for that.
And they are a smart, low impact solution.
So please help us bring equity and opportunity
to our community to allow ADUs
in the North County Coastal Zone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So we see two hands up in Zoom.
We're going to allow Adalia to unmute and speak.
Hopefully she's one of the speakers.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes.
Can you say your name so we know if you're on the list?
Yes.
I'm sorry.
I don't know why it says Adalia, but it's A.D.
Rangel.
Oh, yes.
I'm going to say your honor.
Go ahead.
Sorry.
I just wanted to speak on the importance of allowing ADUs in North Monterey County.
Right now, our area faces a serious shortage of affordable and flexible housing.
Families are being priced out, seniors can't afford to age in place, and workers who support
our local economy often have to commute long distances just to find a home.
ADUs are a simple community-based solution.
They allow homeowners to create small, safe housing on existing properties without changing
the rural character of our neighborhoods, minder that some of these homes or properties
are two and a half acres so they have the space.
They can provide housing for aging parents, adult children, or essential workers who keep
our country running.
North Monterey County deserves the same opportunity that other parts of California already have
to build responsibly, to house our families, and to strengthen our communities.
time to make these ADUs an option here in North Monterey County. Thank you.
Thank you. We have one more person is saying zoom user we're gonna allow you
to speak. Can you state your name to see if your name is on the speaker list? Hello
my name is Jessica Yala. I'm at 325 Mayher Road in Royal Oaks and I want to
I want to thank everybody for all the good work that they've put into this.
And the community is very excited.
I came across a couple individuals in the last couple of weeks that have been talking
about this.
And they are very, very excited and very grateful and are looking forward to have ADUs on their
property.
And I'd like to read something to you and please keep this in mind that a family of
four making $115,000 is considered low income in Monterey County in 2025 according to the
calculation of the California of housing and community development.
An individual making 80,000 a year is now considered low income.
It is very expensive to live in this area.
And this will only bring stability to our community, our family members and friends.
This is a win for everybody and I encourage you to pass this.
We are in support of this.
We are in great need of housing with this moratorium being in place for 30 years.
I think it is time that this coastal zone approved the amendment for additional housing
and definitely bring the community together because there's a lot of families that are
being separated because of the cost of living and having to move out.
There's not an alternative at the moment and this will provide that avenue to keep families
together and also provide rental homes for single families. Thank you.
Thank you. That concludes all of our speakers. Great. Thank you very much. So I will bring
it back to the Commission and turn it over to Commissioner Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At the appropriate time, I'd appreciate the opportunity to make
the motions after we've heard from my fellow commissioners. But I just wanted to share
that this issue is one that's personal and important to me.
In Monterey County, we have been extremely active
in modernizing our ADU allowances and ordinances
to follow the state guidelines and requirements.
I live it personally.
I built an ADU on my property and my in-laws moved in,
retiring from Napa where they were,
it gave them the opportunity to retire, to be frank.
One was a childcare worker, my mother-in-law,
and my father-in-law was a handyman for many years,
but owning their home, they were still trapped
in having to keep it up.
By building the ADO on our property,
the leveraging of multiple generations
on one piece of land,
give us every opportunity we dream about.
I get to continue to serve on a ton of boards
to the point that it gets uncomfortable
and my wife gets to keep doing what she loves,
which is working every day in the wine industry
that we are blessed with in California.
And it's because on site, I have childcare.
On site, I have somebody who is constantly vigilant
and taking care of this place that we love so much
and the people that we've created together
are beautiful children.
And I know for so long,
these families specifically in North County
have been calling out for the same opportunity
given the land that they are on
and seeing really very low barriers
to their entry into this opportunity.
And so the ordinance that's before you
has taken a lot of crafting
and seeing Patty up on the screen
talking about the positions of support from Big Sur
and knowing Butch, her husband, who recently passed
but was really a stalwart of that community,
it brought back to me a quote that I read
when he passed that I just want to read,
which is he was talking specifically about the balance
between the desire to use the land for tourism
and the desire to continue to preserve it.
And he talked about the fact
that there's extremes on both sides,
but we're trying to hold the space in the middle.
It will get us to the point
where we can actually do something
because not doing something is not an option.
I think that's the spirit of this particular set
of ordinances around ADUs in Monterey County.
It was about doing something to allow
for our community to move forward.
There's progress built into this
and that's the reason that I'm supporting it today
and look forward to seeing this move today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That was beautifully said, thank you.
Any other comments?
Commissioner Wilson.
Yeah, I wholly support this amendment.
I guess it's there, this ADU process
I want to have a couple of questions that are just clarifying for staff. And they just
really, they are just about the ag land section. There is not really timber lands, is there
in this? Yeah, okay, so for us, when we talk about resource lands and the protection of
resource lands, there is language in here about the inability to use ADUs, to do subdivisions.
And again, this is protection of lands
where farming and agricultural activities,
sometimes there's a lot of threats to that
through subdivision, and then sometimes de facto subdivision,
which was a concern of ours in our rural area around ADUs.
And so there's a lot of good language in here
that says that there won't be subdivision.
But I was kind of wondering from the physical parameters,
And I'll just give an example, in our ADU ordinance,
we limited the ADU to a two-acre curdleage, which
is around the main house, so that there wouldn't
be a de facto subdivision or fragmentation.
And I was kind of wondering, there
are some policies in here about not allowing
for the conversion of ag soils and other protections.
The other part we also had was one driveway,
so that the ADU was really part of
the main agricultural living space.
And I'm just kind of wondering,
do those protections exist in here?
I mean, I read through it,
they seem indirect and they almost seem like process-like
as opposed to being very explicit.
And so can you speak to that?
Yeah, certainly.
So you're correct, there aren't explicit requirements
for a shared driveway or kind of co-location
within a certain area.
There is kind of an incentive structure inherent
to the amendment where certain ADUs can be exempt
if they're directly attached to the main residents.
And I think we think that that will incentivize
more attached ADUs.
There are also ADUs that are not attached
are gonna need to comply with LCP requirements.
So to the extent that they would impact coastal resources by kind of dispersing development
into inappropriate locations, whether that would be impacts to Escher or, you know, agricultural
lands, you know, that would not be allowed.
And those policies would direct ADUs to appropriate locations on the property, which would most
likely be, you know, adjacent to existing residences.
And I would assume it's like a lot of ADU ordinances, and maybe I'm wrong, where you
can build the new structure, but convert the old structure
into the ADU, the existing structure?
Is that, does it have that sort of swap ability
in this ordinance?
I don't, I'm not entirely sure if it has
that explicit language saying that you can do that.
I don't think that there's any language
saying that you cannot do that.
It might be worth asking the county if you're interested
in that specific policy language.
Yeah, because again, this is really specific
to large lots and large agricultural lots
and sort of the concern about how these things can be,
again, fragmented.
And so even 1,200 square feet may not
sound like a lot to a lot of people.
But for those of us who raise kids in 900 square feet,
it sounds like a lot.
So I'm just kind of wondering if the county could
address that question.
Thanks.
It's probably appropriate for Melanie.
If Melanie's available.
Can we please bring the county in?
Yes.
Let's bring Edgar.
If you can unmute and Sarah Weigel, if we go.
Is Melanie available?
Melanie.
She might be in the attendees list
if she hasn't been promoted to a panelist.
We're moving her over right now.
Yes, we're moving her over right now.
We'll just wait one second.
Thank you very much.
Melanie, if you can unmute.
She's moving over, but she's still muted.
Okay.
Great, good morning.
Yeah really briefly on that topic, we, so you can with our regulations, there's nothing
explicit in our ADU regulations that prohibit if you have an existing single family dwelling
that meets the criteria and standards for an ADU per these regulations and you wish
to build the second single family dwelling, there's nothing that would disallow converting
an existing single-family to be the accessory dwelling unit and constructing a new single-family
dwelling on a parcel as it would be allowed. Again, I think as Coastal staff indicated,
there's a fair number of protections in our LCP and policies that help to, you know, help
to encourage clustering, help to try to really minimize physical footprint of any new construction
that would happen.
I appreciate that and I I I support this I just it would be great if regionally
our staffs I know they do but occasionally we could talk about these
sort of land use protections sort of more explicitly and have more direct
protections I understand that I guess for me it's just harder for staff
sometimes at the local level to be discretionary under these situations and
have to make those determinations when when we could be more a little bit more
prescriptive and getting it those in and so that the process can actually be
faster to get these things done but with that I support I support the motion when
it comes and thank you for the conversation. Thank you Commissioner
Kelly? I just want to align myself with the comments of my colleagues Commissioner Lopez
and Commissioner Wilson and say that you know as we're looking at these policies I just
want to highlight you know the diverse nature of the land uses within the state especially
in regions where we continue to try to promote resource preservation and agricultural lands
and so the nuanced approach to this issue and especially here you know on this particular
topic when we're dealing with counties who have you know a multitude of land
uses in different parts of the of the county. It makes sense to have a site
specific approach and really to look more deeply and not just have kind of
widespread bans or looking at how these ADUs can support the existing coastal
resource policies whether it's for public access, visitors reporting uses, ADUs
for our workforce to live in so that they can support visitor supporting uses
as well as agricultural preservation.
So just wanted to echo those comments
and support the effort here, thank you.
Thank you, and I fully align myself
with the comments of my colleagues, very insightful.
I really appreciate the conversation.
Commissioner Lopez, to you.
So I understand at this time we need two motions.
So first, I would move that the commission
certify land use plan amendment LCP3MCO250034-1,
A as submitted by Monterey County I recommend a yes vote second some motion
by Commissioner Lopez a second by Commissioner Wilson any objections to
unanimous consent seeing no objections we'll move to the second item please so
Part B I believe is that I will move that the Commission reject implementation
plan amendment LCP MCO 25 double zero 34 dash 1 part a as submitted by Monterey
County and I recommend a no vote.
Excuse me. That's a motion by Commissioner Lopez, a second by
Commissioner Kelly. Any objections to a unanimous no vote? Seeing no objections,
the motion passes. Thank you. It's projected. Okay, congratulations. And with that we
will move to the legislative report that was trailed from Wednesday. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Drake. Just give us one second. Good morning Chair Harmon and
commissioners. This is the legislative report for October. Last month staff
covered several pieces of priority legislation that had already been signed
by the governor at that time. Over the past few weeks the governor has either
signed or vetoed most of the rest of the commission's other priority bills that
made it to his desk and I'll just briefly walk through some of those
results today. First is AB 149 by the assembly budget committee which was
signed in mid-september. This is a budget trailer bill staff mentioned last month
that adds language to the Coastal Act clarifying that all temporary
developments undertaken in the coastal zone as a part of the 2028 Olympic and
Paralympic Games will be considered temporary events that are exempt from
the coastal development permit process. The bill also requires the LA 28
Committee and the Commission to coordinate to ensure that these temporary developments
avoid significant impacts to coastal resources.
Since this is a budget bill, its provisions took effect immediately upon being signed.
Another recently signed priority bill is AB 357 by Assemblymember Alvarez.
In its final form, this bill amends the Coastal Act to facilitate the development of university
housing in the coastal zone by creating an expedited process.
commission to quickly approve amendments to university long-range development plans
and to public works plans that present no resource impacts. The bill also provides
policy direction to the commission regarding the provision of residential parking on university
campuses. About an hour ago now, the governor signed AB 462 by Assemblymember Lowenthal.
In its final form, the bill shortens the amount of time that the commission and local governments
have to process coastal development permits for ADUs. The new permitting
deadline is 60 days after the agency receives a complete CDP application. The
bill would also eliminate appeals of local ADU CDPs. This bill contains an
urgency clause, meaning that it took effect immediately when it was signed.
Staff will be working internally and with local governments to make the
necessary procedural changes to implement the provisions of this
legislation. Shifting over to Senate bills, another bill signed by the
governor just this morning is SB 79 by Senator Weiner. This is the bill that was
discussed by the Commission on Wednesday regarding development of housing in the
vicinity of transit stations. The measure will take effect on January 1st. In
anticipation of that, staff will continue to evaluate the role of the Commission
and local governments in helping to implement this legislation in alignment
with the Coastal Act. One bill that is technically a new addition to staff's
written a report this month but which will sound familiar is SB 237 by Senator Grayson.
This bill ended up being the vehicle in which the legislature passed the Governor's suite of
proposals aimed at stabilizing state oil and gas markets. Among the enacted proposals is language
that was previously in another bill staff has been reporting on this session AB 1448 by assembly
member Greg Hart. That language which was amended into SB 237 last month
amends to the Coastal, excuse me, amends the Coastal Act to clarify the legal
pathway by which development that's associated with inactive oil and gas
pipelines would obtain a coastal development permit. That bill was signed
into law in mid-September. SB 254 by Senator Becker was also signed. That's
the Senate omnibus bill that makes numerous statutory changes related to
energy. Staff has been tracking the bill because it originally contained a provision that would
have created a more formalized process for the Commission and the Energy Commission to
coordinate on the permitting of certain renewable energy projects in the coastal zone, which
staff had no concerns with. However, in the final days of session, the bill was substantially
amended to remove a number of provisions and add in a handful of other provisions related
other energy topics. In the course of this reshuffling, the piece related to
the Commission was removed from the bill before it went to the governor's desk.
So in its final signed form, this bill no longer affects the Commission. In a bit
of happy news, I'm pleased to say that on Monday, the governor signed SB 484, which
the Commission supported. That bill adds language to the Coastal Act directing
the Commission to establish categorical exclusions for 100% affordable
housing projects in the infill areas of three or more
uncertified local jurisdictions. The bill garnered support from both environmental
and housing organizations. It will take effect January 1st and then the
Commission will have until July 2027 to establish the three initial cad-exes.
The governor did veto several bills listed in the legislative report. The one
One I'll mention is AB 399 by Assemblymember Boerner, which would have explicitly authorized
the Commission to require applicants for projects that would impact coastal wetland or tidal
habitat to contribute to blue carbon demonstration projects as their project mitigation.
For many of the vetoed bills this year, including this one, the Governor's veto message expressed
fiscal concerns with the proposed legislation given the current budget deficit.
A link to the governor's veto message can be found
in staff's written report.
Looking ahead, the last day for the governor
to sign her veto bills is this Sunday.
The legislature is then currently scheduled
to remain in recess until Monday, January 5th,
at which point the 2026 legislative session will begin.
Early next year, staff will return to you
with the annual new laws memo,
which will summarize the signed bills from this session
that either amended the Coastal Act
or impact the commission in some way,
as well as any actions the commission will take
to implement that legislation.
And with that, Chair Harmon, that concludes the legislative report,
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Great.
Thank you, Mr. Drake.
Are there any public comments on the legislative report?
There are none.
Great.
And I thank you.
I will return to the commission.
Any questions?
Commissioner Wilson.
Well, thank you for that great report,
and I'm so happy about Senator Larrub's bill getting through.
And I think it's a great example of activist housing
and housing activists and environmentalists
getting together to really do something positive
and move in the right direction.
I just want to reiterate my concern with 4-6-2.
I know the intention of this is to streamline housing,
and specifically ADUs, in the coastal zone and elsewhere.
I am hoping that there's not the unintended consequences
from this in that this is just not having reviews come to us
or appeals come to us, because most of the time,
these appeals are neighbor on neighbor.
And many times, these appeals are neighbor on neighbor
in well-resourced neighborhoods.
And so what I fear is that then the local jurisdiction,
Many of whom are pretty well trained on Coastal Act processes,
but some may not be as well versed.
And they still have to adapt to the Coastal Act
and interpret that through their own thing.
But the thing about the appeal process
is it's usually done within 60 days.
It's free.
It's then a review done by state attorneys, essentially,
with the backing of that state review.
And then so then when that gets adjudicated through this body,
which almost all the time is rejected, the appeal is
rejected, or no substantial issue is found,
is what I mean to say, is that that then really actually
gives the homeowner so much more legal backing
and just the fortitude, I guess you'd say,
the legal fortitude to move forward with our project.
So I'm just saying, from my perspective,
that appeal process, which actually was a free service
provided by this juristic,
by the Coastal Commission and this agency.
So what I'm hoping not to see is that
that neighbor-on-neighbor review doesn't go forward,
But then it results in lawsuits at the local level.
And so, because maybe there might be holes
that didn't, that property owner wasn't availed
of that extra review, legal review by our
eminently proficient and qualified team.
So, that's just my concern.
I hope we'll, maybe we'll address that later
in some other legislation, if some problems arise.
I want more ADUs in the coastal zone.
want more housing in the coastal zone, and I want to make sure that we're an
agency that provides that service as best we can. Thanks. Thank you. Any further
comments or questions? Madam Chair? Yes, Commissioner Jackson. If I, you know, one of those things I
wasn't gonna say anything, but now of course I will, just Commissioner Wilson
just prompted, you know, we were talking about housing in the coastal zone and
the importance of that and short-term rentals as we know has an impact on that
so I was wondering if you're any reading of the tea leaves on SB 346 I believe it
is short-term rental oversight provision I'm assuming that is we have no word on
that or any reading on the tea leaves of which way that might go unfortunately I
don't have a crystal ball on that one but as an upside we'll find out within
48 hours true that as they say thank you all right thank you very much that
brings us to the end of our meeting I want to thank staff for their amazing
work as always AGP thank you all for keeping us on target and thank you to
redondo Beach for hosting us it was a great couple days to my fellow
commissioners and the public thank you for your work and excited to see you all
in Sacramento next month we're adjourned